The Project Gutenberg eBook of History for ready reference, Volume 4, Nicæa to Tunis

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 4, Nicæa to Tunis

Author: J. N. Larned

Release date: October 30, 2022 [eBook #69262]

Language: English

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

Credits: Don Kostuch

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY FOR READY REFERENCE, VOLUME 4, NICÆA TO TUNIS ***

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

continuity of the text for ease of searching and reading.

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

brackets "{1234}") are usually placed between paragraphs. In this

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

To remove page numbers use the Regular Expression:

"^{[0-9]+}" to "" (empty string)

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

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

without surrounding empty lines.

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

between subjects.

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

with spaces and newlines.

6. Subjects are arranged thusly:

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

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

Subtitles (if any) are indented three spaces and

immediately follow the main title.

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

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

spaces.

References to other articles in this work are in all upper

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

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

Citations of works outside this book are indented six spaces

and in italics (as in the original). The bibliography in

Volume 1, APPENDIX F on page xxi provides additional details,

including URLs of available internet versions.

----------Subject: Start--------

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

indicates the start/end of a group of subheadings or other

large block.

To search for words separated by an unknown number of other

characters, use this Regular Expression to find the words

"first" and "second" separated by between 1 and 100 characters:

"first.{1,100}second"

End Transcriber's Notes.]

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

History For Ready Reference, Volume 4 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 IV—NICÆA TO TUNIS

SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS.

THE C. A. NICHOLS COMPANY, PUBLISHERS

MDCCCXCV

COPYRIGHT, 1894.

BY J. N. LARNED.

The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts., U. S. A.

Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.

LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS.

Two maps of Central Europe, at the abdication of Charles V.

(1556), and showing the distribution of Religions about 1618,

To follow page 2458

Map of Eastern Europe in 1768, and of Central Europe at

the Peace of Campo Formio (1797),

To follow page 2554

Map of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent,

under Trajan (A. D. 116),

To follow page 2712

Map of Europe at the death of Justinian (A. D. 565),

To follow page 2742

Two maps, of Eastern Europe and Central Europe, in 1715,

To follow page 2762

Four development maps of Spain,

9th, 11th, 12th and 13th centuries,

To follow page 2976

LOGICAL OUTLINE, IN COLORS.

Roman history,

To follow page 2656

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES.

Ninth and Tenth Centuries,

To follow page 2746

{2359}

NICÆA OR NICE:

The founding of the city.

Nicæa, or Nice, in Bithynia, was founded by Antigonus, one of

the successors of Alexander the Great, and received originally

the name Antigonea. Lysimachus changed the name to Nicæa, in

honor of his wife.

NICÆA OR NICE:

Capture by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 325.

The First Council.

"Constantine … determined to lay the question of Arianism [see

ARIANISM] before an Œcumenical council. … The council met [A.

D. 325] at Nicæa—the 'City of Victory'—in Bithynia, close to

the Ascanian Lake, and about twenty miles from Nicomedia. … It

was an Eastern council, and, like the Eastern councils, was

held within a measurable distance from the seat of government.

… Of the 318 bishops … who subscribed its decrees, only eight

came from the West, and the language in which the Creed was

composed was Greek, which scarcely admitted of a Latin

rendering. The words of the Creed are even now recited by the

Russian Emperor at his coronation. Its character, then, is

strictly Oriental. … Of the 318 members of the Council, we are

told by Philostorgius, the Arian historian, that 22 espoused

the cause of Arius, though other writers regard the minority

as still less, some fixing it at 17, others at 15, others as

low as 13. But of those 318 the first place in rank, though

not the first in mental power and energy of character, was

accorded to the aged bishop of Alexandria. He was the

representative of the most intellectual diocese in the Eastern

Church. He alone, of all the bishops, was named 'Papa,' or

'Pope.' The 'Pope of Rome' was a phrase which had not yet

emerged in history; but 'Pope of Alexandria' was a well-known

title of dignity."

R. W. Bush,

St. Athanasius,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

A. P. Stanley,

Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church,

lectures 3-5.

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1080.

Acquired by the Turks.

The capital of the Sultan of Roum.

See TURKS (THE SELJUK): A. D. 1073-1092.

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1096-1097.

Defeat and slaughter of the First Crusaders.

Recovery from the Turks.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1204-1261.

Capital of the Greek Empire.

See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA.

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1330.

Capture by the Ottoman Turks.

See TURKS (OTTOMAN): A. D. 1326-1359.

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1402.

Sacked by Timour.

See TIMOUR.

----------NICARAGUA: Start--------

NICARAGUA:

The Name.

Nicaragua was originally the name of a native chief who ruled

in the region on the Lake when it was first penetrated by the

Spaniards, under Gil Gonzalez, in 1522. "Upon the return of

Gil Gonzalez, the name Nicaragua became famous, and besides

being applied to the cacique and his town, was gradually given

to the surrounding country, and to the lake."

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 1, page. 489, foot-note.

NICARAGUA: A. D. 1502.

Coasted by Columbus.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

NICARAGUA: A. D. 1821-1871.

Independence of Spain.

Brief annexation to Mexico.

Attempted federations and their failure.

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

NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

Joint protectorate of the United States and

Great Britain over the proposed inter-oceanic canal.

"The acquisition of California in May, 1848, by the treaty of

Guadalupe-Hidalgo, and the vast rush of population, which

followed almost immediately on the development of the gold

mines, to that portion of the Pacific coast, made the opening

of interoceanic communication a matter of paramount importance

to the United States. In December, 1846, had been ratified a

treaty with New Granada (which in 1862 assumed the name of

Colombia) by which a right of transit over the isthmus of

Panama was given to the United States, and the free transit

over the isthmus 'from the one to the other sea' guaranteed by

both of the contracting powers. Under the shelter of this

treaty the Panama Railroad Company, composed of citizens of

the United States, and supplied by capital from the United

States, was organized in 1850 and put in operation in 1855. In

1849, before, therefore, this company had taken shape, the

United States entered into a treaty with Nicaragua for the

opening of a ship-canal from Greytown (San Juan), on the

Atlantic coast, to the Pacific coast, by way of the Lake of

Nicaragua. Greytown, however, was then virtually occupied by

British settlers, mostly from Jamaica, and the whole eastern

coast of Nicaragua, so far at least as the eastern terminus of

such a canal was concerned, was held, so it was maintained by

Great Britain, by the Mosquito Indians, over whom Great

Britain claimed to exercise a protectorate. That the Mosquito

Indians had no such settled territorial site; that, if they

had, Great Britain had no such protectorate or sovereignty

over them as authorized her to exercise dominion over their

soil, even if they had any, are positions which … the United

States has repeatedly affirmed. But the fact that the

pretension was set up by Great Britain, and that, though it

were baseless, any attempt to force a canal through the

Mosquito country, might precipitate a war, induced Mr.

Clayton, Secretary of State in the administration of General

Taylor, to ask through Sir H. L. Bulwer, British minister at

Washington, the administration of Lord John Russell (Lord

Palmerston being then foreign secretary) to withdraw the

British pretensions to the coast so as to permit the

construction of the canal under the joint auspices of the

United States and of Nicaragua. This the British Government

declined to do, but agreed to enter into a treaty for a joint

protectorate over the proposed canal." This treaty, which was

signed at Washington April 19, 1850, and of which the

ratifications were exchanged on the 4th of July following, is

commonly referred to as the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. Its

language in the first article is that "the Governments of the

United States and of Great Britain hereby declare that neither

the one nor the other will ever obtain or maintain for itself

any exclusive control over the said ship-canal; agreeing that

neither will ever erect or maintain any fortifications

commanding the same, or in the vicinity thereof, or occupy, or

fortify, or colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over

Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of

Central America; nor will either make use of any protection

which either affords, or may afford, or any alliance which

either has or may have to or with any state or people, for the

purpose of erecting or maintaining any such fortifications, or

of occupying, fortifying, or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica,

the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America, or of

assuming or exercising dominion over the same;

{2360}

nor will the United States or Great Britain take advantage of

any intimacy, or use any alliance, connection, or influence

that either may possess, with any State or Government through

whose territory the said canal may pass, for the purpose of

acquiring or holding, directly or indirectly, for the citizens

or subjects of the one, any rights or advantages in regard to

commerce or navigation through the said canal which shall not

be offered on the same terms to the citizens or subjects of

the other." Since the execution of this treaty there have been

repeated controversies between the two governments respecting

the interpretation of its principal clauses. Great Britain

having maintained her dominion over the Belize, or British

Honduras, it has been claimed by the United States that the

treaty is void, or, has become voidable at the option of the

United States, on the grounds (in the language of a dispatch

from Mr. Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State, dated July 19,

1884) "first, that the consideration of the treaty having

failed, its object never having been accomplished, the United

States did not receive that for which they covenanted; and,

second, that Great Britain has persistently violated her

agreement not to colonize the Central American coast."

F. Wharton,

Digest of the International Law of the United States,

chapter 6, section 150 f. (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

Treaties and Conventions between the United States

and other Powers (edition of 1889),

page 440.

NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860.

The invasion of Walker and his Filibusters.

"Its geographical situation gave … importance to Nicaragua. It

contains a great lake, which is approached from the Atlantic

by the river San Juan; and from the west end of the lake there

are only 20 miles to the coast of the Pacific. Ever since the

time of Cortes there have been projects for connecting the two

oceans through the lake of Nicaragua. … Hence Nicaragua has

always been thought of great importance to the United States.

The political struggles of the state, ever since the failure

of the confederation, had sunk into a petty rivalry between

the two towns of Leon and Granada. Leon enjoys the distinction

of being the first important town in Central America to raise

the cry of independence in 1815, and it had always maintained

the liberal character which this disclosed. Castellon, the

leader of the Radical party, of which Leon was the seat,

called in to help him an American named William Walker.

Walker, who was born in 1824, was a young roving American who

had gone during the gold rush of 1850 to California, and

become editor of a newspaper in San Francisco. In those days

it was supposed in the United States that the time for

engulfing the whole of Spanish America had come. Lopez had

already made his descent on Cuba; and Walker, in July, 1853,

had organized a band of filibusters for the conquest of

Sonora, and the peninsula of California, which had been left

to Mexico by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This wild

expedition … was a total failure; but when Walker came back to

his newspapers after an absence of seven months, he found

himself a hero. His fame, as we see, had reached Central

America; and he at once accepted Castellon's offer. In 1855,

having collected a band of 70 adventurers in California, he

landed in the country, captured the town of Granada, and,

aided by the intrigues of the American consul, procured his

own appointment as General-in-Chief of the Nicaraguan army.

Walker was now master of the place: and his own provisional

President, Rivas, having turned against him, he displaced him,

and in 1856 became President himself. He remained master of

Nicaragua for nearly two years, levying arbitrary customs on

the traffic of the lake, and forming plans for a great

military state to be erected on the ruins of Spanish America.

One of Walker's first objects was to seize the famous

gold-mines of Chontales, and the sudden discovery that the

entire sierra of America is a gold-bearing region had a good

deal to do with his extraordinary enterprise. Having assured

himself of the wealth of the country, he now resolved to keep

it for himself, and this proved in the end to be his ruin. The

statesmen of the United States, who had at first supposed that

he would cede them the territory, now withdrew their support

from him: the people of the neighbouring states rose in arms

against him, and Walker was obliged to capitulate, with the

remains of his filibustering party, at Rivas in 1857. Walker,

still claiming to be President of Nicaragua, went to New

Orleans, where he collected a second band of filibusters, at

the head of whom he again landed near the San Juan river

towards the end of the year: this time he was arrested and

sent back home by the American commodore. His third and last

expedition, in 1860, was directed against Honduras, where he

hoped to meet with a good reception at the hands of the

Liberal party. Instead of this he fell into the hands of the

soldiers of Guardiola, by whom he was tried as a pirate and

shot, September 12, 1860."

E. J. Payne,

History of European Colonies,

chapter 21, section 8.

"Though he never evinced much military or other capacity,

Walker, so long as he acted under color of authority from the

chiefs of the faction he patronized, was generally successful

against the pitiful rabble styled soldiers by whom his

progress was resisted. … But his very successes proved the

ruin of the faction to which he had attached himself, by

exciting the natural jealousy and alarm of the natives who

mainly composed it; and his assumption … of the title of

President of Nicaragua, speedily followed by a decree

reestablishing Slavery in that country, exposed his purpose

and insured his downfall. As if madly bent on ruin, he

proceeded to confiscate the steamboats and other property of

the Nicaragua Transit Company, thereby arresting all American

travel to and from California through that country, and

cutting himself off from all hope of further recruiting his

forces from the throngs of sanguine or of baffled

gold-seekers, who might otherwise have been attracted to his

standard. Yet he maintained the unequal contest for about two

years."

H. Greeley,

The American Conflict,

volume 1, chapter 19.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 3, chapters 16-17.

J. J. Roche,

The Story of the Filibusters,

chapters 5-18.

----------NICARAGUA: End--------

NICE (NIZZA), Asia Minor.

See NICÆA.

----------NICE, France: Start--------

NICE (NIZZA), France: A. D. 1388.

Acquisition by the House of Savoy.

See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.

{2361}

NICE: A. D. 1542.

Siege by French and Turks.

Capture of the town.

Successful resistance of the citadel.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

NICE: A. D. 1792.

Annexation to the French Republic.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

NICE: A. D. 1860.

Cession to France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

----------NICE, France: End--------

NICEPHORUS I.,

Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), A. D. 802-811.

Nicephorus II.,

Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), 963-969.

Nicephorus III.,

Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), 1078-1081.

NICHOLAS, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1825-1855.

Nicholas I., Pope, 858-867.

Nicholas II., Pope, 1058-1061.

Nicholas III., Pope, 1277-1280.

Nicholas IV., Pope, 1288-1292.

Nicholas V., Pope, 1447-1455.

Nicholas Swendson, King of Denmark, 1103-1134.

NICIAS (NIKIAS), and the Siege of Syracuse.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

NICIAS (NIKIAS), The Peace of.

See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

NICOLET, Jean, Explorations of.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

----------NICOMEDIA: Start--------

NICOMEDIA: A. D. 258.

Capture by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

NICOMEDIA: A. D. 292-305.

The court of Diocletian.

"To rival the majesty of Rome was the ambition … of

Diocletian, who employed his leisure, and the wealth of the

east, in the embellishment of Nicomedia, a city placed on the

verge of Europe and Asia, almost at an equal distance between

the Danube and the Euphrates. By the taste of the monarch, and

at the expense of the people, Nicomedia acquired, in the space

of a few years, a degree of magnificence which might appear to

have required the labour of ages, and became inferior only to

Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, in extent or populousness. …

Till Diocletian, in the twentieth year of his reign,

celebrated his Roman triumph, it is extremely doubtful whether

he ever visited the ancient capital of the empire."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 13.

See ROME: A. D. 284-305.

NICOMEDIA: A. D. 1326.

Capture by the Turks.

See TURKS (OTTOMAN): A. D. 1326-1359.

----------NICOMEDIA: End--------

NICOPOLIS.

Augustus gave this name to a city which he founded, B. C. 31,

in commemoration of the victory at Actium, on the site of the

camp which his army occupied.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 28.

----------NICOPOLIS: Start--------

NICOPOLIS, Armenia, Battle of (B. C. 66).

The decisive battle in which Pompeius defeated Mithridates and

ended the long Mithridatic wars was fought, B. C. 66, in

Lesser Armenia, at a place near which Pompeius founded a city

called Nicopolis, the site of which is uncertain.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 3, chapter 8.

NICOPOLIS: Battle of (B. C. 48).

See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

----------NICOPOLIS, Armenia: End--------

NICOPOLIS, Bulgaria, Battle of (A. D. 1396).

See TURKS (THE OTTOMAN): A. D. 1389-1403.

NICOSIA:

Taken and sacked by the Turks (1570).

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

NIEUPORT, Battle of (1600).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.

NIGER COMPANY, The Royal.

See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

NIHILISM.

NIHILISTS.

"In Tikomirov's work on Russia seven or eight pages are

devoted to the severe condemnation of the use of the

expressions 'nihilism' and 'nihilist.' Nevertheless … they are

employed universally, and all the world understands what is

meant by them in an approximate and relative way. … It was a

novelist who first baptized the party who called themselves at

that time, 'new men.' It was Ivan Turguenief, who by the mouth

of one of the characters in his celebrated novel, 'Fathers and

Sons,' gave the young generation the name of nihilists. But it

was not of his coinage; Royer-Collard first stamped it; Victor

Hugo had already said that the negation of the infinite led

directly to nihilism, and Joseph Lemaistre had spoken of the

nihilism, more or less sincere, of the contemporary

generations; but it was reserved for the author of 'Virgin

Soil' to bring to light and make famous this word; which after

making a great stir in his own country attracted the attention

of the whole world. The reign of Nicholas I. was an epoch of

hard oppression. When he ascended the throne, the conspiracy

of the Decembrists broke out, and this sudden revelation of

the revolutionary spirit steeled the already inflexible soul

of the Czar. Nicholas, although fond of letters and an

assiduous reader of Homer, was disposed to throttle his

enemies, and would not have hesitated to pluck out the brains

of Russia; he was very near suppressing all the universities

and schools, and inaugurating a voluntary retrocession to

Asiatic barbarism. He did mutilate and reduce the instruction,

he suppressed the chair of European political laws, and after

the events of 1848 in France he seriously considered the idea

of closing his frontiers with a cordon of troops to beat back

foreign liberalism like the cholera or the plague. … However,

it was under his sceptre, under his systematic oppression,

that, by confession of the great revolutionary statesman

Herzen, Russian thought developed as never before; that the

emancipation of the intelligence, which this very statesman

calls a tragic event, was accomplished, and a national

literature was brought to light and began to flourish. When

Alexander II. succeeded to the throne, when the bonds of

despotism were loosened and the blockade with which Nicholas

vainly tried to isolate his empire was raised, the field was

ready for the intellectual and political strife. … Before

explaining how nihilism is the outcome of intelligence, we

must understand what is meant by intelligence in Russia. It

means a class composed of all those, of whatever profession or

estate, who have at heart the advancement of intellectual

life, and contribute in every way toward it. It may be said,

indeed, that such a class is to be found in every country; but

there is this difference,—in other countries the class is not

a unit; there are factions, or a large number of its members

shun political and social discussion in order to enjoy the

serene atmosphere of the world of art, while in Russia the

intelligence means a common cause, a homogeneous spirit,

subversive and revolutionary withal. … Whence came the

revolutionary element in Russia?

{2362}

From the Occident, from France, from the negative,

materialist, sensualist philosophy of the Encyclopædia,

imported into Russia by Catherine II.; and later from Germany,

from Kantism and Hegelianism, imbibed by Russian youth at the

German universities, and which they diffused throughout their

own country with characteristic Sclav impetuosity. By 'Pure

Reason' and transcendental idealism, Herzen and Bakunine, the

first apostles of nihilism, were inspired. But the ideas

brought from Europe to Russia soon allied themselves with an

indigenous or possibly an Oriental element; namely, a sort of

quietist fatalism, which leads to the darkest and most

despairing pessimism. On the whole, nihilism is rather a

philosophical conception of the sum of life than a purely

democratic and revolutionary movement. … Nihilism had no

political color about it at the beginning. During the decade

between 1860 and 1870 the youth of Russia was seized with a

sort of fever for negation, a fierce antipathy toward

everything that was,—authorities, institutions, customary

ideas, and old-fashioned dogmas. In Turguenief's novel,

'Fathers and Sons,' we meet with Bazarof, a froward,

ill-mannered, intolerable fellow, who represents this type.

After 1871 the echo of the Paris Commune and emissaries of the

Internationals crossed the frontier, and the nihilists began

to bestir themselves, to meet together clandestinely, and to

send out propaganda. Seven years later they organized an era

of terror, assassination, and explosions. Thus three phases

have followed upon one another,—thought, word, and deed,—along

that road which is never so long as it looks, the road that

leads from the word to the act, from Utopia to crime. And yet

nihilism never became a political party as we understand the

term. It has no defined creed or official programme. The

fulness of its despair embraces all negatives and all acute

revolutionary forms. Anarchists, federalists, cantonalists,

covenanters, terrorists, all who are unanimous in a desire to

sweep away the present order, are grouped under the ensign of

nihil."

E. P. Bazan,

Russia, its People and its Literature,

book 2, chapters 1-2.

"Out of Russia, an already extended list of revolutionary

spirits in this land has attracted the attention and kept

curiosity on the alert. We call them Nihilists,—of which the

Russian pronunciation is neegilist, which, however, is now

obsolete. Confined to the terrorist group in Europe, the

number of these persons is certainly very small. Perhaps, as

is thought in Russia, there are 500 in all, who busy

themselves, even if reluctantly, with thoughts of resorting to

bombs and murderous weapons to inspire terror. But it is not

exactly this group that is meant when we speak of that

nihilistic force in society which extends everywhere, into all

circles, and finds support and strongholds at widely spread

points. It is indeed not very different from what elsewhere in

Europe is regarded as culture, advanced culture: the profound

scepticism in regard to our existing institutions in their

present form, what we call royal prerogative, church,

marriage, property."

Georg Brandes,

Impressions of Russia,

chapter 4.

"The genuine Nihilism was a philosophical and literary

movement, which flourished in the first decade after the

Emancipation of the Serfs, that is to say, between 1860 and

1870. It is now (1883] absolutely extinct, and only a few

traces are left of it, which are rapidly disappearing. …

Nihilism was a struggle for the emancipation of intelligence

from every kind of dependence, and it advanced side by side

with that for the emancipation of the labouring classes from

serfdom. The fundamental principle of Nihilism, properly

so-called, was absolute individualism. It was the negation, in

the name of individual liberty of all the obligations imposed

upon the individual by society, by family life, and by

religion. Nihilism was a passionate and powerful reaction, not

against political despotism, but against the moral despotism

that weighs upon the private and inner life of the individual.

But it must be confessed that our predecessors, at least in

the earlier days, introduced into this highly pacific struggle

the same spirit of rebellion and almost the same fanaticism

that characterises the present movement."

Stepniak,

Underground Russia,

introduction.

ALSO IN:

Stepniak,

The Russian Storm-Cloud.

L. Tikhomirov,

Russia, Political and Social,

books 6-7 (volume 2).

E. Noble,

The Russian Revolt.

A. Leroy-Beaulieu,

The Empire of the Tsars,

part 1, book 3, chapter 4.

See, also, RUSSIA: A. D. 1879-1881;

and ANARCHISTS.

NIKA SEDITION, The.

See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

NIKIAS.

See NICIAS.

NILE, Naval Battle of the.

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

NIMEGUEN:

Origin.

See BATAVIANS.

NIMEGUEN: A. D. 1591.

Siege and capture by Prince Maurice.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

NIMEGUEN, The Peace of (1678-1679).

The war which Louis XIV. began in 1672 by attacking Holland,

with the co-operation of his English pensioner, Charles II.,

and which roused against him a defensive coalition of Spain,

Germany and Denmark with the Dutch (see NETHERLANDS: A. D.

1672-1674, and 1674-1678), was ended by a series of treaties

negotiated at Nimeguen in 1678 and 1679. The first of these

treaties, signed August 10, 1678, was between France and

Holland. "France and Holland kept what was in their

possession, except Maestricht and its dependencies which were

restored to Holland. France therefore kept her conquests in

Senegal and Guiana. This was all the territory lost by Holland

in the terrible war which had almost annihilated her. The

United Provinces pledged themselves to neutrality in the war

which might continue between France and the other powers, and

guaranteed the neutrality of Spain, after the latter should

have signed the peace. France included Sweden in the treaty;

Holland included in it Spain and the other allies who should

make peace within six weeks after the exchange of

ratifications. To the treaty of peace was annexed a treaty of

commerce, concluded for twenty-five years."

H. Martin,

History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,

(translated by M. L. Booth),

volume 1, chapter 6.

The peace between France and Spain was signed September 17.

France gave back, in the Spanish Netherlands and elsewhere,

"Charleroi, Binch, Ath, Oudenarde, and Courtrai, which she had

gained by the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle; the town and duchy of

Limburg, all the country beyond the Meuse, Ghent, Rodenhus,

and the district of the Waes, Leuze, and St. Ghislain, with

Puycerda in Catalonia, these having been taken since that

peace.

{2363}

But she retained Franche Comté, with the towns of

Valenciènnes, Bouchain, Condé, Cambrai and the Cambresis,

Aire, St. Omer, Ypres, Werwick, Warneton, Poperinge, Bailleul,

Cassel, Bavai, and Maubeuge. … On February 2, 1679, peace was

declared between Louis, the Emperor, and the Empire. Louis

gave back Philippsburg, retaining Freiburg with the desired

liberty of passage across the Rhine to Breisach; in all other

respects the Treaty of Munster, of October 24, 1648, was

reestablished. … The treaty then dealt with the Duke of

Lorraine. To his restitution Louis annexed conditions which

rendered Lorraine little more than a French province. Not only

was Nancy to become French, but, in conformity with the treaty

of 1661, Louis was to have possession of four large roads

traversing the country, with half a league's breadth of

territory throughout their length, and the places contained

therein. … To these conditions the Duke refused to subscribe,

preferring continual exile until the Peace of Ryswick in 1697,

when at length his son regained the ancestral estates."

Treaties between the Emperor and Sweden, between Brandenburg

and France and Sweden, between Denmark and the same, and

between Sweden, Spain and Holland, were successively concluded

during the year 1679. "The effect of the Peace of Nimwegen

was, … speaking generally, to reaffirm the Peace of

Westphalia. But … it did not, like the Peace of Westphalia,

close for any length of time the sources of strife."

O. Airy,

The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,

chapter 22.

ALSO IN:

Sir W. Temple,

Memoirs,

part 2 (Works, volume 2).

NINE WAYS, The.

See AMPHIPOLIS;

also, ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

NINETY-FIVE THESES OF LUTHER, The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1517.

NINETY-TWO, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.

NINEVEH.

"In or about the year before Christ 606, Nineveh, the great

city, was destroyed. For many hundred years had she stood in

arrogant splendor, her palaces towering above the Tigris and

mirrored in its swift waters; army after army had gone forth

from her gates and returned laden with the spoils of conquered

countries; her monarchs had ridden to the high place of

sacrifice in chariots drawn by captive kings. But her time

came at last. The nations assembled and encompassed her around

[the Medes and the Babylonians, with their lesser allies].

Popular tradition tells how over two years lasted the siege;

how the very river rose and battered her walls; till one day a

vast flame rose up to heaven; how the last of a mighty line of

kings, too proud to surrender, thus saved himself, his

treasures and his, capital from the shame of bondage. Never

was city to rise again where Nineveh had been." The very

knowledge of the existence of Nineveh was lost so soon that,

two centuries later, when Xenophon passed the ruins, with his

Ten Thousand retreating Greeks, he reported them to be the

ruins of a deserted city of the Medes and called it Larissa.

Twenty-four centuries went by, and the winds and the rains, in

their slow fashion, covered the bricks and stones of the

desolated Assyrian capital with a shapeless mound of earth.

Then came the searching modern scholar and explorer, and began

to excavate the mound, to see what lay beneath it. First the

French Consul, Botta, in 1842; then the Englishman Layard, in

1845; then the later English scholar, George Smith, and

others; until buried Nineveh has been in great part brought to

light. Not only the imperishable monuments of its splendid art

have been exposed, but a veritable library of its literature,

written on tablets and cylinders of clay, has been found and

read. The discoveries of the past half-century, on the site of

Nineveh, under the mound called Koyunjik, and elsewhere in

other similarly-buried cities of ancient Babylonia and

Assyria, may reasonably be called the most extraordinary

additions to human knowledge which our age has acquired.

Z. A. Ragozin,

Story of Chaldea,

introduction, chapters 1-4.

ALSO IN:

A. H. Layard,

Nineveh and its Remains;

and Discoveries among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon.

G. Smith,

Assyrian Discoveries

See, also, ASSYRIA;

and LIBRARIES, ANCIENT.

NINEVEH, Battle of (A.D. 627).

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

NINFEO, Treaty of.

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

NINIQUIQUILAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

NIPAL

NEPAUL:

English war with the Ghorkas.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

NIPMUCKS,

NIPNETS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;

also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675, 1675,

and 1676-1678 KING PHILIP'S WAR.

NISÆAN PLAINS, The.

The famous horse-pastures of the ancient Medes. "Most probably

they are to be identified with the modern plains of Khawah and

Alishtar, between Behistun and Khorramabad, which are even now

considered to afford the best summer pasturage in Persia. …

The proper Nisæa is the district of Nishapur in Khorasan,

whence it is probable that the famous breed of horses was

originally brought."

G. Rawlinson,

Five Great Monarchies: Media,

chapter 1, with foot-note.

NISCHANDYIS.

See SUBLIME PORTE.

NISHAPOOR:

Destruction by the Mongols (1221).

See KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

NISIB, Battle of (1839).

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

NISIBIS, Sieges of (A. D. 338-350).

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

NISIBIS, Theological School of.

See NESTORIANS.

----------NISMES: Start--------

NISMES:

Origin.

See VOLCÆ.

NISMES: A. D. 752-759.

Recovery from the Moslems.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 752-759.

----------NISMES: End--------

NISSA, Siege and battle (1689-1690).

See HUNGARY; A. D. 1683-1699.

NITIOBRIGES, The.

These were a tribe in ancient Gaul whose capital city was

Aginnum, the modern town of Agen on the Garonne.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 4, chapter 17.

NIVELLE, Battle of the (1813).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

NIVÔSE, The month.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)

THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

NIZAM.

Nizam's dominions.

See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

NIZZA.

See NICE.

NO.

NO AMON.

See THEBES, EGYPT.

NO MAN'S LAND, Africa.

See GRIQUAS.

{2364}

NO MAN'S LAND, England.

In the open or common field system which prevailed in early

England, the fields were divided into long, narrow strips,

wherever practicable. In some cases, "little odds and ends of

unused land remained, which from time immemorial were called

'no man's land,' or 'anyone's land,' or 'Jack's land,' as the

case might be."

F. Seebohm,

English Village Community,

chapter 1.

NO POPERY RIOTS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

NOBLES, Roman:

Origin of the term.

"When Livy in his first six books writes of the disputes

between the Patres or Patricians and the Plebs about the

Public Land, he sometimes designates the Patricians by the

name Nobiles, which we have in the form Nobles. A Nobilis is a

man who is known. A man who is not known is Ignobilis, a

nobody. In the later Republic a Plebeian who attained to a

curule office elevated his family to a rank of honour, to a

nobility, not acknowledged by any law, but by usage. … The

Patricians were a nobility of ancient date. … The Patrician

nobility was therefore independent of all office, but the new

Nobility and their Jus Imaginum originated in some Plebeian

who first of his family attained a curule office. … The true

conclusion is that Livy in his first six books uses the word

Nobiles improperly, for there is no evidence that this name

was given to the Patres before the consulship of L. Sextius."

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 1, chapter 11.

See, also, ROME: B. C. 146.

NOËTIANS AND SABELLIANS.

"At the head of those in this century [the 3d] who explained

the scriptural doctrine of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit,

by the precepts of reason, stands Noëtus of Smyrna; a man

little known, but who is reported by the ancients to have been

cast out of the church by presbyters (of whom no account is

given), to have opened a school, and to have formed a sect. It

is stated that, being wholly unable to comprehend how that

God, who is so often in Scripture declared to be one and

undivided, can, at the same time, be manifold, Noëtus

concluded that the undivided Father of all things united

himself, with the man Christ, was born in him, and in him

suffered and died. On account of this doctrine his followers

were called Patripassians. … After the middle of this century,

Sabellius, an African bishop, or presbyter, of Ptolemais, the

capital of the Pentapolitan province of Libya Cyrenaica,

attempted to reconcile, in a manner somewhat different from

that of Noëtus, the scriptural doctrine of Father, Son, and

holy Spirit, with the doctrine of the unity of the divine

nature." Sabellius assumed "that only an energy or virtue,

emitted from the Father of all, or, if you choose, a particle

of the person or nature of the Father, became united with the

man Christ. And such a virtue or particle of the Father, he

also supposed, constituted the holy Spirit."

J. L. von Mosheim,

Historical Commentaries, 3d Century,

sections 32-33.

NÖFELS,

NAEFELS, Battle of (1388).

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

Battle of (1799).

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

NOLA, Battle of (B. C. 88).

See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

NOMBRE DE DIOS:

Surprised and plundered by Drake (1572).

See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

NOMEN,

COGNOMEN,

PRÆNOMEN.

See GENS.

NOMES.

A name given by the Greeks to the districts into which Egypt

was divided from very ancient times.

NOMOPHYLAKES.

In ancient Athens, under the constitution introduced by

Pericles, seven magistrates called Nomophylakes, or

"Law-Guardians," "sat alongside of the Proedri, or presidents,

both in the senate and in the public assembly, and were

charged with the duty of interposing whenever any step was

taken or any proposition made contrary to the existing laws.

They were also empowered to constrain the magistrates to act

according to law."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 46.

NOMOTHETÆ, The.

A legislative commission, elected and deputed by the general

assembly of the people, in ancient Athens, to amend existing

laws or enact new ones.

G. F. Schömann,

Antiquity of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapter 3.

NONCONFORMISTS,

DISSENTERS, 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.

NONES.

See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

NONINTERCOURSE LAW OF 1809, The American.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

NONJURORS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).

NOOTKAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WAKASHAN FAMILY.

NOPH.

See MEMPHIS.

NÖRDLINGEN,

Siege and Battle (1634).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

Second Battle, or Battle of Allerheim (1645).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

NORE, Mutiny at the.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

NOREMBEGA.

See NORUMBEGA.

----------NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: Start--------

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.

Bombardment and destruction.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775-1776.

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779.

Pillaged by British marauders.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April).

Abandoned by the United States commandant.

Destruction of ships and property.

Possession taken by the Rebels.

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

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (February).

Threatened by the Federal capture of Roanoke Island.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (May).

Evacuated by the Confederates.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA) EVACUATION OF NORFOLK.

----------NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: End--------

NORFOLK ISLAND PENAL COLONY.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

NORICUM.

See PANNONIA;

also, RHÆTIANS.

----------NORMANDY: Start--------

NORMANDY: A. D. 876-911.

Rollo's conquest and occupation.

See NORMANS.

NORTHMEN: A. D. 876-911.

{2365}

NORMANDY: A. D. 911-1000.

The solidifying of Rollo's duchy.

The Normans become French.

The first century which passed after the settlement of the

Northmen along the Seine saw "the steady growth of the duchy

in extent and power. Much of this was due to the ability of

its rulers, to the vigour and wisdom with which Hrolf forced

order and justice on the new community, as well as to the

political tact with which both Hrolf and William Longsword

[son and successor of Duke Rollo or Hrolf, A. D. 927-943]

clung to the Karolings in their strife with the dukes of

Paris. But still more was owing to the steadiness with which

both these rulers remained faithful to the Christianity which

had been imposed on the northmen as a condition of their

settlement, and to the firm resolve with which they trampled

down the temper and traditions which their people had brought

from their Scandinavian homeland, and welcomed the language

and civilization which came in the wake of their neighbours'

religion. The difficulties that met the dukes were indeed

enormous. … They were girt in by hostile states, they were

threatened at sea by England, under Æthelstan a network of

alliances menaced them with ruin. Once a French army occupied

Rouen, and a French king held the pirates' land at his will;

once the German lances were seen from the walls of their

capital. Nor were their difficulties within less than those

without. The subject population which had been trodden under

foot by the northern settlers were seething with discontent.

The policy of Christianization and civilization broke the

Normans themselves into two parties. … The very conquests of

Hrolf and his successor, the Bessin, the Cotentin, had to be

settled and held by the new comers, who made them strongholds

of heathendom. … But amidst difficulties from within and from

without the dukes held firm to their course, and their

stubborn will had its reward. … By the end of William

Longsword's days all Normandy, save the newly settled

districts of the west, was Christian, and spoke French. … The

work of the statesman at last completed the work of the sword.

As the connexion of the dukes with the Karoling kings had

given them the land, and helped them for fifty years to hold

it against the House of Paris, so in the downfall of the

Karolings the sudden and adroit change of front which bound

the Norman rulers to the House of Paris in its successful

struggle for the Crown secured the land for ever to the

northmen. The close connexion which France was forced to

maintain with the state whose support held the new royal line

on its throne told both on kingdom and duchy. The French dread

of the 'pirates' died gradually away, while French influence

spread yet more rapidly over a people which clung so closely

to the French crown."

J. R. Green,

The Conquest of England,

chapter 8.

NORMANDY: A. D. 1035-1063.

Duke William establishes his authority.

Duke Robert, of Normandy, who died in 1035, was succeeded by

his young son William, who bore in youth the opprobrious name

of "the Bastard," but who extinguished it in later life under

the proud appellation of "the Conqueror." By reason of his

bastardy he was not an acceptable successor, and, being yet a

boy, it seemed little likely that he would maintain himself on

the ducal throne. Normandy, for a dozen years, was given up to

lawless strife among its nobles. In 1047 a large part of the

duchy rose in revolt, against its objectionable young lord.

"It will be remembered that the western part of Normandy, the

lands of Bayeux and Coutances, were won by the Norman dukes

after the eastern part, the lands of Rouen and Evreux. And it

will be remembered that these western lands, won more lately,

and fed by new colonies from the North, were still heathen and

Danish some while after eastern Normandy had become Christian

and French-speaking. Now we may be sure that, long before

William's day, all Normandy was Christian, but it is quite

possible that the old tongue may have lingered on in the

western lands. At any rate there was a wide difference in

spirit and feeling between the more French and the more Danish

districts, to say nothing of Bayeux, where, before the Normans

came, there had been a Saxon settlement. One part of the duchy

in short was altogether Romance in speech and manners, while

more or less of Teutonic character still clave to the other.

So now Teutonic Normandy rose against Duke William, and

Romance Normandy was faithful to him. The nobles of the Bessin

and Cotentin made league with William's cousin Guy of

Burgundy, meaning, as far as one can see, to make Guy Duke of

Rouen and Evreux, and to have no lord at all for themselves. …

When the rebellion broke out, William was among them at

Valognes, and they tried to seize him. But his fool warned him

in the night; he rode for his life, and got safe to his own

Falaise. All eastern Normandy was loyal; but William doubted

whether he could by himself overcome so strong an array of

rebels. So he went to Poissy, between Rouen and Paris, and

asked his lord King Henry [of France] to help him. So King

Henry came with a French army; and the French and those whom

we may call the French Normans met the Teutonic Normans in

battle at Val-ès-dunes, not far from Caen. It was William's

first pitched battle," and he won a decisive victory. "He was

now fully master of his own duchy; and the battle of

Val-ès-dunes finally fixed that Normandy should take its

character from Romance Rouen and not from Teutonic Bayeux.

William had in short overcome Saxons and Danes in Gaul before

he came to overcome them in Britain. He had to conquer his own

Normandy before he could conquer England. … But before long

King Henry got jealous of William's power, and he was now

always ready to give help to any Norman rebels. … And the

other neighbouring princes were jealous of him as well as the

King. His neighbours in Britanny, Anjou, Chartres, and

Ponthieu, were all against him. But the great Duke was able to

hold his own against them all, and before long to make a great

addition to his dominions." Between 1053 and 1058 the French

King invaded Normandy three times and suffered defeat on every

occasion. In 1063 Duke William invaded the county of Maine,

and reduced it to entire submission. "From this time he ruled

over Maine as well as over Normandy," although its people were

often in revolt. "The conquest of Maine raised William's power

and fame to a higher pitch than it reached at any other time

before his conquest of England."

E. A. Freeman,

Short History of the Norman Conquest,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

E. A. Freeman,

History of the Norman Conquest,

chapter 8.

Sir F. Palgrave,

History of Normandy and England,

book 2, chapter 4.

{2366}

NORMANDY: A. D. 1066.

Duke William becomes King of England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1042-1066; 1066; and 1066-1071.

NORMANDY: . D. 1087-1135.

Under Duke Robert and Henry Beauclerc.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

NORMANDY: A. D. 1096.

The Crusade of Duke Robert.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

NORMANDY: A. D. 1203-1205.

Wrested from England and restored to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224;

and ENGLAND: A. D. 1205.

NORMANDY: A. D. 1419.

Conquest by Henry V. of England.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

NORMANDY: A. D. 1449.

Recovery from the English.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

NORMANDY: 16th Century.

Spread of the Reformation.

Strength of Protestantism.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

----------NORMANS: Start--------

NORMANS.

NORTH MEN:

Name and Origin.

"The northern pirates, variously called Danes or Normans,

according as they came from the islands of the Baltic Sea or

the coast of Norway, … descended from the same primitive race

with the Anglo-Saxons and the Franks; their language had roots

identical with the idioms of these two nations: but this token

of an ancient fraternity did not preserve from their hostile

incursions either Saxon Britain or Frankish Gaul, nor even the

territory beyond the Rhine, then exclusively inhabited by

Germanic tribes. The conversion of the southern Teutons to the

Christian faith had broken all bond of fraternity between them

and the Teutons of the north. In the 9th century the man of

the north still gloried in the title of son of Odin, and

treated as bastards and apostates the Germans who had become

children of the church. … A sort of religious and patriotic

fanaticism was thus combined in the Scandinavian with the

fiery impulsiveness of their character, and an insatiable

thirst for gain. They shed with joy the blood of the priests,

were especially delighted at pillaging the churches, and

stabled their horses in the chapels of the palaces. … In three

days, with an east wind, the fleets of Denmark and Norway,

two-sailed vessels, reached the south of Britain. The soldiers

of each fleet obeyed in general one chief, whose vessel was

distinguished from the rest by some particular ornament. … All

equal under such a chief, bearing lightly their voluntary

submission and the weight of their mailed armour, which they

promised themselves soon to exchange for an equal weight of

gold, the Danish pirates pursued the 'road of the swans,' as

their ancient national poetry expressed it. Sometimes they

coasted along the shore, and laid wait for the enemy in the

straits, the bays, and smaller anchorages, which procured them

the surname of Vikings, or 'children of the creeks'; sometimes

they dashed in pursuit of their prey across the ocean."

A. Thierry,

Conquest of England by the Normans,

book 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

T. Carlyle,

The Early Kings of Norway.

NORMANS: 8-9th Centuries.

The Vikings and what sent them to sea.

"No race of the ancient or modern world have ever taken to the

sea with such heartiness as the Northmen. The great cause

which filled the waters of Western Europe with their barks was

that consolidation and centralization of the kingly power all

over Europe which followed after the days of Charlemagne, and

which put a stop to those great invasions and migrations by

land which had lasted for centuries. Before that time the

north and east of Europe, pressed from behind by other

nationalities, and growing straitened within their own bounds,

threw off from time to time bands of emigrants which gathered

force as they slowly marched along, until they appeared in the

west as a fresh wave of the barbarian flood. As soon as the

west, recruited from the very source whence the invaders came,

had gained strength enough to set them at defiance, which

happened in the time of Charlemagne, these invasions by land

ceased after a series of bloody defeats, and the north had to

look for another outlet for the force which it was unable to

support at home. Nor was the north itself slow to follow

Charlemagne's example. Harold Fairhair, no inapt disciple of

the great emperor, subdued the petty kings in Norway one after

another, and made himself supreme king. At the same time he

invaded the rights of the old freeman, and by taxes and tolls

laid on his allodial holding drove him into exile. We have

thus the old outlet cut off and a new cause for emigration

added. No doubt the Northmen even then had long been used to

struggle with the sea, and sea-roving was the calling of the

brave, but the two causes we have named gave it a great

impulse just at the beginning of the tenth century, and many a

freeman who would have joined the host of some famous leader

by land, or have lived on a little king at home, now sought

the waves as a birthright of which no king could rob him.

Either alone, or as the follower of some sea-king, whose realm

was the sea's wide wastes, he went out year after year, and

thus won fame and wealth. The name given to this pursuit was

Viking, a word which is in no way akin to king. It is derived

from 'Vik,' a bay or creek, because these sea-rovers lay

moored in bays and creeks on the look-out for merchant ships;

the 'ing' is a well known ending, meaning, in this case,

occupation or calling. Such a sea-rover was called 'Vikingr,'

and at one time or another in his life almost every man of

note in the North had taken to the sea and lived a Viking

life."

G. W. Dasent,

Story of Burnt Njal,

volume 2, appendix.

"Western viking expeditions have hitherto been ascribed to

Danes and Norwegians exclusively. Renewed investigations

reveal, however, that Swedes shared widely in these

achievements, notably in the acquisition of England, and that,

among other famous conquerors, Rolf, the founder of the

Anglo-Norman dynasty, issued from their country. … Norwegians,

like Swedes, were, in truth, merged in the terms Northmen and

Danes, both of which were general to all Scandinavians abroad.

… The curlier conversion of the Danes to Christianity and

their more immediate contact with Germany account for the

frequent application of their name to all Scandinavians."

W. Roos,

The Swedish Part in the Viking Expeditions

(English History Review, April, 1892).

ALSO IN:

S. Laing,

Preliminary Dissertation to Heimskringla.

C. F. Keary,

The Vikings of Western Christendom,

chapter 5.

P. B. Du Chaillu,

The Viking Age.

See, also, SCANDINAVIAN STATES.

{2367}

NORMANS: 8-9th Centuries.

The island empire of the Vikings.

We have hitherto treated the Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes

under the common appellation of Northmen; and this is in many

ways the most convenient, for it is often impossible to decide

the nationality of the individual settlement. Indeed, it would

appear probable that the devastating bands were often composed

indiscriminately of the several nationalities. Still, in

tracing the history of their conquests, we may lay it down as

a general rule that England was the exclusive prey of the

Danes; that Scotland and the islands to the north as far as

Iceland, and to the south as far as Anglesea and Ireland, fell

to the Norwegians, and Russia to the Swedes; while Gaul and

Germany were equally the spoil of the Norwegians and the

Danes. … While England had been overcome by the Danes, the

Norwegians had turned their attention chiefly to the north of

the British Isles and the islands of the West. Their

settlements naturally fell into three divisions, which tally

with their geographical position.

1. The Orkneys and Shetlands, lying to the N. E. of Scotland.

2. The isles to the west as far south as Ireland.

3. Iceland and the Faroe Isles.

The Orkneys and Shetlands: Here the Northmen first appear as

early as the end of the 8th century, and a few peaceful

settlements were made by those who were anxious to escape from

the noisy scenes which distracted their northern country. In

the reign of Harald Harfagr [the Fairhaired] they assumed new

importance, and their character is changed. Many of those

driven out by Harald sought a refuge here, and betaking

themselves to piracy periodically infested the Norwegian coast

in revenge for their defeat and expulsion. These ravages

seriously disturbing the peace of his newly acquired kingdom,

Harald fitted out an expedition and devoted a whole summer to

conquering the Vikings and extirpating the brood of pirates.

The country being gained, he offered it to his chief adviser,

Rögnwald, Jarl of Möri in Norway, father of Rollo of Normandy,

who, though refusing to go himself, held it during his life as

a family possession, and sent Sigurd, his brother, there. …

Rögnwald next sent his son Einar, and from his time [A. D.

875] we may date the final establishment of the Jarls of

Orkney, who henceforth owe a nominal allegiance to the King of

Norway. … The close of the 8th century also saw the

commencement of the incursions of the Northmen in the west of

Scotland, and the Western Isles soon became a favourite resort

of the Vikings. In the Keltic annals these unwelcome visitors

had gained the name of Fingall, 'the white strangers,' from

the fairness of their complexion; and Dugall, the black

strangers, probably from the iron coats of mail worn by their

chiefs. … By the end of the 9th century a sort of naval empire

had arisen, consisting of the Hebrides, parts of the western

coasts of Scotland, especially the modern Argyllshire, Man,

Anglesea, and the eastern shores of Ireland. This empire was

under a line of sovereigns who called themselves the Hy-Ivar

(grandsons of Ivar), and lived now in Man, now in Dublin.

Thence they often joined their kinsmen in their attacks on

England, and at times aspired to the position of Jarls of the

Danish Northumbria."

A. H. Johnson,

The Normans in Europe,

chapter 2.

"Under the government of these Norwegian princes [the Hy Ivar]

the Isles appear to have been very flourishing. They were

crowded with people; the arts were cultivated, and

manufactures were carried to a degree of perfection which was

then thought excellence. This comparatively advanced state of

society in these remote isles may be ascribed partly to the

influence and instructions of the Irish clergy, who were

established all over the island before the arrival of the

Norwegians, and possessed as much learning as was in those

ages to be found in any part of Europe, except Constantinople

and Rome; and partly to the arrival of great numbers of the

provincial Britons flying to them as an asylum when their

country was ravaged by the Saxons, and carrying with them the

remains of the science, manufactures, and wealth introduced

among them by their Roman masters. Neither were the Norwegians

themselves in those ages destitute of a considerable portion

of learning and of skill in the useful arts, in navigation,

fisheries, and manufactures; nor were they in any respect such

barbarians as those who know them only by the declamations of

the early English writers may be apt to suppose them. The

principal source of their wealth was piracy, then esteemed an

honourable profession, in the exercise of which these

islanders laid all the maritime countries of the west part of

Europe under heavy contributions."

D. Macpherson,

Geographical Illustrations of Scottish History

(Quoted by J. H. Burton, History of Scotland,

chapter 15, volume 2, foot-note).

See, also,

IRELAND: 9-10TH CENTURIES.

NORMANS: A. D. 787-880.

The so-called Danish invasions and settlements in England.

"In our own English chronicles, 'Dena' or Dane is used as the

common term for all the Scandinavian invaders of Britain,

though not including the Swedes, who took no part in the

attack, while Northman generally means 'man of Norway.' Asser

however uses the words as synonymous, 'Nordmanni sive Dani.'

Across the channel 'Northman' was the general name for the

pirates, and 'Dane' would usually mean a pirate from Denmark.

The distinction however is partly a chronological one; as,

owing to the late appearance of the Danes in the middle of the

ninth century, and the prominent part they then took in the

general Wiking movement, their name tended from that time to

narrow the area of the earlier term of 'Nordmanni.'"

J. R. Green,

The Conquest of England,

page 68, foot-note.

Prof. Freeman divides the Danish invasions of England into

three periods:

1. The period of merely plundering incursions, which

began A. D. 787.

2. The period of actual occupation and settlement, from 866 to

the Peace of Wedmore, 880.

3. The later period of conquest, within which England was

governed by Danish kings, A. D. 980-1042.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.

ALSO IN:

C. F. Keary,

The Vikings in Western Christendom,

chapters 6 and 12.

NORMANS: A. D. 841.

First expedition up the Seine.

In May, A. D. 841, the Seine was entered for the first time by

a fleet of Norse pirates, whose depredations in France had

been previously confined to the coasts. The expedition was

commanded by a chief named Osker, whose plans appear to have

been well laid. He led his pirates straight to the rich city

of Rouen, never suffering them to slacken oar or sail, or to

touch the tempting country through which they passed, until

the great prize was struck. "The city was fired and plundered.

Defence was wholly impracticable, and great slaughter ensued.

… Osker's three days' occupation of Rouen was remuneratingly

successful.

{2368}

Their vessels loaded with spoil and captives, gentle and

simple, clerks, merchants, citizens, soldiers, peasants, nuns,

dames, damsels, the Danes dropped down the Seine, to complete

their devastation on the shores. … The Danes then quitted the

Seine; having formed their plans for renewing the encouraging

enterprize,—another time they would do more. Normandy dates

from Osker's three days' occupation Of Rouen."

Sir F. Palgrave,

History of Normandy and England,

book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

C. F. Keary,

The Vikings in Western Christendom,

chapter 9.

NORMANS: A. D. 845-861.

Repeated ravages in the Seine.

Paris thrice sacked.

See PARIS; A. D. 845; and 857-861.

NORMANS: A. D. 849-860.

The career of Hasting.

"About the year of Alfred's birth [849] they laid siege to

Tours, from which they were repulsed by the gallantry of the

citizens, assisted by the miraculous aid of Saint Martin. It

is at this siege that Hasting first appears as a leader. His

birth is uncertain. In some accounts he is said to have been

the son of a peasant of Troyes, the capital of Champagne, and

to have forsworn his faith, and joined the Danes in his early

youth, from an inherent lust of battle and plunder. In others

he is called the son of the jarl Atte. But, whatever his

origin, by the middle of the century he had established his

title to lead the Northern hordes in those fierce forays which

helped to shatter the Carlovingian Empire to fragments. … When

the land was bare, leaving the despoiled provinces he again

put to sea, and, sailing southwards still, pushed up the Tagus

and Guadalquiver, and ravaged the neighbourhoods of Lisbon and

Seville. But no settlement in Spain was possible at this time.

The Peninsula had lately had for Caliph Abdalrahman the

Second, called El Mouzaffer, 'The Victorious,' and the vigour

of his rule had made the Arabian kingdom in Spain the most

efficient power for defence in Europe. Hasting soon recoiled

from the Spanish coasts, and returned to his old haunts. The

leaders of the Danes in England, the Sidrocs and Hinguar and

Hubba, had, as we have seen, a special delight in the

destruction of churches and monasteries, mingling a fierce

religious fanaticism with their thirst for battle and plunder.

This exceeding bitterness of the Northmen may be fairly laid

in great measure to the account of the thirty years of

proselytising warfare, which Charlemagne had waged in Saxony,

and along all the northern frontier of his empire. … Hasting

seems to have been filled with a double portion of this

spirit, which he had indulged throughout his career in the

most inveterate hatred to priests and holy places. It was

probably this, coupled with a certain weariness—commonplace

murder and sacrilege having grown tame, and lost their

charm—which incited him to the most daring of all his

exploits, a direct attack on the head of Christendom, and the

sacred city. Hasting then, about the year 860, planned an

attack on Rome, and the proposal was well received by his

followers. Sailing again round Spain, and pillaging on their

way both on the Spanish and Moorish coasts, they entered the

Mediterranean, and, steering for Italy, landed in the bay of

Spezzia, near the town of Luna. Luna was the place where the

great quarries of the Carrara marble had been worked ever

since the times of the Cæsars. The city itself was, it is

said, in great part built of white marble, and the 'candentia

mœnia Lunæ' deceived Hasting into the belief that he was

actually before Rome; so he sat down before the town which he

had failed to surprise. The hope of taking it by assault was

soon abandoned, but Hasting obtained his end by guile. … The

priests were massacred, the gates thrown open, and the city

taken and spoiled. Luna never recovered its old prosperity

after the raid of the Northmen, and in Dante's time had fallen

into utter decay. But Hasting's career in Italy ended with the

sack of Luna; and, giving up all hope of attacking Rome, he

re-embarked with the spoil of the town, the most beautiful of

the women, and all the youths who could be used as soldiers or

rowers. His fleet was, wrecked on the south coasts of France

on its return westward, and all the spoil lost; but the devil

had work yet for Hasting and his men, who got ashore in

sufficient numbers to recompense themselves for their losses

by the plunder of Provence."

T. Hughes,

Alfred the Great,

chapter 20.

NORMANS: A. D. 860-1100.

The discovery and settlement of Iceland.

Development of the Saga literature.

The discovery of Iceland is attributed to a famous Norse

Viking named Naddodd, and dated in 860, at the beginning of

the reign, in Norway, of Harald Haarfager, who drove out so

many adventurers, to seek fortune on the seas. He is said to

have called it Snowland; but others who came to the cold

island in 870 gave it the harsher name which it still bears.

"Within sixty years after the first settlement by the Northmen

the whole was inhabited; and, writes Uno Von Troil (p. 64),

'King Harold, who did not contribute a little towards it by

his tyrannical treatment of the petty kings and lords in

Norway, was obliged at last to issue an order, that no one

should sail to Iceland without paying four ounces of fine

silver to the Crown, in order to stop those continual

emigrations which weakened his kingdom.' … Before the tenth

century had reached its half-way period, the Norwegians had

fully peopled the island with not less, perhaps, than 50,000

souls. A census taken about A. D. 1100 numbered the franklins

who had to pay Thing-tax at 4,500, without including cotters

and proletarians."

R. F. Burton,

Ultima Thule, introduction,

section 3 (volume 1).

"About sixty years after the first settlement of the island, a

step was taken towards turning Iceland into a commonwealth,

and giving the whole island a legal constitution; and though

we are ignorant of the immediate cause which led to this, we

know enough of the state of things in the island to feel sure,

that it could only have been with the common consent of the

great chiefs, who, as Priests, presided over the various local

Things.

See THING.

The first, want was a man who could make a code of laws." The

man was found in one Ulfljót, who came from a Norwegian family

long famous for knowledge of the customary law, and who was

sent to the mother country to consult the wisest of his kin.

"Three years he stayed abroad; and when he returned, the

chiefs, who, no doubt, day by day felt more strongly the need

of a common centre of action as well as of a common code, lost

no time in carrying out their scheme. … The time of the annual

meeting was fixed at first for the middle of the month of June,

but in the year 999 it was agreed to meet a week later, and

the Althing then met when ten full weeks of summer had passed.

{2369}

It lasted fourteen days. … In its legal capacity it [the

Althing] was both a deliberative and executive assembly; both

Parliament and High Court of Justice in one. … With the

establishment of the Althing we have for the first time a

Commonwealth in Iceland."

G. W. Dasent,

The Story of Burnt Njal,

introduction (volume 1).

"The reason why Iceland, which was destitute of inhabitants at

the time of its discovery, about the middle of the 9th

century, became so rapidly settled and secured so eminent a

position in the world's history and literature, must be sought

in the events which took place in Norway at the time when

Harald Hárfragi (Fairhair), after a long and obstinate

resistance, succeeded in usurping the monarchical power. … The

people who emigrated to Iceland were for the most part the

flower of the nation. They went especially from the west coast

of Norway, where the peculiar Norse spirit had been most

perfectly developed. Men of the noblest birth in Norway set

out with their families and followers to find a home where

they might be as free and independent as their fathers had

been before them. No wonder then that they took with them the

cream of the ancient culture of the fatherland. … Toward the

end of the 11th century it is expressly stated that many of

the chiefs were so learned that they with perfect propriety

might have been ordained to the priesthood [Christianity

having been formally adopted by the Althing in the year 1000],

and in the 12th century there were, in addition to those to be

found in the cloisters, several private libraries in the

island. On the other hand, secular culture, knowledge of law

and history, and of the skaldic art, were, so to speak, common

property. And thus, when the means for committing a literature

to writing were at hand, the highly developed popular taste

for history gave the literature the direction which it

afterward maintained. The fact is, there really existed a

whole literature which was merely waiting to be put in

writing. … Many causes contributed toward making the

Icelanders preeminently a historical people. The settlers were

men of noble birth, who were proud to trace their descent from

kings and heroes of antiquity, nay, even from the gods

themselves, and we do not therefore wonder that they

assiduously preserved the memory of the deeds of their

forefathers. But in their minds was developed not only a taste

for the sagas of the past; the present also received its full

share of attention. … Nor did they interest themselves for and

remember the events that took place in Iceland only. Reports

from foreign lands also found a most hearty welcome, and the

Icelanders had abundant opportunity of satisfying their thirst

for knowledge in this direction. As vikings, as merchants, as

courtiers and especially as skalds accompanying kings and

other distinguished persons, and also as varangians in

Constantinople, many of them found splendid opportunities of

visiting foreign countries. … Such were then the conditions

and circumstances which produced that remarkable development

of the historical taste with which the people were endowed,

and made Iceland the home of the saga."

F. W. Horn,

History of the Literature of the Scandinavian North,

part 1, chapter 1.

"The Icelanders, in their long winter, had a great habit of

writing, and were, and still are, excellent in penmanship,

says Dahlmann. It is to this fact that any little history

there is of the Norse Kings and their old tragedies, crimes,

and heroisms, is almost all due. The Icelanders, it seems, not

only made beautiful letters on their paper or parchment, but

were laudably observant and desirous of accuracy; and have

left us such a collection of narratives (Sagas, literally

'Says') as, for quantity and quality, is unexampled among rude

nations."

T. Carlyle,

Early Kings of Norway,

Preface.

See, also,

THINGS.

THINGVALLA.

NORMANS: A. D. 876-911.

Rollo's acquisition of Normandy.

"One alone among the Scandinavian settlements in Gaul was

destined to play a real part in history. This was the

settlement of Rolf or Rollo at Rouen. [The genuine name is

Hrolfr, Rolf, in various spellings. The French form is Rou,

sometimes Rous …; the Latin is Rollo.—Foot-note.] This

settlement, the kernel of the great Norman Duchy, had, I need

hardly say, results of its own and an importance of its own,

which distinguish it from every other Danish colony in Gaul.

But it is well to bear in mind that it was only one colony

among several, and that, when the cession was made, it was

probably not expected to be more lasting or more important

than the others. But, while the others soon lost any

distinctive character, the Rouen settlement lasted, it grew,

it became a power in Europe, and in Gaul it became even a

determining power. … The lasting character of his work at once

proves that the founder of the Rouen colony was a great man,

but he is a great man who must be content to be judged in the

main by the results of his actions. The authentic history of

Rolf, Rollo, or Rou, may be summed up in a very short space.

We have no really contemporary narrative of his actions,

unless a few meagre and uncertain entries in some of the

Frankish annals may be thought to deserve that name. … I

therefore do not feel myself at all called upon to narrate in

detail the exploits which are attributed to Rolf in the time

before his final settlement. He is described as having been

engaged in the calling of a Wiking both in Gaul and in Britain

for nearly forty years before his final occupation of Rouen. …

The exploits attributed to Rolf are spread over so many years,

that we cannot help suspecting that the deeds of other

chieftains have been attributed to him, perhaps that two

leaders of the same name have been confounded. Among countless

expeditions in Gaul, England, and Germany, we find Rolf

charged with an earlier visit to Rouen [A. D. 876], with a

share in the great siege of Paris [A. D. 885], and with an

occupation or destruction of Bayeux. But it is not till we

have got some way into the reign of Charles the Simple, not

till we have passed several years of the tenth century, that

Rolf begins clearly to stand out as a personal historic

reality. He now appears in possession of Rouen, or of whatever

vestiges of the city had survived his former ravages, and from

that starting-point he assaulted Chartres. Beneath the walls

of that city he underwent a defeat [A. D. 911] at the hands of

the Dukes Rudolf of Burgundy and Robert of Paris, which was

attributed to the miraculous powers of the great local relic,

the under-garment of the Virgin.

{2370}

But this victory, like most victories over the Northmen, had

no lasting effect. Rolf was not dislodged from Rouen, nor was

his career of devastation and conquest at all seriously

checked. But, precisely as in the case of Guthrum in England,

his evident disposition to settle in the country suggested an

attempt to change him from a devastating enemy into a

peaceable neighbour. The Peace of Clair-on-Epte [A. D. 911]

was the duplicate of the Peace of Wedmore, and King Charles

and Duke Robert of Paris most likely had the Peace of Wedmore

before their eyes. A definite district was ceded to Rolf, for

which he became the King's vassal; he was admitted to baptism

and received the king's natural daughter in marriage. And,

just as in the English case, the territory ceded was not part

of the King's immediate dominions. … The grant to Rolf was

made at the cost not of the Frankish King at Laon but of the

French Duke at Paris. The district ceded to Rolf was part of

the great Neustrian March or Duchy which had been granted to

Odo [or Eudes] of Paris and which was now held by his brother

Duke Robert. … It must not be thought that the district now

ceded to Rolf took in the whole of the later Duchy of

Normandy. Rouen was the heart of the new state, which took in

lands on both sides of the Seine. From the Epte to the sea was

its undoubted extent from the south-east to the north. But the

western frontier is much less clearly defined. On the one

hand, the Normans always claimed a certain not very well

defined superiority over Britanny as part of the original

grant. On the other hand, it is quite certain that Rolf did

not obtain immediate possession of what was afterwards the

noblest portion of the heritage of his descendants. The

Bessin, the district of Bayeux, was not won till several years

later, and the Côtentin, the peninsula of Coutances, was not

won till after the death of Rolf. The district granted to Rolf

… had—sharing therein the fate of Germany and France—no

recognized geographical name. Its inhabitants were the

Northmen, the Northmen of the Seine, the Northmen of Rouen.

The land itself was, till near the end of the century, simply

the Land of the Northmen"—the Terra Northmannorum.

E. A. Freeman,

Historical Norman Conquest of England,

chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

Sir F. Palgrave,

History of Normandy and England,

book 1, chapters 3-5.

A. Thierry,

Norman Conquest of England,

book 2.

See, also,

FRANCE: A. D. 877-987.

NORMANS: A. D. 876-984.

Discovery and settlement of Greenland.

"The discovery of Greenland was a natural consequence of the

settlement of Iceland, just as the discovery of America

afterward was a natural consequence of the settlement of

Greenland. Between the western part of Iceland and the eastern

part of Greenland there is a distance of only 45 geographical

miles. Hence, some of the ships that sailed to Iceland, at the

time of the settlement of this island and later, could in case

of a violent east wind, which is no rare occurrence in those

regions, scarcely avoid approaching the coast of Greenland

sufficiently to catch a glimpse of its jokuls,—nay, even to

land on its islands and promontories. Thus it is said that

Gunnbjorn, Ulf Krage's son, saw land lying in the ocean at the

west of Iceland, when, in the year 876, he was driven out to

the sea by a storm. Similar reports were heard, from time to

time, by other mariners. About a century later a certain man,

by name Erik the Red, … resolved to go in search of the land

in the west that Gunnbjorn and others had seen. He set sail in

the year 984, and found the land as he had expected, and

remained there exploring the country for two years. At the end

of this period he returned to Iceland, giving the

newly-discovered country the name of Greenland, in order, as

he said, to attract settlers, who would be favorably impressed

with so pleasing a name. The result was that many Icelanders

and Norsemen emigrated to Greenland, and a flourishing colony

was established, with Gardar for its capital city, which, in

the year 1261, became subject to the crown of Norway. The

Greenland colony maintained its connection with the mother

countries for a period of no less than 400 years: yet it

finally disappeared, and was almost forgotten. Torfæus gives a

list of seventeen bishops who ruled in Greenland."

R. B. Anderson,

America not Discovered by Columbus,

chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

D. Crantz,

History of Greenland,

book 4, chapter 1.

NORMANS: A. D. 885-886.

The Great Siege of Paris.

See PARIS: A. D. 885-886.

NORMANS: 9-10th Centuries.

The Danish conquests and settlements in Ireland.

See IRELAND: 9-10th CENTURIES and A. D. 1014.

NORMANS: 9-10th Centuries.

The ravages of the Vikings on the Continent.

"Take the map and colour with vermilion the provinces,

districts and shores which the Northmen visited. The colouring

will have to be repeated more than ninety times successively

before you arrive at the conclusion of the Carlovingian

dynasty. Furthermore, mark by the usual symbol of war, two

crossed swords, the localities where battles were fought by or

against the pirates: where they were defeated or triumphant,

or where they pillaged, burned or destroyed; and the valleys

and banks of Elbe, Rhine and Moselle, Scheldt, Meuse, Somme

and Seine, Loire, Garonne and Adour, the inland Allier, and

all the coasts and coast-lands between estuary and estuary and

the countries between the river-streams, will appear bristling

as with chevaux-de-frise. The strongly-fenced Roman cities,

the venerated Abbeys and their dependent bourgades, often more

flourishing and extensive than the ancient seats of

government, the opulent seaports and trading towns, were all

equally exposed to the Danish attacks, stunned by the

Northmen's approach, subjugated by their fury. … They

constitute three principal schemes of naval and military

operations, respectively governed and guided by the great

rivers and the intervening sea-shores. … The first scheme of

operations includes the territories between Rhine and Scheldt,

and Scheldt and Elbe: the furthest southern point reached by

the Northmen in this direction was somewhere between the Rhine

and the Neckar. Eastward, the Scandinavians scattered as far

as Russia; but we must not follow them there. The second

scheme of operations affected the countries between Seine and

Loire, and again from the Seine eastward towards the Somme and

Oise. These operations were connected with those of the Rhine

Northmen. The third scheme of operations was prosecuted in the

countries between Loire and Garonne, and Garonne and Adour,

frequently flashing towards Spain, and expanding inland as far

as the Allier and central France, nay, to the very centre, to

Bourges."

Sir F. Palgrave,

History of Normandy and England,

book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

{2371}

ALSO IN:

C. F. Keary,

The Vikings in Western Christendom,

chapters 9-15.

NORMANS: A. D. 979-1016.

The Danish conquest of England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

NORMANS: A. D. 986-1011.

Supposed voyages to America.

See AMERICA: 10-11th CENTURIES.

NORMANS: 10-13th Centuries.

The breaking up of the Norse island empire.

"At the close of the 10th and beginning of the 11th century

the battles of Tara and Clontarf overthrew the power of these

Norsemen (or Ostmen as they were called) in Ireland, and

restored the authority of the native Irish sovereign. About

this time they [the 'Hy-Ivar,' or sovereigns of the

island-empire of the Northmen—see above: 8-9TH CENTURIES]

became Christians, and in the year 1066 we find one of their

princes joining Harald Hardrada of Norway in his invasion of

England, which ended so disastrously in the battle of Stamford

Bridge. Magnus of Norway, thirty-two years later, after

subduing the independent Jarls of Shetland and the Orkneys,

attempted to reassert his supremacy along the western coast.

But after conquering Anglesea, whence he drove out the Normans

[from England] who had just made a settlement there, he

crossed to Ireland to meet his death in battle. The

sovereignty of the Isles was then restored to its original

owners, but soon after split into two parts—the Suderies and

Norderies (whence the term Sodor and Man), north and south of

Ardnamurchan Point. The next glimpse we have of these

dominions is at the close of the 12th century, when we find

them under a chief named Somarled, who exercised authority in

the islands and Argyleshire, and from him the clans of the

Highlands and the Western Isles love to trace their ancestry.

After his death, according to the Highland traditions, the

islands and Argyleshire were divided amongst his three sons.

Thus the old Norse empire was finally broken up, and in the

13th century, after another unsuccessful attempt by Haco, King

of Norway, to re-establish the authority of the mother kingdom

over their distant possessions, an attempt which ended in his

defeat at the battle of Largs by the Scottish king, Alexander

III., they were ceded to the Scottish kings by Magnus IV., his

son, and an alliance was cemented between the two kingdoms by

the marriage of Alexander's daughter, Margaret, to Eric of

Norway." At the north of Scotland the Jarls of Orkney, in the

11th century, "conquered Caithness and Sutherland, and wrested

a recognition of their claim from Malcolm II. of Scotland.

Their influence was continually felt in the dynastic and other

quarrels of Scotland; the defeat of Duncan, in 1040, by the

Jarl of Orkney, contributing not a little to Duncan's

subsequent overthrow by Macbeth. They fostered the

independence of the north of Scotland against the southern

king, and held their kingdom until, in 1355, it passed by the

female line to the house of Sinclair. The Sinclairs now

transferred their allegiance to their natural master, the King

of Scotland; and finally the kingdom of the Orkneys was handed

over to James III. as the dowry of his bride, Margaret of

Norway."

A. H. Johnson,

The Normans in Europe,

chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapter 15 (volume 2).

See, also, IRELAND: A. D. 1014.

NORMANS: A. D. 1000-1063.

The Northmen in France become French.

See NORMANDY; A. D. 911-1000; and 1035-1063.

NORMANS: A. D. 1000-1194.

Conquests and settlement in Southern Italy and Sicily.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090;

and 1081-1194.

NORMANS: A. D. 1016-1042.

The reign of the Danish kings in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1016-1042.

NORMANS: A. D. 1066-1071.

Conquest of England by Duke William of Normandy.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1042-1066; 1066; and 1066-1071.

NORMANS: A. D. 1081-1085.

Attempted conquest of the Byzantine Empire.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085.

NORMANS: A. D. 1084.

The sack and burning of Rome.

See ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.

NORMANS: A. D. 1146.

Ravages in Greece.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

NORMANS: A. D. 1504.

Early enterprise on the Newfoundland fishing banks.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

----------NORMANS: End--------

NORTH, Lord, Administration of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1770, to 1782-1783.

NORTH ANNA, The passage of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

NORTH BRITON, Number 45, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764.

----------NORTH CAROLINA: Start--------

NORTH CAROLINA:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, CHEROKEES,

IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH,

SHAWANESE, and TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1524.

Discovery of the coast by Verrazano.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1585-1587.

Raleigh's attempted settlements at Roanoke.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586; and 1587-1590.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1629.

The grant to Sir Robert Heath.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1639-1663.

Pioneer and unorganized colonization.

"An abortive attempt at colonization was made in 1639, and a

titular governor appeared in Virginia; but this, and a number

of conflicting claims originating in this patent [to Sir

Robert Heath], and sufficiently troublesome to the

proprietaries of a later time, were the only results of the

grant of Charles I. This action on the part of the Crown, and

the official information received, did not, however, suffice

to prevent the Virginia Assembly lending itself to a scheme by

which possession might be obtained of the neighboring

territory, or at least substantial benefits realized therefrom

by their constituents. With this object, they made grants to a

trading company, which led, however, only to exploration and

traffic. Other grants of a similar nature followed for the

next ten years, at the expiration of which a company of

Virginians made their way from Nansemond to Albemarle, and

established a settlement there. The Virginian Burgesses

granted them lands, and promised further grants to all who

would extend these settlements to the southward. Emigration

from Virginia began. Settlers, singly and in companies,

crossed the border, and made scattered and solitary clearings

within the wilds of North Carolina. Many of these people were

mere adventurers; but some of them were of more substantial

stuff, and founded permanent settlements on the Chowan and

elsewhere. Other eyes, however, as watchful as those of the

Virginians, were also turned to the rich regions of the South.

{2372}

New England enterprise explored the American coast from one

end to the other, in search of lucrative trade and new

resting-places. After a long acquaintance with the North

Carolina coast, they bought land of the Indians, near the

mouth of Cape Fear River, and settled there. For some

unexplained cause—possibly on account of the wild and

dangerous character of the scattered inhabitants, who had

already drifted thither from Virginia, possibly from the

reason which they themselves gave—the New England colonists

abandoned their settlement and departed, leaving a written

opinion of the poor character of the country expressed in very

plain language and pinned to a post. Here it was found by some

wanderers from Barbadoes, who were of a different opinion from

the New Englanders as to the appearance of things; and they

accordingly repurchased the land from the Indians and began a

settlement. At this date [1663], therefore, there was in North

Carolina this infant settlement of the Barbadoes men, on the

extreme southeastern point of the present State, and in the

north-eastern corner the Virginia settlers scattered about,

with here a solitary plantation and there a little group of

farms, and always a restless van of adventurers working their

way down the coast and into the interior. … Whatever rights

the North Carolina settlers may have had in the eyes of the

Virginians, who had granted them land, or in those of the

Indians who had sold it, they had none recognized by the

English King, who claimed to own all that vast region. It may

be doubted whether anything was known of these early colonists

in England; and their existence was certainly not regarded in

the least when Charles II. lavished their territory, and much

besides, upon a band of his courtiers and ministers."

H. C. Lodge,

Short History of the English Colonies,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

J. W. Moore,

History of North Carolina,

volume 1, chapter 2.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

The grant to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury and others.

The organized colonies.

"On the 24th March, 1663, King Charles II. granted to Edward,

Earl of Clarendon; George [Monk], Duke of Albemarle; William,

Earl of Craven; John, Lord Berkeley; Anthony, Lord Ashley

[Earl of Shaftesbury]; Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton,

and Sir William Berkeley, all the country between the Pacific

and Atlantic Oceans, between 31° and 36° parallels of

latitude, called Carolina, in honor of Charles. [The grant

embraced the present States of Georgia, Alabama and

Mississippi, as well as the two Carolinas.] In 1663, Sir

William Berkeley, Governor of the Colony of Virginia, visited

the province, and appointed William Drummond Governor of the

Colony of Carolina. … Drummond, at his death in 1667, was

succeeded by Stevens as governor. … The first assembly that

made laws for Carolina, assembled in the fall of 1669. … A

form of government, magnificent in design, and labored in

detail, called 'The fundamental constitutions of Carolina,'

were drawn up by the celebrated author of the Essay on the

Human Understanding, John Locke. … On the death of Governor

Stevens, who died in the colony full of years and wealth, the

assembly chose Carteret for their governor, and on his return

to England soon after, Eastchurch, who then was in Eng]and,

was appointed governor, and Miller secretary."

J. H. Wheeler,

Historical Sketches of North Carolina,

chapter 4.

"The earliest grant made to the lords proprietors did not

include the whole of the present State of North Carolina. Its

northern line fell short of the southern boundary of Virginia

by half a degree of latitude. Notwithstanding this, an

unwarranted exhibition of authority established virtually the

proprietary dominion over this unappropriated territory. …

Colonel Byrd of Virginia, who was born not long after the

charter of 1665 was made, and who lived during the

administration of Berkeley, states, and no doubt truly, that

'Sir William Berkeley, who was one of the grantees, and at

that time governor of Virginia, finding a territory of 31

miles in breadth between the inhabited part of Virginia and

the above-mentioned boundary of Carolina [36°], advised the

Lord Clarendon of it. And his lordship had interest enough

with the king to obtain a second patent to include it, dated

June 30th, 1665.' By this patent very large powers were

granted; so large that, as Chalmers has remarked, 'no one

prerogative of the crown was preserved, except only the

sovereign dominion. … The existence of the colony from

Barbadoes, under Sir John Yeamans, that settled in the old

county of Clarendon, from its inception in 1665 to its

abandonment in 1690, forms but an episode in the proprietary

history of North Carolina. The colony, like all others

similarly situated, sought at first to make provision for the

supply of bodily wants, in securing food and shelter only; but

having done this it next proceeded to make profitable the

gifts of Heaven that were around it. Yeamans had brought with

him negro slaves from Barbadoes, and so inviting was the new

settlement deemed, that in the second year of its existence it

contained 800 inhabitants. … But with all this prosperity, the

colony on the Cape Fear was not destined to be permanent. The

action of the lords proprietors themselves caused its

abandonment. … In 1670, the lords proprietors, who seem to

have been anxious to proceed more and more to the southward,

sent out a considerable number of emigrants to form a colony

at Port Royal, now Beaufort, in the present State of South

Carolina. The individual who led the expedition was William

Sayle, 'a man of experience,' says Chalmers, 'who had been

appointed governor of that part of the coast lying

southwestward of Cape Carteret.' … Scarcely however, had Sayle

carried out his instructions and made his colonists somewhat

comfortable, before his constitution yielded to a new and

insalubrious climate, and he died. … It was not easy for the

proprietors immediately to find a fit successor; and, even had

such been at hand, some time must necessarily have elapsed

before he could safely reach the scene of his labors. But Sir

John Yeamans was near the spot: his long residence had

acclimated him, and, as the historian states, he 'had hitherto

ruled the plantation around Cape Fear with a prudence which

precluded complaint.' He therefore was directed to extend his

command from old Clarendon, on the Cape Fear, to the territory

which was southwest of Cape Carteret. This was in August,

1671. The shores with the adjacent land, and the streams

making into the sea, were by this time very well known to all

the dwellers in Carolina, for the proprietors had caused them

to be surveyed with accuracy.

{2373}

On the banks of Ashley River there was good pasturage, and

land fit for tillage. The planters of Clarendon, therefore,

turned their faces southward, while those from Port Royal

travelled northward; and so the colonists from both

settlements met on the banks of the Ashley, as on a middle

ground, and here in the same year (1671) they laid, 'on the

first high land,' the foundations of 'old Charlestown.' In

1679, it was found that 'Oyster Point,' formed by the

confluence of Ashley and Cooper rivers, was more convenient

for a town than the spot previously selected, and the people,

with the encouragement of the lords proprietors, began to

remove thither. In the next year (1680) were laid the

foundations of the present city of Charleston; thirty houses

were built, and it was declared to be the capital of the

southern part of the province, and also the port for all

commercial traffic. This gradually depopulated old Clarendon.

… We now return to trace the fortunes of the settlement on

Albemarle, under Stephens. As before stated he entered upon

his duties as governor in October, 1667. … His instructions

were very full and explicit. The Assembly was to be composed

of the governor, a council of twelve, and twelve delegates

chosen by the freeholders. Of the twelve councillors, whose

advice, by the way, the governor was required always to take

and follow, one half was to be appointed by the Assembly, the

other half by himself. To this Assembly belonged not only the

power to make laws, but a large share of the executive

authority also. … In 1669, the first legislature under this

constitution assembled. And it is worthy of remark, that at

this period, when the province may be said to have had, for

the first time, a system of regular government, there was in

it a recognition of two great principles which are now part of

the political creed of our whole country, without distinction

of party. These are, first, that the people are entitled to a

voice in the selection of their law-makers; and secondly, that

they cannot rightfully be taxed but by their own

representatives. … The people, we have reason to believe, were

contented and happy during the early part of Stephens'

administration. … But this quiet condition of affairs was not

to last. We have now reached a period in our history which

illustrates the fact, that whatever wisdom may be apparent in

the constitution given to the Albemarle colony by the

proprietors, on the accession of Stephens, was less the result

of deliberation than of a happy accident. … But the time had

now come for the proprietors to carry out their magnificent

project of founding an empire; and disregarding alike the

nature of man, the lessons of experience, and the physical

obstacles of an unsubdued wilderness (even not yet entirely

reclaimed), they resolved that all should yield to their

theories of government, and invoked the aid of philosophy to

accomplish an impossibility. Locke was employed to prepare

'the fundamental constitutions.'"

F. L. Hawks,

History of North Carolina,

volume 2, pages 441-462.

ALSO IN:

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,

Popular History of thee United States,

volume 2, chapter 12.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

The Fundamental Constitutions of John Locke,

and their failure.

The royal grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Shaftesbury,

Clarendon, and their associates invested them with "all the

rights, jurisdiction, royalties, privileges, and liberties

within the bounds of their province, to hold, use, and enjoy

the same, in as ample a manner as the bishop of Durham did in

that county-palatine in England: … Agreeably to these powers,

the proprietors proceeded to frame a system of laws for the

colony which they projected. Locke, the well-known

philosopher, was summoned to this work, and the largest

expectations were entertained in consequence of his

co-operation. Locke, though subsequently one of the

proprietors, was, at the beginning, simply the secretary of

the earl of Shaftesbury. The probability is that, in preparing

the constitution for the Carolinas, he rather carried out the

notions of that versatile nobleman than his own. … The code of

laws called the 'Fundamental Constitutions,' which was

devised, and which subsequently became unpopular in the

colony, is not certainly the work of his hands. It is ascribed

by Oldmixon, a contemporary, to the earl of Shaftesbury, one

of the proprietors. The most striking feature in this code

provided for the creation of a nobility, consisting of land

graves, cassiques, and barons. These were to be graduated by

the landed estates which were granted with the dignity; the

eldest of the proprietary lords was to be the superior, with

the title of Palatine, and the people were to be serfs." The

tenants, and the issue of the tenants, "were to be transferred

with the soil, and not at liberty to leave it, but with the

lord's permission, under hand and seal. The whole system was

rejected after a few years' experiment. It has been harshly

judged as … the crude conception of a mind conversant rather

with books than men—with the abstract rather than the

practical in government and society. And this judgment is

certainly true of the constitutions in the case in which they

were employed. They did not suit the absolute conditions of

the country, or the class of people which subsequently made

their way to it. But contemplating the institution of domestic

slavery, as the proprietors had done from the beginning—a

large villanage and a wealthy aristocracy, dominating almost

without restraint or responsibility over the whole—the scheme

was not without its plausibilities. But the feudal tenures

were everywhere dying out. The time had passed, even in

Europe, for such a system. … The great destitution of the

first settlers left them generally without the means of

procuring slaves; and the equal necessities, to which all are

subject who peril life and fortune in a savage forest and on a

foreign shore, soon made the titular distinctions of the few a

miserable mockery, or something worse."

W. G. Simms,

History of South Carolina,

book 2, chapter 1.

"The constitutions were signed on the 21st of July, 1669;" but

subsequently revised by the interpolation of a clause, against

the wishes of Locke, establishing the Church of England. "This

revised copy of 'the model' was not signed till March, 1670.

To a colony of which the majority were likely to be

dissenters, the change was vital; it was scarcely noticed in

England, where the model became the theme of extravagant

applause. … As far as depended upon the proprietaries, the

government was immediately organized with Monk, duke of

Albemarle, as palatine." But, meantime, the colonists in the

northern part of the Carolina province had instituted a simple

form of government for themselves, with a council of twelve,

and an assembly composed of the governor, the council, and

twelve delegates from the freeholders of the incipient

settlements.

{2374}

The assembly had already met and had framed some important

laws, which remained "valid in North Carolina for more than

half a century. Hardly had these laws been established when

the new constitution was forwarded to Albemarle. Its

promulgation did but favor anarchy by invalidating the

existing system, which it could not replace. The

proprietaries, contrary to stipulations with the colonists,

superseded the existing government, and the colonists

resolutely rejected the substitute." Much the same state of

things appeared in the South Carolina settlements (not yet

separately named), and successive disorders and revolutionary

changes made up the history of the pseudo palatinate for many

years.

G. Bancroft,

History of the United States

(Author's last revision),

part 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

In 1693, "to conciliate the colonists, and to get rid of the

dispute which had arisen as to the binding force of the 'Grand

Model,' the proprietors voted that, 'as the people have

declared they would rather be governed by the powers granted

by the charter, without regard to the fundamental

constitutions, it will be for their quiet, and the protection

of the well-disposed, to grant their request.' This abrogation

of the labors of Locke removed one bone of contention; but as

the 'Grand Model' had never been actually carried into effect,

the government went on much as before. Each of the

proprietaries continued to have his special delegate in the

colony, or rather two delegates, one for South Carolina, the

other for Albemarle, the eight together constituting the

council in either province, over which the governor presided

as delegate of the palatine, to whom his appointment

belonged."

R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

chapter 21 (volume 2).

The text of the "fundamental constitutions" is printed in

volume 9 of the 12th edition of Locke's complete works, and in

volume 10 of several prior editions.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.

Slow progress and unprosperous state of the colony.

End of the Proprietary Government.

In 1688, Carolina (the northern province) being afflicted with

a governor, one Seth Sothel, who is accused of every variety

of extortion and rapacity, the colonists rose up against him,

tried him before their assembly, deposed him from his office

and drove him into exile. "The Proprietors demurred to the

form of this procedure, but acquiesced in the substance of it,

and thereby did something to confirm that contempt for

government which was one of the leading characteristics of the

colony. During the years which followed, the efforts of the

Proprietors to maintain any authority over their Northern

province, or to connect it in any way with their Southern

territory, were little more than nominal. For the most part

the two settlements were distinguished by the Proprietors as

'our colony north-east of Cape Fear,' and 'our colony

south-west of Cape Fear.' As early as 1691 we find the

expression North Carolina once used. After that we do not meet

with it till 1696. From that time onward both expressions are

used with no marked distinction, sometimes even in the same

document. At times the Proprietors seem to have aimed at

establishing a closer connexion between the two colonies by

placing them under a single Governor. But in nearly all these

cases provision was made for the appointment of separate

Deputy-Governors, nor does there seem to have been any project

for uniting the two legislative bodies. … In 1720 the first

event occurred which throws any clear light from without on

the internal life of the colony. In that year boundary

disputes arose between Virginia and her southern neighbour and

it was found necessary to appoint representatives on each side

to settle the boundary line. The chief interest of the matter

lies in the notes left to us by one of the Virginia

Commissioners [Colonel William Byrd]. … After making all …

deductions and checking Byrd's report by that of graver

writers, there remains a picture of poverty, indolence, and

thriftlessness which finds no counterpart in any of the other

southern colonies. That the chief town contained only some

fifty poor cottages is little or nothing more than what we

find in Maryland or Virginia. But there the import trade with

England made up for the deficiencies of colonial life. North

Carolina, lacking the two essentials of trade, harbours and a

surplus population, had no commercial dealings with the mother

country. … The only possessions which abounded were horses and

swine, both of which could be reared in droves without any

care or attention. … The evils of slavery existed without its

counterbalancing advantages. There was nothing to teach those

habits of administration which the rich planters of Virginia

and South Carolina learnt as part of their daily life. At the

same time the colony suffered from one of the worst effects of

slavery, a want of manual skill. … In 1729 the faint and

meaningless shadow of proprietary government came to an end.

The Crown bought up first the shares of seven Proprietors,

then after an interval that of the eighth. In the case of

other colonies the process of transfer had been effected by a

conflict and by something approaching to revolution. In North

Carolina alone it seems to have come about with the peaceful

assent of all parties. … Without a struggle, North Carolina

cast off all traces of its peculiar origin and passed into the

ordinary state of a crown colony."

J. A. Doyle,

The English in America:

Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas,

chapter 12.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1710.

Palatine colonization at New Berne.

See PALATINES.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1711-1714.

Indian rising and massacre of colonists.

Subjugation and expulsion of the Tuscaroras.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1740.

War with the Spaniards in Florida.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

The Cherokee War.

See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1760-1766.

The question of taxation by Parliament.

The Stamp Act.

The First Continental Congress.

The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1768.

The Townshend Duties.

The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

{2375}

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.

The insurrection of the Regulators.

Battle of Alamance.

Complaints of official extortion, which were loud in several

of the colonies at about the same period, led to serious

results in North Carolina. "Complaints were most rife in the

middle counties, a very barren portion of the province, with a

population generally poor and ignorant. These people

complained, and not without reason—for the poor and ignorant

are ever most exposed to oppression—not only that excessive

fees were extorted, but that the sheriffs collected taxes of

which they rendered no account. They seem also to have held

the courts and lawyers—indeed, the whole system for the

collection of debts —in great detestation. Presently, under

the name of 'Regulators,' borrowed from South Carolina, they

formed associations which not only refused the payment of

taxes, but assaulted the persons and property of lawyers,

judges, sheriffs, and other obnoxious individuals, and even

proceeded so far as to break up the sessions of the courts.

The common name of Regulators designated, in the two

Carolinas, combinations composed of different materials, and

having different objects in view. The Assembly of the province

took decided ground against them, and even expelled one of

their leaders, who had been elected a member. After

negotiations and delays, and broken promises to keep the

peace, Governor Tryon, at the head of a body of volunteers,

marched into the disaffected counties. The Regulators

assembled in arms, and an action was fought at Alamance, on

the Haw, near the head waters of Cape Fear River, in which

some 200 were left dead upon the field. Out of a large number

taken prisoners, six were executed for high treason. Though

the Regulators submitted, they continued to entertain a deadly

hatred against the militia of the lower counties, which had

taken part against them. Tryon was presently removed from

North Carolina to New York. His successor, Joseph Martin,

anxious to strengthen himself against the growing discontents

of the province, promised to redress the grievances, and

sedulously cultivated the good will of the Regulators, and

with such success that they became, in the end, staunch

supporters of the royal authority."

R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

chapter 29 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

F. X. Martin,

History of North Carolina,

chapters 7-8.

J. H. Wheeler,

History of North Carolina,

chapter 8.

F. L. Hawks,

Battle of the Alamance

(Revised History of North Carolina).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1768-1774.

Opening events of the Revolution.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773;

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, to 1774.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1769-1772.

The first settlement of Tennessee.

The Watauga Association.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.

The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.

Lexington.

Concord.

Action on the news.

Ticonderoga.

The Siege of Boston.

Bunker Hill.

The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775 (May).

The Mecklenburg Declaration.

"It has been strenuously claimed and denied that, at a meeting

of the people of Mecklenburg County, in North Carolina, on May

20, 1775, resolutions were passed declaring their independence

of Great Britain. The facts in the case appear to be these:—On

the 31st of May, 1775, the people of this county did pass

resolutions quite abreast of the public sentiment of that

time, but not venturing on the field of independency further

than to say that these resolutions were to remain in force

till Great Britain resigned its pretensions. These resolutions

were well written, attracted notice, and were copied into the

leading newspapers of the colonies, North and South, and can

be found in various later works (Lossing's 'Field-Book,' ii,

619, etc.). A copy of the 'South Carolina Gazette' containing

them was sent by Governor Wright, of Georgia, to Lord

Dartmouth, and was found by Bancroft in the State Paper

Office, while in the Sparks MSS. (no. lvi) is the record of a

copy sent to the home government by Governor Martin of North

Carolina, with a letter dated June 30, 1775. Of these

resolutions there is no doubt (Frothingham's 'Rise of the

Republic,' 422). In 1793, or earlier, some of the actors in

the proceeding, apparently ignorant that the record of these

resolutions had been preserved in the newspapers, endeavored

to supply them from memory, unconsciously intermingling some

of the phraseology of the Declaration of July 4th, in

Congress, which gave them the tone of a pronounced

independency. Probably through another dimness of memory they

affixed the date of May 20, 1775, to them. These were first

printed in the 'Raleigh Register,' April 30, 1819. They are

found to resemble in some respects the now known resolves of

May 31st, as well as the national Declaration in a few

phrases. In 1829 Martin printed them, much altered, in his

'North Carolina' (ii, 272) but it is not known where this copy

came from. In 1831 the State printed the text of the 1819

copy, and fortified it with recollections and certificates of

persons affirming that they were present when the resolutions

were passed on the 20th."

J. Winsor,

Note in Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 6, page 256.

"We are inclined to conjecture that there was a popular

meeting at Charlottetown on the 19th and 20th of May, where

discussion was had on the subject of independence, and

probably some more or less explicit understanding arrived at,

which became the basis of the committee's action on the 31st.

If so, we make no doubt that J. McN. Alexander was secretary

of that meeting. He, probably, in that case, recorded the

proceedings, and among them some resolution or resolutions in

regard to the propriety of throwing off the British yoke. … It

was in attempting to remember the records of that meeting,

destroyed by fire, that John McN. Alexander, then an old man,

fell into the errors" which led him, in 1800, to certify, as

Secretary, a copy of the document called the Mecklenburg

Declaration of Independence.

H. S. Randall,

Life of Jefferson,

volume 3, appendix 2.

ALSO IN:

W. A. Graham,

Address on the Mecklenburg Declaration, 1875.

F. L. Hawks,

The Mecklenburg Declaration

(Revised History of Georgia).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776.

The arming of the loyalist Highlanders

and their defeat at Moore's Creek.

The first colony vote for independence.

"North Carolina was the first colony to act as a unit in favor

of independence. It was the fourth in importance of the United

Colonies. Its Provincial Congress had organized the militia,

and vested the public authority in a provincial council for

the whole colony, committees of safety for the districts, and

county and town committees. A large portion of the people were

adherents of the crown,—among them a body of Highland

emigrants, and most of the party of regulators. Governor

Martin represented, not without grounds, that, if these

loyalists were supported by a British force, the colony might

be gained to the royal side.

{2376}

The loyalists were also numerous in Georgia and South

Carolina. Hence it was determined by the King to send an

expedition to the Southern Colonies in the winter, to restore

the royal authority. This was put under the command of Sir

Henry Clinton, and ordered to rendezvous at Cape Fear. 'I am

clear,' wrote George III., 'the first attempt should be made

on North Carolina, as the Highland settlers are said to be

well inclined.' Commissions were issued to men of influence

among them, one being Allan McDonald, the husband of the

chivalrous Flora McDonald, who became famous by romantic

devotion to Prince Charles Edward. Donald McDonald was

appointed the commander. These officers, under the direction

of the governor, after much secret consultation, enrolled

about 1,500 men. The popular leaders, however, were informed

of their designs. The militia were summoned, and took the

field under Colonel James Moore. At length, when Sir Henry

Clinton was expected at Cape Fear, General McDonald erected

the royal standard at Cross Creek, now Fayetteville, and moved

forward to join Clinton. Colonel Moore ordered parties of the

militia to take post at Moore's Creek Bridge, over which

McDonald would be obliged to pass. Colonel Richard Caswell was

at the head of one of these parties: hence the force here was

under his command: and this place on the 27th of February

[1776] became a famous battle-field. The Provincials were

victorious. They captured a great quantity of military

supplies, nearly 900 men, and their commander. This was the

Lexington and Concord of that region. The newspapers

circulated the details of this brilliant result. The spirit of

the Whigs run high. … A strong force was soon ready and

anxious to meet Clinton. Amidst these scenes, the people

elected delegates to a Provincial Congress, which met, on the

4th of April [1776], at Halifax. … Attempts were made to

ascertain the sense of the people on independence. … The

subject was referred to a committee, of which Cornelius

Harnett was the chairman. They reported an elaborate preamble

… and a resolution to empower the delegates in the General

Congress 'to concur with the delegates in the other colonies

in declaring independency and forming foreign

alliances,—reserving to the colony the sole and exclusive

right of forming a constitution and laws for it,' also 'of

appointing delegates in a general representation of the

colonies for such purposes as might be agreed upon.' This was

unanimously adopted on the 12th of April. Thus the popular

party carried North Carolina as a unit in favor of

independence, when the colonies, from New England to Virginia,

were in solid array against it. The example was warmly

welcomed by the patriots, and commended for imitation."

R. Frothingham,

The Rise of the Republic,

chapter 11.

ALSO IN:

J. W. Moore,

History of North Carolina,

volume 1, chapter 10.

D. L. Swain,

British Invasion of North Carolina in 1776

(Revised History of North Carolina).

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A: D. 1776 (JUNE).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776.

Annexation of the Watauga settlements (Tennessee).

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776-1780.

Independence declared.

Adoption of State Constitution.

The war in the North.

British conquest of Georgia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1780.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780-1783.

The war in the South.

Greene's campaign.

King's Mountain.

The Cowpens.

Guilford Court House.

Hobkirk's Hill.

Eutaw Springs.

Yorktown.

Peace.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1784.

Revolt of the Tennessee settlements

against their cession to Congress.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1785-1788.

The state of Franklin organized by the Tennessee settlers.

Its brief and troubled history.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785; and 1785-1796.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1786.

Importation of Negroes discouraged.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787~1789.

Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1790.

Renewed cession of western Territory (Tennessee)

to the United States.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796;

also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (January-May).

The difficult dragging of the state into Secession.

"A large majority of the people of North Carolina were opposed

to secession. They did not regard it as a constitutional

right. They were equally opposed to a separation from the

Union in resentment of the election of Mr. Lincoln. But the

Governor, John W. Ellis, was in full sympathy with the

secessionists. He spared no pains to bring the state into line

with South Carolina [which had passed her ordinance of

Secession December 20, 1860.]

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

The legislature met on the 20th of November. The governor, in

his message, recommended that the legislature should invite a

conference with the Southern States, or send delegates to them

for the purpose of securing their co-operation. He also

recommended the reorganization of the militia, and the call of

a state convention. Bills were introduced for the purpose of

carrying these measures into effect. … On the 30th of January,

a bill for calling a state convention was passed. It provided

that no secession ordinance, nor one connecting the state with

the Southern Confederacy, would be valid until it should be

ratified by a majority of the qualified voters of the state.

The vote of the people was appointed to take place on the 28th

of February. The delegates were elected on the day named. A

large majority of them were Unionists. But, at the same time,

the convention itself was voted down. The vote for a

convention was 46,671; against a convention, 47,333. The

majority against it was 662. This majority against a

convention, however, was no criterion of popular sentiment in

regard to secession. The true test was the votes received,

respectively, by the Union and secession delegates. The former

received a majority of nearly 30,000. But the indefatigable

governor was not to be balked by the popular dislike for

secession. The legislature was called together in extra

session on May 1. On the same day they voted to have another

election for delegates to a state convention on the 13th of

the month. The election took place accordingly, and the

delegates convened on the 20th. On the following day the

secession ordinance was adopted, and the Confederate

Constitution ratified. To save time, and avoid further

obstructions, the question of popular approval was taken for

granted."

S. S. Cox,

Three Decades of Federal Legislation,

pages 119-120.

ALSO IN:

J. W. Moore,

History of North Carolina,

volume 2, chapter 5.

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).

{2377}

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April).

Governor Ellis' reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

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

PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S CALL TO ARMS.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (August).

Hatteras Inlet taken by the Union forces.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (AUGUST: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (January-April).

Capture of Roanoke Island, Newbern and Beaufort

by the Union forces.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (May).

Appointment of a Military Governor.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D.1862 (MARCH-JUNE).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864 (April-May).

Exploits of the ram Albemarle.

Confederate capture of Plymouth.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (APRIL-MAY: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864 (October).

Destruction of the ram Albemarle.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864-1865 (December-January).

The capture of Fort Fisher.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864-1865 (DECEMBER-JANUARY:

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).

Sherman's March.

The Battle of Bentonsville.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).

Federal occupation of Wilmington.

Battle of Kinston.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (May).

Provisional government under

President Johnson's Plan of Reconstruction.

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

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1868.

Reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), and after, to 1868-1870.

----------NORTH CAROLINA: End--------

NORTH DAKOTA:

Admission to the Union (1889).

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

NORTH GERMAN CONFEDERATION.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

NORTH RIVER, The.

See SOUTH RIVER.

NORTHAMPTON, Battle of.

One of the battles in the English civil wars of the 15th

century called the Wars of the Roses, fought July 10, 1460.

The royalist party (Lancastrians) were signally defeated, King

Henry VI. taken prisoner, and Queen Margaret driven in flight

to the north.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

NORTHAMPTON, Peace of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.

NORTHBROOK, LORD, The Indian administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1862-1876.

NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY QUESTION, Settlement of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.

NORTHERN CIRCARS, OR SIRKARS.

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

NORTHERN MARITIME LEAGUE, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

NORTHMEN.

See NORMANS.

----------NORTHUMBRIA: Start--------

NORTHUMBRIA, Kingdom of.

The northernmost of the kingdoms formed by the Angles in

Britain in the 6th century. It embraced the two kingdoms of

Bernicia and Deira, sometimes ruled by separate princes,

sometimes united, as Northumbria, under one, and extending

from the Humber to the Forth.

See ENGLAND: IA. D. 547-633.

NORTHUMBRIA: 10-11th Centuries.

Lothian joined to Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: 10-11th CENTURIES.

----------NORTHUMBRIA: End--------

NORTHWEST FUR COMPANY.

See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

"The North West Territories comprise all lands [of the

Dominion of Canada] not within the limits of any province or

of the District of Keewatin. The area of the Territories is

about 3,000,000 square miles or four times as great as the

area of all the provinces together. The Territories were ceded

to Canada by an Order in Council dated the 24th June 1870. …

See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

The southern portion of the territories between Manitoba and

British Columbia has been formed into four provisional

districts, viz. Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and

Athabasca. By the Dominion Act 38 Vie. c. 49 executive and

legislative powers were conferred on a Lieutenant-Governor and

a Council of five members subject to instructions given by

Order in Council or by the Canadian Secretary of State."

J. E. C. Munro,

The Constitution of Canada,

chapter 2.

----------NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Start--------

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The Old.

"This northwestern land lay between the Mississippi, the Ohio,

and the Great Lakes. It now constitutes five of our large

States and part of a sixth [namely, western Pennsylvania,

Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan]. But when

independence was declared it was quite as much a foreign

territory, considered from the standpoint of the old thirteen

colonies, as Florida or Canada; the difference was that,

whereas during the war we failed in our attempts to conquer

Florida and Canada, we succeeded in conquering the Northwest.

The Northwest formed no part of our country as it originally

stood; it had no portion in the declaration of independence.

It did not revolt; it was conquered. … We made our first

important conquest during the Revolution itself."

T. Roosevelt,

The Winning of the West,

volume 1, pages 32-33.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1673-1751.

Early French exploration and occupation.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673; 16611-1687; 1700-1735;

also ILLINOIS: A. D. 1700-1750; and 1751.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1748-1763.

Struggle of the French and English for possession.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;

and CANADA: A. D. 1758.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763.

Cession to Great Britain by the Treaty of Paris.

Possession taken.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES;

and ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

{2378}

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763.

The king's proclamation excluding settlers, and reserving

the whole interior of the continent for the Indians.

"On the 7th of October, 1763, George III. issued a

proclamation, providing for four new governments or colonies,

namely: Quebec, East Florida, West Florida, and Grenada [the

latter embracing 'the island of that name, together with the

Grenadines, and the islands of Dominico, St. Vincent and

'Tobago'], and defining their boundaries. The limits of Quebec

did not vary materially from those of the present province of

that name, and those of East and West Florida comprised the

present State of Florida and the country north of the Gulf of

Mexico to the parallel of 31° latitude. It will be seen that

no provision was made for the government of nine tenths of the

new territory acquired by the Treaty of Paris, and the

omission was not an oversight, but was intentional. The

purpose was to reserve as crown lands the Northwest territory,

the region north of the great lakes, and the country between

the Alleghanies and the Mississippi, and to exclude them from

settlement by the American colonies. They were left, for the

time being, to the undisputed possession of the savage tribes.

The king's 'loving subjects' were forbidden making purchases

of land from the Indians, or forming any settlements 'westward

of the sources of the rivers which fall into the sea from the

West and Northwest,' 'and all persons who have wilfully or

inadvertently seated themselves upon any lands' west of this

limit were warned 'forthwith to remove themselves from such

settlements.' Certain reasons for this policy were assigned in

the proclamation, such as, 'preventing irregularities in the

future, and that the Indians may be convinced of our justice,'

etc.; but the real explanation appears in the Report of the

Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, in 1772, on the

petition of Thomas Walpole and others for a grant of land on

the Ohio. The report was drawn by Lord Hillsborough, the

president of the board. The report states: 'We take leave to

remind your lordships of that principle which was adopted by

this Board, and approved and confirmed by his Majesty,

immediately after the Treaty of Paris, viz.: the confining the

western extent of settlements to such a distance from the

sea-coasts as that those settlements should lie within reach

of the trade and commerce of this kingdom, … and also of the

exercise of that authority and jurisdiction which was

conceived to be necessary for the preservation of the colonies

in a due subordination to, and dependence upon, the mother

country. And these we apprehend to have been the two capital

objects of his Majesty's proclamation of the 7th of October,

1763. … The great object of colonizing upon the continent of

North America has been to improve and extend the commerce,

navigation, and manufactures of this kingdom. … It does appear

to us that the extension of the fur trade depends entirely

upon the Indians being undisturbed in the possession of their

hunting-grounds, and that all colonizing does in its nature,

and must in its consequences, operate to the prejudice of that

branch of commerce. … Let the Savages enjoy their deserts in

quiet. Were they driven from their forests the peltry-trade

would decrease.' … Such in clear and specific terms was the

cold and selfish policy which the British crown and its

ministers habitually pursued towards the American colonies;

and in a few years it changed loyalty into hate, and brought

on the American Revolution."

W. F. Poole,

The West, from 1763 to 1783

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 6, chapter 9).

"The king's proclamation [of 1763] shows that, in the

construction put upon the treaty by the crown authorities, the

ceded territory was a new acquisition by conquest. The

proclamation was the formal appropriation of it as the king's

domain, embracing all the country west of the heads or sources

of the rivers falling into the Atlantic."

R. King,

Ohio,

chapter 5.

The text of the Proclamation of 1763 is in

Force's

American Archives,

series 4, volume 1, page 172.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763-1764.

Pontiac's War.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1765-1768.

The Indian Treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.

Boundary arrangement with the Six Nations.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1774.

The territorial claims of Virginia.

Lord Dunmore's War.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774;

also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1774.

Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1778-1779.

Its conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark,

and its organization under the jurisdiction of Virginia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1781-1786.

Cession of the conflicting territorial claims of the States

to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA:A. D. 1784.

Jefferson's plan for new States.

"The condition of the northwestern territory had long been

under the consideration of the House [the Congress of the

Confederation]. Several committees had been appointed, and

several schemes listened to, for laying out new States, but it

was not till the middle of April [1784], that a resolution

was finally reached. One plan was to divide the ceded and

purchased lands into seventeen States. Eight of these were to

lie between the banks of the Mississippi and a north and south

line through the falls of the Ohio. Eight more were to be

marked out between this line and a second one parallel to it,

and passing through the western bank of the mouth of the Great

Kanawha. What remained was to form the seventeenth State. But

few supporters were found for the measure, and a committee,

over which Jefferson presided, was ordered to place before

Congress a new scheme of division. Chase and Howe assisted

him; and the three devised a plan whereby the prairie-lands

were to be parted out among ten new States. The divisions then

marked down have utterly disappeared, and the names given to

them become so forgotten that nine tenths of the population

which has, in our time, covered the whole region with wealthy

cities and prosperous villages, and turned it from a waste to

a garden, have never in their lives heard the words

pronounced. Some were borrowed from the Latin and some from

the Greek; while others were Latinized forms of the names the

Indians had given to the rivers. The States were to be, as far

as possible, two degrees of latitude in width and arranged in

three tiers. The Mississippi and a meridian through the falls

of the Ohio included the western tier. The meridian through

the falls of the Ohio and a second through the mouth of the

Great Kanawha were the boundaries of the middle tier. Between

this and the Pennsylvania West Line lay the third tier. That

vast tract stretching from the 45th parallel of latitude to

the Lake of the Woods, and dense with forests of pine, of

hickory, and of oak, they called Sylvania.

{2379}

It was the northern State of the western tier. To the long

tongue of land separating the water of Michigan from the

waters of Erie and Huron they gave the name Cherronesus. A

narrow strip, not more than two degrees of latitude in width,

and stretching from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi, was

called Michigania. As marked down on their rude maps,

Michigania lay under Sylvania, in the very heart of what is

now Wisconsin. South of this to the 41st parallel of latitude

was Assenisipia, a name derived from Assenisipi, the Indian

title of the river now called the Rock. Eastward, along the

shore of Lake Erie, the country was named Metropotamia. It

took the name Mother of Rivers from the belief that within its

boundary were the fountains of many rivers, the Muskingum, the

two Miamis of Ohio, the Wabash, the Illinois, the Sandusky,

and the Miami of the Lake. That part of Illinois between the

39th and 41st parallels was called, from the river which

waters it, Illinoia. On to the east was Saratoga, and beyond

this lay Washington, a broad and level tract shut in by the

Ohio river, the waters of the lake, and the boundaries of

Pennsylvania. Under Illinoia and Saratoga, and stretching

along the Ohio, was the ninth State. Within its confines the

waters of the Wabash, the Sawane, the Tanissee, the Illinois,

and the Ohio were mingled with the waters of the Mississippi

and Missouri. The committee therefore judged that a fitting

name would be Polypotamia. Pelisipia was the tenth State. It

lay to the east of Polypotamia, and was named from Pelisipi, a

term the Cherokees often applied to the river Ohio. At the

same time that the boundaries of the new States were defined,

a code of laws was drawn up which should serve as a

constitution for each State, till 20,000 free inhabitants

acquired the right of self-government. The code was in no wise

a remarkable performance, yet there were among its articles

two which cannot be passed by in silence. One provided for the

abolition of slavery after the year 1800. The other announced

that no one holding an hereditary title should ever become a

citizen of the new States. Each was struck out by the House.

Yet each is deserving of notice. The one because it was the

first attempt at a national condemnation of slavery, the other

because it was a public expression of the dread with which our

ancestors beheld the growth of the Society of the Cincinnati."

J. B. McMaster,

History of the People of the United States,

chapter 2 (volume 1).

The report of Jefferson's committee "was recommitted to the

same committee on the 17th of March, and a new one was

submitted on the 22d of the same month. The second report

agreed in substance with the first. The principal difference

was the omission of the paragraph giving names to the States to

be formed out of the Western Territory." After striking out the

clauses prohibiting slavery after the year 1800 and denying

citizenship to all persons holding hereditary titles, the

Congress adopted the report, April 23, 1784. "Thus the

substance of the report of Mr. Jefferson of a plan for the

government of the Western Territory (without restrictions as to

slavery) became a law, and remained so during 1784 to 1787,

when these resolutions were repealed in terms by the passage of

the ordinance for the government of the 'Territory of the

United States northwest of the river Ohio.'"

T. Donaldson,

The Public Domain: its History,

pages 148-149.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1786-1788.

The Ohio Company of Revolutionary soldiers and

their land purchase.

The settlement at Marietta.

"The Revolutionary War had hardly closed before thousands of

the disbanded officers and soldiers were looking anxiously to

the Western lands for new homes, or for means of repairing

their shattered fortunes. In June, 1783, a strong memorial was

sent to Congress asking a grant of the lands between the Ohio

and Lake Erie. Those who lived in the South were fortunate in

having immediate access to the lands of Kentucky, Tennessee,

and the back parts of Georgia. The strife in Congress over the

lands of the Northwest delayed the surveys and the bounties so

long that the soldiers of the North almost lost hope."

Finally, there "was a meeting of officers and soldiers,

chiefly of the Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut

lines, at Boston, March 1, 1786, when they formed a new Ohio

Company for the purchase and settlement of Western lands, in

shares of $1,000. General Putnam [Rufus], General Samuel H.

Parsons, and the Rev. Manasseh Cutler, were made the

directors, and selected for their purchase the lands on the

Ohio River situated on both sides of the Muskingum, and

immediately west of the Seven Ranges. The treasury board in

those days were the commissioners of public lands, but with no

powers to enter into absolute sales unless such were approved

by Congress. Weeks and months were lost in waiting for a

quorum of that body to assemble. This was effected on the 11th

of July, and Dr. Cutler, deputed by his colleagues, was in

attendance, but was constantly baffled in pursuing his

objects. … The members were disposed to insert conditions

which were not satisfactory to the Ohio Company. But the

doctor carried his point by formally intimating that he should

retire, and seek better terms with some of the States, which

were offering their lands at half the price Congress was to

receive. The grant to the Ohio Company, upon the terms

proposed, was voted by Congress, and the contract formally

signed October 27, 1787, by the treasury board, and by Dr.

Cutler and Winthrop Sargent, as agents of the Ohio Company.

Two companies, including surveyors, boat-builders, carpenters,

smiths, farmers and laborers, 48 persons in all, with their

outfit, were sent forward in the following months of December

and January, under General Putnam as leader and

superintendent. They united in February on the Youghiogheny

River and constructed boats. … Embarking with their stores

they descended the Ohio, and on the 7th of April, 1788, landed

at the Muskingum. On the upper point, opposite Fort Harmar,

they founded their town, which at Boston had first been named

Adelphia. At the first meeting of the directors, held on the

ground July 2d, the name of Marietta was adopted, in honor of

the French Queen Marie Antoinette, and compounded of the first

and last syllables."

R. King,

Ohio,

chapter 8.

ALSO IN:

W. P. and J. P. Cutler,

Life, Journals and Correspondence

of Reverend Manasseh Cutler,

volume 1, chapters 4-7 and 9.

C. M. Walker,

History of Athens County, Ohio,

chapter 2.

{2380}

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1787.

The great Ordinance for its government.

Perpetual Exclusion of Slavery.

"Congress at intervals discussed the future of this great

domain, but for a while little progress was made except to

establish that Congress could divide the territory as might

seem best. Nathan Dane came forward with a motion for a

committee to plan some temporary scheme of government. A

committee on this point reported (May 10, 1786) that the

number of States should be from two to five, to be admitted as

States according to Jefferson's proposition, but the question

of slavery in them was left open. Nothing definite was done

till a committee—Johnson of Connecticut, Pinckney of South

Carolina, Smith of New York, Dane of Massachusetts, and Henry

of Maryland—reported on April 26, 1787, 'An ordinance for the

government of the Western territory,' and after various

amendments it was fairly transcribed for a third reading, May

10th. Further consideration was now delayed until July. It was

at this point that Manasseh Cutler appeared in New York,

commissioned to buy land for the Ohio Company in the region

whose future was to be determined by this ordinance, and it

was very likely, in part, by his influence that those features

of the perfected ordinance as passed five days later, and

which has given it its general fame, were introduced. On July

9th the bill was referred to a new committee, of which a

majority were Southern men, Carrington of Virginia taking the

chairmanship from Johnson; Dane and Smith were retained, but

Richard Henry Lee and Kean of South Carolina supplanted

Pinckney and Henry. This change was made to secure the

Southern support; on the other hand, acquiescence in the

wishes of Northern purchasers of lands was essential in any

business outcome of the movement. 'Up to this time,' says

Poole, 'there were no articles of compact in the bill, no

anti-slavery clause, nothing about liberty of conscience or of

the press, the right of habeas corpus, or of trial by jury, or

the equal distribution of estates. The clause that, "religion,

morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and

the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education

shall be forever encouraged," was not there.' These omissions

were the New England ideas, which had long before this been

engrafted on the Constitution of Massachusetts. This new

committee reported the bill, embodying all these provisions

except the anti-slavery clause, on the 11th, and the next day

this and other amendments were made. On the 13th, but one

voice was raised against the bill on its final passage, and

that came from Yates of New York. Poole intimates that it was

the promise of the governorship of the territory under the

ordinance which induced St. Clair, then President of Congress,

to lend it his countenance. The promise, if such it was, was

fulfilled, and St. Clair became the first governor."

J. Winsor and E. Channing,

Territorial Acquisitions and Divisions

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 7, appendix).

ALSO IN:

B. A. Hinsdale,

The Old Northwest,

chapter 15.

W. F. Poole,

Doctor Cutler and the Ordinance of 1787

(North American Review, April, 1876.

W. P. and J. P. Cutler,

Life of Manasseh Cutler,

volume 1, chapter 8.

J. P. Dunn, Jr.,

Indiana,

chapter 5.

T. Donaldson,

The Public Domain,

pages 149-159.

J. A. Barrett,

Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787

(University of Nebraska, Seminary Papers, 1891).

J. P. Dunn, editor,

Slavery Petitions

(Indiana Historical Society,

volume 2, number 12).

See, also,

EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA.: A. D. 1785-1880.

The following is the text of the "Ordinance for the Government

of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River

Ohio," commonly known as the "Ordinance of 1787":

"Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled,

That the said territory, for the purposes of temporary

government, be one district, subject, however, to be divided

into two districts, as future circumstances may, in the

opinion of Congress, make it expedient. Be it ordained by the

authority aforesaid, That the estates, both of resident and

non-resident proprietors in the said territory, dying

intestate, shall descend to, and be distributed among, their

children, and the descendants of a deceased child, in equal

parts; the descendants of a deceased child or grandchild to

take the share of their deceased parent in equal parts among

them: And where there shall be no children or descendants,

then in equal parts to the next of kin in equal degree; and,

among collaterals, the children of a deceased brother or

sister of the intestate shall have, in equal parts among them,

their deceased parents' share; and there shall, in no case, be

a distinction between kindred of the whole and half-blood;

saving, in all cases, to the widow of the intestate her third

part of the real estate for life, and one-third part of the

personal estate; and this law, relative to descents and dower,

shall remain in full force until altered by the legislature of

the district. And, until the governor and judges shall adopt

laws as hereinafter mentioned, estates in the said territory

may be devised or bequeathed by wills in writing, signed and

sealed by him or her, in whom the estate may be (being of full

age,) and attested by three witnesses; and real estates may be

conveyed by lease and release, or, bargain and sale, signed,

sealed, and delivered by the person, being of full age, in

whom the estate may be, and attested by two witnesses,

provided such wills be duly proved, and such conveyances be

acknowledged, or the execution thereof duly proved, and be

recorded within one year after proper magistrates, courts, and

registers shall be appointed for that purpose: and personal

property may be transferred by delivery; saving, however to

the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other settlers of the

Kaskaskias, St. Vincents, and the neighboring villages who

have heretofore professed themselves citizens of Virginia,

their laws and customs now in force among them, relative to

the descent and conveyance of property. Be it ordained by the

authority aforesaid, That there shall be appointed, from time

to time, by Congress, a governor, whose commission shall

continue in force for the term of three years, unless sooner

revoked by Congress; he shall reside in the district, and have

a freehold estate therein in 1,000 acres of land, while in the

exercise of his office. There shall be appointed, from time to

time, by Congress, a secretary, whose commission shall

continue in force for four years unless sooner revoked; he

shall reside in the district, and have a freehold estate

therein in 500 acres of land, while in the exercise of his

office; it shall be his duty to keep and preserve the acts and

laws passed by the legislature, and the public records of the

district, and the proceedings of the governor in his Executive

department; and transmit authentic copies of such acts and

proceedings, every six months, to the Secretary of Congress:

{2381}

There shall also be appointed a court to consist of three

judges, any two of whom to form a court, who shall have a

common law jurisdiction, and reside in the district, and have

each therein a freehold estate in, 500 acres of land while in

the exercise of their offices; and their commissions shall

continue in force during good behavior. The governor and

judges, or a majority of them, shall adopt and publish in the

district such laws of the original States, criminal and civil,

as may be necessary and best suited to the circumstances of

the district, and report them to Congress from time to time:

which laws shall be in force in the district until the

organization of the General Assembly therein, unless

disapproved of by Congress; but, afterwards, the legislature

shall have authority to alter them as they shall think fit.

The governor, for the time being, shall be commander-in-chief

of the militia, appoint and commission all officers in the

same below the rank of general officers; all general Officers

shall be appointed and commissioned by Congress. Previous to

the organization of the General Assembly, the governor shall

appoint such magistrates and other civil officers, in each

county or township, as he shall find necessary for the

preservation of the peace and good order in the same: After

the General Assembly shall be organized, the powers and duties

of the magistrates and other civil officers, shall be

regulated and defined by the said assembly; but all

magistrates and other civil officers, not herein otherwise

directed, shall, during the continuance of this temporary

government, be appointed by the governor. For the prevention

of crimes and injuries, the laws to be adopted or made shall

have force in all parts of the district, and for the execution

of process, criminal and civil, the governor shall make proper

divisions thereof; and he shall proceed, from time to time, as

circumstances may require, to layout the parts of the district

in which the Indian titles shall have been extinguished, into

counties and townships, subject, however, to such alterations

as may thereafter be made by the legislature. So soon as there

shall be 5,000 free male inhabitants of full age in the

district, upon giving proof thereof to the governor, they

shall receive authority, with time and place, to elect

representatives from their counties or townships to represent

them in the General Assembly: Provided, That, for every 500

free male inhabitants, there shall be one representative, and

so on progressively with the number of free male inhabitants,

shall the right of representation increase, until the number

of representatives shall amount to 25; after which, the number

and proportion of representatives shall be regulated by the

legislature: Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified

to act as a representative unless he shall have been a citizen

of one of the United States three years, and be a resident in

the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district

three years; and, in either case, shall likewise hold in his

own right, in fee simple, 200 acres of land within the same:

Provided, also, That a freehold in 50 acres of land in the

district, having been a citizen of one of the States, and

being resident in the district, or the like freehold and two

years residence in the district, shall be necessary to qualify

a man as an elector of a representative. The representatives

thus elected, shall serve for the term of two years; and, in

case of the death of a representative, or removal from office,

the governor shall issue a writ to the county or township for

which he was a member, to elect another in his stead, to serve

for the residue of the term. The General Assembly, or

Legislature, shall consist of the governor, legislative

council, and a house of representatives. The legislative

council shall consist of five members, to continue in office

five years, unless sooner removed by Congress; any three of

whom to be a quorum: and the members of the council shall be

nominated and appointed in the following manner, to wit: As

soon as representatives shall be elected, the governor shall

appoint a time and place for them to meet together; and, when

met, they shall nominate ten persons, residents in the

district, and each possessed of a freehold in 500 acres of

land, and return their names to Congress; five of whom

Congress shall appoint and commission to serve as aforesaid;

and, whenever a vacancy shall happen in the council, by death

or removal from office, the house of representatives shall

nominate two persons, qualified as aforesaid, for such

vacancy, and return their names to Congress; one of whom

Congress shall appoint and commission for the residue of the

term. And every five years, four months at least before the

expiration of the time of service of the members of council,

the said house shall nominate ten persons, qualified as

aforesaid, and return their names to Congress; five of whom

Congress shall appoint and commission to serve as members of

the council five years, unless sooner removed. And the

governor, legislative council, and house of representatives,

shall have authority to make laws in all cases, for the good

government of the district, not repugnant to the principles

and articles in this ordinance established and declared. And

all bills, having passed by a majority in the house, and by a

majority in the council, shall be referred to the governor for

his assent; but no bill, or legislative act whatever, shall be

of any force without his assent. The governor shall have power

to convene, prorogue, and dissolve the General Assembly, when,

in his opinion, it shall be expedient. The governor, judges,

legislative council, secretary, and such other officers as

Congress shall appoint in the district, shall take an oath or

affirmation of fidelity and of office; the governor before the

President of Congress, and all other officers before the

governor. As soon as a legislature shall be formed in the

district, the council and house assembled in one room, shall

have authority, by joint ballot, to elect a delegate to

Congress, who shall have a seat in Congress, with a right of

debating but not of voting during this temporary government.

And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and

religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these

republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix

and establish those principles as the basis of all laws,

constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall

be formed in the said territory: to provide also for the

establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and

for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an

equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as

may be consistent with the general interest: It is hereby

ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the

following articles shall be considered as articles of compact

between the original States and the people and States in the

said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by

common consent, to wit:

{2382}

Article 1st.

No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly

manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of

worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.

Article 2d.

The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled

to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial

by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in

the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the

course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable,

unless for capital offences, where the proof shall be evident

or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate; and no

cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall

be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of

his peers or the law of the land: and, should the public

exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to

take any person's property, or to demand his particular

services, full compensation shall be made for the same. And,

in the just preservation of rights and property, it is

understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or

have force in the said territory, that shall, in any manner

whatever, interfere with or affect private contracts or

engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed.

Article 3d.

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 utmost good

faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their

lands and property shall never be taken from them without

their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty,

they shall never be invaded or, disturbed, unless in just and

lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in

justice and humanity, shall, from time to time, be made for

preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace

and friendship with them.

Article 4th.

The said territory, and the States which may be formed

therein, shall forever remain a part of this confederacy of

the United States of America, subject to the Articles of

Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be

constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of

the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto.

The inhabitants and settlers in the said territory shall be

subject to pay a part of the federal debts contracted or to be

contracted, and a proportional part of the expenses of

government, to be apportioned on them by Congress according to

the same common rule and measure by which apportionments

thereof shall be made on the other States; and the taxes, for

paying their proportion, shall be laid and levied by the

authority and direction of the legislatures of the district or

districts, or new States, as in the original States, within

the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress

assembled. The legislatures of those districts or new States,

shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by

the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any

regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title

in such soil to the bona fide purchasers. No tax shall be

imposed on lands the property of the United States: and, in no

case, shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than

residents. The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi

and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same,

shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the

inhabitants of the said territory as to the citizens of the

United States, and those of any other States that may be

admitted into the Confederacy, without any tax, impost, or

duty, therefor.

Article 5th.

There shall be formed in the said territory, not less than

three nor more than five States; and the boundaries of the

States, as soon as Virginia shall alter her act of cession,

and consent to the same, shall become fixed and established as

follows, to wit: The Western State in the said territory,

shall be bounded by the Mississippi, the Ohio, and Wabash

rivers; a direct line drawn from the Wabash and Post St.

Vincent's, due North, to the territorial line between the

United States and Canada; and, by the said territorial line,

to the Lake of the Woods and Mississippi. The middle State

shall be bounded by the said direct line, the Wabash from Post

Vincent's, to the Ohio: by the Ohio, by a direct line, drawn

due North from the mouth of the Great Miami, to the said

territorial line, and by the said territorial line. The

Eastern State shall be bounded by the last mentioned direct

line, the Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the said territorial line:

Provided, however, and it is further understood and declared,

that the boundaries of these three States shall be subject so

far to be altered, that, if Congress shall hereafter find it

expedient, they shall have authority to form one or two States

in that part of the said territory which lies North of an East

and West line drawn through the Southerly bend or extreme of

Lake Michigan. And, whenever any of the said States shall have

60,000 free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted,

by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on

an equal footing with the original States in all respects

whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent

constitution and State government: Provided, the constitution

and government so to be formed, shall be republican, and in

conformity to the principles contained in these articles; and,

so far as it can be consistent with the general interest of

the confederacy, such admission shall be allowed at an earlier

period, and when there may be a less number of free

inhabitants in the State than 60,000.

Article 6th.

There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in

the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of

crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted:

Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from

whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the

original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and

conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as

aforesaid. Be It ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the

resolutions of the 23d of April, 1784, relative to the subject

of this ordinance, be, and the same are hereby, repealed and

declared null and void. Done by the United States, in Congress

assembled, the 13th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1787,

and of their sovereignty and independence the twelfth."

{2383}

NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.

Extinguished by divisions.

Creation of the Territory of Indiana and the State of Ohio.

"Arthur St. Clair was appointed governor by the Congress [of

the Confederation] February 1, 1788, and Winthrop Sargent

secretary. August 7th, 1789, Congress [under the federal

constitution], in view of the new method of appointment of

officers as provided in the Constitution, passed an amendatory

act to the Ordinance of 1787, providing for the nomination of

officers for the Territory by the President. … August 8, 1789,

President Washington sent to the Senate the names of Arthur

St. Clair for governor, Winthrop Sargent for secretary, and

Samuel Holden Parsons, John Cleves Symmes, and William Barton,

for judges. … They were all confirmed. President Washington in

this message designated the country as 'The Western

Territory.' The supreme court was established at Cincinnati (…

named by St. Clair in honor of the Society of the Cincinnati,

he having been president of the branch society in

Pennsylvania). St. Clair remained governor until November 22,

1802. Winthrop Sargent afterwards, in 1798, went to

Mississippi as governor of that Territory. William Henry

Harrison became secretary in 1797, representing it in Congress

in 1799-1800, and he became governor of the Territory of

Indiana in 1800. May 7, 1800, Congress, upon petition, divided

this [Northwest] Territory into two separate governments.

Indiana Territory was created, with its capital at St.

Vincennes, and from that portion of the Northwest Territory

west of a line beginning opposite the mouth of the Kentucky

River in Kentucky, and running north to the Canada line. The

eastern portion now became the 'Territory Northwest of the

river Ohio,' with its capital at Chillicothe. This portion,

November 29, 1802, was admitted into the Union. … The

territory northwest of the river Ohio ceased to exist as a

political division after the admission of the State of Ohio

into the Union, November 29, 1802, although in acts of

Congress it was frequently referred to and its forms affixed

by legislation to other political divisions."

T. Donaldson,

The Public Domain,

pages 159-160.

ALSO IN:

J. Burnet,

Notes on the Settlement of the Northwest Territory,

chapters 14-20.

C. Atwater,

History of Ohio, period 2.

J. B. Dillon,

History of Indiana,

chapters 19-31.

W. H. Smith,

The St. Clair Papers,

volume 1, chapters 6-9.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

Indian war.

The disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair

and Wayne's decisive victory.

The Greenville Treaty.

"The Northwestern Indians, at Washington's installation,

numbered, according to varying estimates, from 20,000 to

40,000 souls. Of these the Wabash tribes had for years been

the scourge of the new Kentucky settlers. So constant, indeed,

was bloodshed and retaliation, that the soil of this earliest

of States beyond the mountains acquired the name of 'the dark

and bloody ground.' A broad river interposed no sufficient

barricade to these deadly encounters. … What with their own

inadmissible claims to territory, and this continuous war to

the knife, all the tribes of the Northwestern country were now

so maddened against the United States that the first

imperative necessity, unless we chose to abandon the Western

settlements altogether, was to chastise the Indians into

submission. … Brigadier-General Harmar, who commanded the

small force of United States regulars in the Territory, was …

a Revolutionary veteran. Our frontier military stations

extended as far as Vincennes, on the Wabash, which Major

Hamtranck, a Canadian Frenchman, commanded. The British

commandant was at Detroit, whence he communicated constantly

with the Governor-General of the provinces, Lord Dorchester,

by whose instigation the Northwestern Indians at this period

were studiously kept at enmity with the United States. … A

formidable expedition against the Indians was determined upon

by the President and St. Clair [Governor of the Northwest

Territory]; and in the fall of the year [1790] General Harmar

set out from Fort Washington for the Miami country, with a

force numbering somewhat less than 1,500, near three-fourths

of whom were militia raised in Western Pennsylvania and

Kentucky." Successful at first, the campaign ended in a

disastrous defeat on the Maumee.

J. Schouler,

History of the United States,

chapter 2, section 1 (volume 1).

"The remnant of his army which Harmar led back to Cincinnati

[Fort Washington] had the unsubdued savages almost continually

at their heels. As a rebuke to the hostile tribes the

expedition was an utter failure, a fact which was soon made

manifest. Indian attacks on the settlers immediately became

bolder. … Every block house in the territory was soon almost

in a state of siege. … Washington was authorized to raise an

army of 3,000 men for the protection of the Northwest. The

command of this army was given to St. Clair. At the same time

a corps of Kentucky volunteers was selected and placed under

General Charles Scott. The Kentuckians dashed into the Wabash

country, scattered the Indians, burned their villages and

returned with a crowd of prisoners. The more pretentious

expedition of St. Clair was not to be accomplished with so

fine a military flourish. Like Harmar's army, that led by St.

Clair was feeble in discipline, and disturbed by jealousies.

The agents of the Government equipped the expedition in a

shameful manner, delivering useless muskets, supplying powder

that would scarcely burn, and neglecting entirely a large

number of necessary supplies; so that after St. Clair with his

2,300 regulars and 600 militia had marched from Ludlow's

Station, north of Cincinnati, he found himself under the

necessity of delaying the march to secure supplies. The

militia deserted in great numbers. For the purpose of

capturing deserters and bringing up belated supplies, one of

the best regiments in the army was sent southward. While

waiting on one of the branches of the Wabash for the return of

this regiment the main force was on the fourth of November,

1791, surrounded and attacked by the lurking Indians. At the

first yell of the savages scores of the terrified militia

dropped their guns and bolted. St. Clair, who for some days

had been too ill to sit upon a horse, now exerted all his

strength in an effort to rally the wavering troops. His horses

were all killed, and his hat and clothing were ripped by the

bullets. But the lines broke, the men scattered and the

artillery was captured. Those who stood their ground fell in

their tracks till the fields were covered by 600 dead and

dying men. At last a retreat was ordered. … For many miles,

over a track littered with coats, hats, boots and powder

horns, the whooping victors chased the routed survivors of St.

Clair's army. It was a ghastly defeat. The face of every

settler in Ohio blanched at the news. Kentucky was thrown into

excitement and even Western Pennsylvania nervously petitioned

for protection. St. Clair was criticised and insulted. A

committee of Congress found him without blame. But he had been

defeated, and no amount of reasoning could unlink his name from

the tragedy of the dark November morning.

{2384}

Every effort was made to win over the Indians before making

another use of force. The Government sent peace messengers

into the Northwest. In one manner or another nearly every one

of the messengers was murdered. The Indians who listened at

all would hear of no terms of peace that did not promise the

removal of the whites from the northern side of the Ohio. The

British urged the tribes to make this extreme demand. Spain

also sent mischief-makers into the camps of the exultant red

men. … More bloodshed became inevitable; and in execution of

this last resort came one of the most popular of the

Revolutionary chieftains—'Mad Anthony' Wayne. Wayne led his

army from Cincinnati in October of 1793. He advanced carefully

in the path taken by St. Clair, found and buried the bones of

St. Clair's 600 lost, wintered at Greenville, and in the

summer of 1794 moved against the foe with strong

reinforcements from Kentucky. After a preliminary skirmish

between the Indians and the troops, Wayne, in accordance with

his instructions, made a last offer of peace. The offer was

evasively met, and Wayne pushed on. On the morning of

Wednesday the twentieth of August, 1794, the 'legion' came

upon the united tribes of Indians encamped on the north bank

of the Maumee and there, near the rapids of the Maumee, the

Indians were forced to face the most alert and vigorous enemy

they had yet encountered. The same daring tactics that had

carried Stony Point and made Anthony Wayne historic were here

directed against the Indian's timber coverts. … Encouraging

and marshaling the Indians were painted Canadian white men

bearing British arms. Many of these fell in the heaps of dead

and some were captured. When Wayne announced his victory he

declared that the Indian loss was greater than that incurred

by the entire Federal army in the war with Great Britain. Thus

ended the Indian reign of terror. After destroying the Indian

crops and possessions, in sight of the British fort, Wayne

fell back to Greenville and there made the celebrated treaty

by which on August 3, 1795, the red men came to a permanent

peace with the Thirteen Fires. From Cincinnati to Campus

Martius Wayne's victory sent a thrill of relief. The treaty,

ceding to the Union two thirds of the present State,

guaranteed the safety of all settlers who respected the

Indians' rights, and set in motion once more the machinery of

immigration."

A. Black,

The Story of Ohio,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

A. St. Clair,

Narrative of Campaign.

C. W. Butterfield,

History of the Girtys,

chapters 23-30.

W. H. Smith,

The St. Clair Papers,

volume 2.

W. L. Stone,

Life of Brant,

volume 2, chapters 10-12.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1811.

Harrison's campaign against Tecumseh and his League.

Battle of Tippecanoe.

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

----------NORTHWEST TERRITORY: End--------

NORTHWESTERN OR OREGON BOUNDARY QUESTION, Settlement of the.

See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846,

and ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

NORTHWESTERN OR SAN JUAN WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

See SAN JUAN WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

NORTHWESTERN PROVINCES OF INDIA, English Acquisition of the.

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

NORUMBEGA.

"Norembega, or Norumbega, more properly called Arambec

(Hakluyt, III. 167), was, in Ramusio's map, the country

embraced within Nova Scotia, southern New Brunswick, and a

part of Maine. De Laet confines it to a district about the

mouth of the Penobscot. Wytfleit and other early writers say

that it had a capital city of the same name; and in several

old maps this fabulous metropolis is laid down, with towers

and churches, on the river Penobscot. The word is of Indian

origin."

F. Parkman,

Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,

chapter 1, foot-note.

On Gastaldi's map, of New France, made in 1550, "the name 'La

Nuova Francia' is written in very large letters, indicating

probably that this name is meant for the entire country. The

name 'Terra de Nurumbega' is written in smaller letters, and

appears to be attached only to the peninsula of Nova Scotia.

Crignon, however, the author of the discourse which this map

is intended to illustrate, gives to this name a far greater

extent. He says: 'Going beyond the cape of the Bretons, there

is a country contiguous to this cape, the coast of which

trends to the west a quarter southwest to the country of

Florida, and runs along for a good 500 leagues; which coast

was discovered fifteen years ago by Master Giovanni da

Verrazano, in the name of the king of France and of Madame la

Regente; and this country is called by many 'La Francese,' and

even by the Portuguese themselves; and its end is toward

Florida under 78° W., and 38° N. … The country is named by the

inhabitants 'Nurumbega'; and between it and Brazil is a great

gulf, in which are the islands of the West Indies, discovered

by the Spaniards. From this it would appear that, at the time

of the discourse, the entire east coast of the United States,

as far as Florida, was designated by the name of Nurumbega.

Afterwards, this name was restricted to New England; and, at a

later date, it was applied only to Maine, and still later to

the region of the Penobscot. … The name 'Norumbega,' or

'Arambec,' in Hakluyt's time, was applied to Maine, and

sometimes to the whole of New England."

J. G. Kohl,

History of the Discovery of Maine

(Maine Historical Society Collection,

series 2, volume 1), pages 231 and 283.

"The story of Norumbega is invested with the charms of fable

and romance. The name is found in the map of Hieronimus da

Verrazano of 1529, as 'Aranbega,' being restricted to a

definite and apparently unimportant locality. Suddenly, in

1539, Norumbega appears in the narrative of the Dieppe Captain

as a vast and opulent region, extending from Cape Breton to

the Cape of Florida. About three years later Allefonsce

described the 'River of Norumbega,' now identified with the

Penobscot, and treated the capital of the country as an

important market for the trade in fur. Various maps of the

period of Allefonsce confine the name of Norumbega to a

distinct spot; but Gastaldi's map, published by Ramusio in

1556,—though modelled after Verrazano's, of which indeed it is

substantially an extract,—applies the name to the region lying

between Cape Breton and the Jersey coast. From this time until

the seventeenth century Norumbega was generally regarded as

embracing all New England, and sometimes portions of Canada,

though occasionally the country was known by other names.

{2385}

Still, in 1582, Lok seems to have thought that the Penobscot

formed the southern boundary of Norumbega, which he shows on

his map as an island; while John Smith, in 1620, speaks of

Norumbega as including New England and the region as far south

as Virginia. On the other hand Champlain, in 1605, treated

Norumbega as lying within the present territory of Maine. He

searched for its capital on the banks of the Penobscot, and as

late as 1669 Heylin was dreaming of the fair city of

Norumbega. Grotius, for a time at least, regarded the name as

of Old Northern origin and connected with 'Norbergia.' It was

also fancied that a people resembling the Mexicans once lived

upon the banks of the Penobscot. Those who have labored to

find an Indian derivation for the name say that it means 'the

place of a fine city.' At one time the houses of the city were

supposed to be very splendid, and to be supported upon pillars

of crystal and silver."

B. F. De Costa,

Norumbega and its English Explorers

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 3, chapter 6).

ALSO IN:

J. Winsor,

Cartography of North East Coast of America,

(N. and C. History of America,

volume 4, chapter 2).

NORWAY.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES.

NOSE MONEY.

A poll-tax levied among the ancient Scandinavians seems to

have borne this name because a defaulting tax-payer might

suffer the loss of his nose, and the Danes in Ireland are

thought to have imposed the same there.

T. Moore,

History of Ireland,

volume 2, chapter 17.

NOTABLES, The Assembly of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.

NOTIUM, Battle of (B. C. 407).

See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

NOTTOWAYS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

----------NOVA SCOTIA: Start--------

NOVA SCOTIA:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ABNAKIS, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1000.

Supposed identity with the Markland of Norse sagas.

See AMERICA: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

NOVA SCOTIA: 16th century.

Embraced in the Norumbega of the old geographers.

See NORUMBEGA;

also CANADA: NAMES.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1603-1608.

The first French settlements, at Port Royal (Annapolis).

See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605; and 1606-1608.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1604.

Origin of the name Acadia.

In 1604, after the death of De Chastes, who had sent out

Champlain on his first voyage to Canada, Pierre du Guast,

Sieur de Monts, took the enterprise in hand and "petitioned

the king for leave to colonize La Cadie, or Acadie, a region

defined as extending from the 40th to the 46th degree of north

latitude, or from Philadelphia to beyond Montreal. … De Monts

gained his point. He was made Lieutenant-General in Acadia. …

This name is not found in any earlier public document. It was

afterwards restricted to the peninsula of Nova Scotia, but the

dispute concerning the limits of Acadia was a proximate cause

of the war of 1755. The word is said to be derived from the

Indian Aquoddiauke, or Aquoddie, supposed to mean the fish

called a pollock. The Bay of Passamaquoddy, 'Great Pollock

Water,' if we may accept the same authority, derives its name

from the same origin, Potter in 'Historical Magazine,' I. 84.

This derivation is doubtful. The Micmac word, 'Quoddy,'

'Kady,' or 'Cadie,' means simply a place or region, and is

properly used in conjunction with some other noun; as, for

example, 'Katakady,' the Place of Eels. … Dawson and Rand, in

'Canadian Antiquarian and Numismatic Journal.'"

F. Parkman,

Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,

chapter 2, and foot-note.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1610-1613.

The Port Royal colony revived,

but destroyed by the English of Virginia.

See CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

English grant to Sir William Alexander.

Cession to France.

Quarrels of La Tour and D'Aulnay.

English reconquest and recession to France.

"In 1621, Sir William Alexander, a Scotchman of some literary

pretensions, had obtained from King James [through the Council

for New England, or Plymouth Company—see NEW ENGLAND: A. D.

1621-1631] a charter, (dated September 10, 1621) for the

lordship and barony of New Scotland, comprising the territory

now known as the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Under this grant he made several unsuccessful attempts at

colonization; and in 1625 he undertook to infuse fresh life

into his enterprise by parcelling out the territory into

baronetcies. Nothing came of the scheme, and by the treaty of

St. Germains, in 1632, Great Britain surrendered to France all

the places occupied by the English within these limits. Two

years before this, however, Alexander's rights in a part of

the territory had been purchased by Claude and Charles de la

Tour; and shortly after the peace the Chevalier Razilly was

appointed by Louis XIII. governor of the whole of Acadia. He

designated as his lieutenants Charles de la Tour for the

portion east of the St. Croix, and Charles de Menou, Sieur

d'Aulnay-Charnisé, for the portion west of that river. The

former established himself on the River St. John, where the

city of St. John now stands, and the latter at Castine, on the

eastern shore of Penobscot Bay. Shortly after his appointment,

La Tour attacked and drove away a small party of Plymouth men

who had set up a trading-post at Machias; and in 1635 D'Aulnay

treated another party of the Plymouth colonists in a similar

way. In retaliation for this attack, Plymouth hired and

despatched a vessel commanded by one Girling, in company with

their own barque, with 20 men under Miles Standish, to

dispossess the French; but the expedition failed to accomplish

anything. Subsequently the two French commanders quarrelled,

and, engaging in active hostilities, made efforts (not

altogether unsuccessful) to enlist Massachusetts in their

quarrel. For this purpose La Tour visited Boston in person in

the summer of 1643, and was hospitably entertained. He was not

able to secure the direct cooperation of( Massachusetts; but

he was permitted to hire four vessels and a pinnace to aid him

in his attack on D'Aulnay. The expedition was so far

successful as to destroy a mill and some standing corn

belonging to his rival. In the following year La Tour made a

second visit to Boston for further help; but he was able only

to procure the writing of threatening letters from the

Massachusetts authorities to D'Aulnay. Not long after La

Tour's departure from Boston, envoys from D'Aulnay arrived

here; and after considerable delay a treaty was signed

pledging the colonists to neutrality, which was ratified by

the Commissioners of the United Colonies in the following

year; but it was not until two years later that it was

ratified by new envoys from the crafty Frenchman.

{2386}

In this interval D'Aulnay captured by assault La Tour's fort

at St. John, securing booty to a large amount; and a few weeks

afterward Madame la Tour, who seems to have been of a not less

warlike turn than her husband, and who had "bravely defended

the fort, died of shame and mortification. La Tour was reduced

to the last extremities; but he finally made good his losses,

and in 1653 he married the widow of his rival, who had died

two or three years before. In 1654, in accordance with secret

instructions from Cromwell, the whole of Acadia was subjugated

by an English force from Boston under the command of Major

Robert Sedgwick, of Charlestown, and Captain John Leverett, of

Boston. To the latter the temporary government of the country

was intrusted. Ineffectual complaints of this aggression were

made to the British government; but by the treaty of

Westminster, in the following year, England was left in

possession, and the question of title was referred to

commissioners. In 1656 it was made a province by Cromwell, who

appointed Sir Thomas Temple governor, and granted the whole

territory to Temple and to one William Crown and Stephen de la

Tour, son of the late governor. The rights of the latter were

purchased by the other two proprietors, and Acadia remained in

possession of the English until the treaty of Breda, in 1668,

when it was ceded to France with undefined limits. Very little

was done by the French to settle and improve the country."

C. C. Smith,

Acadia

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 4, chapter 4).

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1690-1692.

Temporary conquest by the Massachusetts colonists.

Recovery by the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1710.

Final conquest by the English and change of name.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713.

Relinquished to Great Britain.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713;

and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

Troubles with the French inhabitants—the Acadians.

Their refusal to swear allegiance.

Hostilities with the Indians.

"It was evident from the first that the French intended to

interpret the cession of Acadia in as restricted a sense as

possible, and that it was their aim to neutralize the power of

England in the colony, by confining it within the narrowest

limits. The inhabitants numbered some 2,500 at the time of the

treaty of Utrecht, divided into three principal settlements at

Port Royal, Mines, and Chignecto. The priests at these

settlements during the whole period from the treaty of Utrecht

to the expulsion of the Acadians were, with scarcely an

exception, agents of the French Government, in their pay, and

resolute opponents of English rule. The presence of a powerful

French establishment at Louisburg, and their constant

communications with Canada, gave to the political teachings of

those priests a moral influence, which went far towards making

the Acadians continue faithful to France. They were taught to

believe that they might remain in Acadia, in an attitude of

scarcely concealed hostility to the English Government, and

hold their lands and possessions as neutrals, on the condition

that they should not take up arms either for the French or

English. … By the 14th article of the treaty of Utrecht, it

was stipulated 'that the subjects of the King of France may

have liberty to remove themselves within a year to any other

place, with all their movable effects. But those who are

willing to remain, and to be subject to the King of Great

Britain, "are to enjoy the free exercise of their religion

according to the usages of the church of Rome, as far as the

laws of Great Britain do allow the same.' … It was never

contemplated that the Acadians should establish themselves in

the country a colony of enemies of British power, ready at all

times to obstruct the authority of the government, and to make

the possession of Acadia by England merely nominal. … Queen

Anne died in August, 1714, and in January, 1715, Messrs.

Capoon and Button were commissioned by Governor Nicholson to

proceed in the sloop of war Caulfield to Mines, Chignecto,

River St. John, Passamaquoddy and Penobscot, to proclaim King

George, and to tender and administer the oaths of allegiance

to the French inhabitants. The French refused to take the

oaths, and some of the people of Mines made the pretence that

they intended to withdraw from the colony. … A year later the

people of Mines notified Caulfield [Lieutenant-Governor] that

they intended to remain in the country, and at this period it

would seem that most of the few French inhabitants who

actually left the Province had returned. Caulfield then

summoned the inhabitants of Annapolis, and tendered them the

oath of allegiance, but with no better success than his

deputies had met at Mines and Chignecto. … General Phillips,

who became Governor of Nova Scotia in 1717, and who arrived in

the Province early in 1720, had no more success than his

predecessors in persuading the Acadians to take the oaths.

Every refusal on their part only served to make them more bold

in defying the British authorities. … They held themselves in

readiness to take up arms against the English the moment war

was declared between the two Crowns, and to restore Acadia to

France. But, as there was a peace of thirty years duration

between France and England after the treaty of Utrecht, there

was no opportunity of carrying this plan into effect.

Vaudreuil, Governor of Canada, however, continued to keep the

Acadians on the alert by means of his agents, and the Indians

were incited to acts of hostility against the English, both in

Acadia and Maine. The first difficulty occurred at Canso in

1720, by a party of Indians assailing the English fishermen

there. … The Indians were incited to this attack by the French

of Cape Breton, who were annoyed at one of their vessels being

seized at Canso by a British war vessel for illegal fishing. …

The Indians had indeed some reason to be disquieted, for the

progress of the English settlements east of the Kennebec

filled them with apprehensions. Unfortunately the English had

not been always so just in their dealings with them that they

could rely entirely on their forbearance. The Indians claimed

their territorial rights in the lands over which the English

settlements were spreading; the French encouraged them in this

claim, alleging that they had never surrendered this territory

to the English. While these questions were in controversy the

Massachusetts authorities were guilty of an act which did not

tend to allay the distrust of the Indians.

{2387}

This was nothing less than an attempt to seize the person of

Father Ralle, the Jesuit missionary at Norridgewock. He,

whether justly or not, was blamed for inciting the Indians to

acts of hostility, and was therefore peculiarly obnoxious to

the English." The attempt to capture Father Ralle, at

Norridgewock, which was made in December, 1721, and which

failed, exasperated the Indians, and "in the summer of 1722 a

war commenced, in which all the Indian tribes from Cape Canso

to the Kennebec were involved. The French could not openly

take part in the war, but such encouragement and assistance as

they could give the Indians secretly they freely supplied."

This war continued until 1725, and cost the lives of many of

the colonists of New England and Nova Scotia. Its most serious

event was the destruction of Norridgewock and the barbarous

murder of Father Ralle, by an expedition from Massachusetts in

the summer of 1724. In November, 1725, a treaty of peace was

concluded, the Indians acknowledging the sovereignty of King

George. After the conclusion of the Indian war, the

inhabitants of Annapolis River took a qualified oath of

allegiance, with a clause exempting them from bearing arms. At

Mines and Chignecto they still persisted in their refusal; and

when, on the death of George I. and the accession of George

II., the inhabitants of Annapolis were called upon to renew

their oath, they also refused again. In 1729 Governor Phillips

returned to the province and had great success during the next

year in persuading the Acadians, with a few exceptions only

throughout the French settlements, to take an oath of

allegiance without any condition as to the bearing or not

bearing of arms. "The Acadians afterwards maintained that when

they took this oath of allegiance, it was with the

understanding that a clause was to be inserted, relieving them

from bearing arms. The statement was probably accurate, for

that was the position they always assumed, but the matter

seems to have been lost sight of, and so for the time the

question of oaths, which had been such a fertile cause of

discord in the Province, appeared to be set at rest."

J. Hannay,

History of Acadia,

chapter 17.

ALSO IN:

F. Parkman,

Montcalm and Wolfe,

volume 1, chapter 4.

P. H. Smith,

Acadia,

pages 114-121.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1744-1748.

The Third Intercolonial War (King George's War).

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745;

and 1745-1748.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755.

Futile discussion of boundary questions.

The Acadian "Neutrals" and their conduct.

The founding of Halifax.

Hostilities renewed.

"During the nominal peace which followed the Treaty of

Aix-la-Chapelle, the representatives of the two governments

were anxiously engaged in attempting to settle by actual

occupation the question of boundaries, which was still left

open by that treaty. It professed to restore the boundaries as

they had been before the war; and before the war the entire

basin of the Mississippi, as well as the tract between the St.

Lawrence River and Gulf, the Bay of Fundy, and the Kennebec,

was claimed by both nations, with some show of reason, as no

convention between them had ever defined the rights of each.

Names had been given to vast tracts of land whose limits were

but partly defined, or at one time defined in one way, at

another time in another, and when these names were mentioned

in treaties they were understood by each party according to

its own interest. The treaty of 1748, therefore, not only left

abundant cause for future war, but left occasion for the

continuance of petty border hostilities in time of nominal

peace. Commissioners were appointed, French and English, to

settle the question of the disputed territory, but the

differences were too wide to be adjusted by anything but

conquest. While the most important question was that of the

great extent of territory at the west, and … both nations were

devising means for establishing their claims to it, Acadia, or

Nova Scotia, was the scene of a constant petty warfare. The

French were determined to restrict the English province to the

peninsula now known by that name. The Governor of Canada sent

a "few men under Boishebert to the mouth of the St. John's to

hold that part of the territory. A little old fort built by

the Indians had stood for fifty years on the St. John's at the

mouth of the Nerepis, and there the men established

themselves. A larger number was sent under La Corne to keep

possession of Chignecto, on the isthmus which, according to

French claims, formed the northern boundary of English

territory. In all the years that England had held nominal rule

in Acadia, not a single English settlement had been formed,

and apparently not a step of progress had been taken in

gaining the loyalty of the inhabitants. A whole generation had

grown up during the time; but they were no less devoted to

France than their fathers had been. It was said that the king

of England had not one truly loyal subject in the peninsula,

outside of the fort at Annapolis. … Among the schemes

suggested for remedying this state of affairs, was one by

Governor Shirley [of Massachusetts], to place strong bands of

English settlers in all the important towns, in order that the

Government might have friends and influence throughout the

country. Nothing came of this; but in 1749 Parliament voted

£40,000 for the purpose of settling a colony. … Twenty-five

hundred persons being ready to go in less than two months from

the time of the first advertisement, the colony was entrusted

to Colonel Edward Cornwallis (uncle of the Cornwallis of the

Revolutionary War), and he was made Governor of Nova Scotia.

Chebucto was selected as the site of the colony, and the town

was named Halifax in honor of the president of the Lords of

Trade and Plantations [see, also, HALIFAX: A. D. 1749]. … In

July, a council was held at Halifax, when Governor Cornwallis

gave the French deputies a paper declaring what the Government

would allow to the French subjects, and what would be required

of them." They were called upon to take the oath of

allegiance, so often refused before. They claimed the

privilege of taking a qualified oath, such as had been

formerly allowed in certain cases, and which exempted them

from bearing arms. "They wished to stand as neutrals, and,

indeed, were often called so. Cornwallis replied that nothing

less than entire allegiance would be accepted. … About a month

later the people sent in a declaration with a thousand

signatures, stating that they had resolved not to take the

oath, but were determined to leave the country. Cornwallis

took no steps to coerce them, but wrote to England for

instructions."

{2388}

Much of the trouble with the Acadians was attributed to a

French missionary, La Loutre, who was also accused of inciting

the Indians to hostilities. In 1750, Major Lawrence was sent

to Chignecto, with 400 men, to build a block-house on the

little river Messagouche, which the French claimed as their

southern boundary. "On the southern bank was a prosperous

village called Beaubassin, and La Corne [the French commander]

had compelled its inhabitants to take the oath of allegiance

to the King of France. When Lawrence arrived, all the

inhabitants of Beaubassin, about 1,000, having been persuaded

by La Loutre, set fire to their houses, and, leaving behind

the fruits of years of industry, turned their backs on their

fertile fields, and crossed the river, to put themselves under

the protection of La Corne's troops. Many Acadians from other

parts of the peninsula also left their homes, and lived in

exile and poverty under the French dominion, hoping for a

speedy change of masters in Nova Scotia. … In the same year a

large French fort, Beau Séjour, was built on the northern side

of the Messagouche, and a smaller one, Gaspereaux, at Baie

Verte. Other stations were also planted, forming a line of

fortified posts from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the month of

the St. John's. … The commission appointed to settle the

question of boundaries had broken up without accomplishing any

results; and it was resolved by the authorities in Nova Scotia

and Massachusetts [1754] that an expedition should be sent

against Fort Beau Séjour. … Massachusetts … raised about 2,000

troops for the contemplated enterprise, who were under the

command of Lieutenant-Colonel John Winslow. To this force were

added about 800 regulars, and the whole was placed under the

command of Lieutenant-Colonel Moncton. They reached Chignecto

on the 2d of June," 1755. The French were found unprepared for

long resistance, and Beau Séjour was surrendered on the 16th.

"After Beau Séjour, the smaller forts were quickly reduced.

Some vessels sent to the mouth of the St. John's found the

French fort deserted and burned. The name of Beau Séjour was

changed to Cumberland."

R. Johnson.

History of the French War,

chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

J. G. Palfrey,

History of New England,

book 5, chapter 11 (volume 5).

W. Kingsford,

History of Canada,

book 11, chapters 3 and 6 (volume 3).

See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;

and ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.

Frustrated naval expedition of the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.

The removal of the Acadians and their dispersion in exile.

"The campaign of the year 1755, which had opened in Nova

Scotia with so much success, and which promised a glorious

termination, disappointed the expectations and awakened the

fears of the Colonists. The melancholy and total defeat of the

army under General Braddock, while on his march against Fort

du Quesnè, threw a gloom over the British Provinces. Niagara

and Crown-point were not only unsubdued, but it was evident

that Governor Shirley would have to abandon, for this year at

least, the attempt; while Louisburg was reinforced, the

savages let loose upon the defenceless settlements of the

English, and the tide of war seemed ready to roll back upon

the invaders. Amidst this general panic, Governor Lawrence and

his Council, aided by Admirals Boscawen and Moystyn, assembled

to consider the necessary measures that were to be adopted

towards the Acadians, whose character and situation were so

peculiar as to distinguish them from every other people who

had suffered under the scourge of war. … It was finally

determined, at this consultation, to remove and disperse this

whole people among the British Colonies; where they could not

unite in any offensive measures, and where they might be

naturalized to the Government and Country. The execution of

this unusual and general sentence was allotted chiefly to the

New England Forces, the Commander of which [Colonel Winslow],

from the humanity and firmness of his character, was well

qualified to carry it into effect. It was, without doubt, as

he himself declared, disagreeable to his natural make and

temper; and his principles of implicit obedience as a soldier

were put to a severe test by this ungrateful kind of duty;

which required an ungenerous, cunning, and subtle severity. …

They were kept entirely ignorant of their destiny until the

moment of their captivity, and were overawed, or allured, to

labour at the gathering in of their harvest, which was

secretly allotted to the use of their conquerors."

T. C. Haliburton,

Account of Nova Scotia,

volume 1, pages 170-175.

"Winslow prepared for the embarkation. The Acadian prisoners

and their families were divided into groups answering to their

several villages, in order that those of the same village

might, as far as possible, go in the same vessel. It was also

provided that the members of each family should remain

together; and notice was given them to hold themselves in

readiness. 'But even now,' he writes. 'I could not persuade

the people I was in earnest.' Their doubts were soon ended.

The first embarkation took place on the 8th of October [1755].

… When all, or nearly all, had been sent off from the various

points of departure, such of the houses and barns as remained

standing were burned, in obedience to the orders of Lawrence,

that those who had escaped might be forced to come in and

surrender themselves. The whole number removed from the

province, men, women, and children, was a little above 6,000.

Many remained behind; and while some of these withdrew to

Canada, Isle St. Jean, and other distant retreats, the rest

lurked in the woods, or returned to their old haunts, whence

they waged for several years a guerilla warfare against the

English. Yet their strength was broken, and they were no

longer a danger to the province. Of their exiled countrymen,

one party overpowered the crew of the vessel that carried

them, ran her ashore at the mouth of the St. John, and

escaped. The rest were distributed among the colonies from

Massachusetts to Georgia, the master of each transport having

been provided with a letter from Lawrence addressed to the

Governor of the province to which he was bound, and desiring

him to receive the unwelcome strangers. The provincials were

vexed at the burden imposed upon them; and though the Acadians

were not in general ill-treated, their lot was a hard one.

Still more so was that of those among them who escaped to

Canada. … Many of the exiles eventually reached Louisiana,

where their descendants now form a numerous and distinct

population. Some, after incredible hardship, made their way

back to Acadia, where, after the peace, they remained

unmolested. … In one particular the authors of the deportation

were disappointed in its results.

{2389}

They had hoped to substitute a loyal population for a

disaffected one; but they failed for some time to find

settlers for the vacated lands. … New England humanitarianism,

melting into sentimentality at a tale of woe, has been unjust

to its own. Whatever judgment may be passed on the cruel

measure of wholesale expatriation, it was not put in execution

till every resource of patience and persuasion had been tried

in vain."

F. Parkman,

Montcalm and Wolfe,

volume 1, chapter 8.

"The removal of the French Acadians from their homes was one

of the saddest episodes in modern history, and no one now will

attempt to justify it; but it should be added that the genius

of our great poet [Longfellow in 'Evangeline'] has thrown a

somewhat false and distorted light over the character of the

victims. They were not the peaceful and simple-hearted people

they are commonly supposed to have been; and their houses, as

we learn from contemporary evidence, were by no means the

picturesque, vine-clad, and strongly built cottages described

by the poet. The people were notably quarrelsome among

themselves, and to the last degree superstitious. They were

wholly under the influence of priests appointed by the French

bishops. … Even in periods when France and England were at

peace, the French Acadians were a source of perpetual danger

to the English colonists. Their claim to a qualified

allegiance was one which no nation then or now could sanction.

But all this does not justify their expulsion in the manner in

which it was executed."

C. C. Smith,

The Wars on the Seaboard

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 5, chapter 7).

"We defy all past history to produce a parallel case, in which

an unarmed and peaceable people have suffered to such an

extent as did the French Neutrals of Acadia at the hands of

the New England troops."

P. H. Smith,

Acadia,

page 216.

ALSO IN:

W. B. Reed,

The Acadian Exiles in Pennsylvania

(Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs,

volume 6, pages 283-316).

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1763.

Cession by France to England confirmed in the Treaty of Paris.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1763.

Cape Breton added to the government.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1782-1784.

Influx of Refugee Loyalists from the United States.

See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1820-1837.

The Family Compact.

See CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1854-1866.

The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):

A. D. 1854-1866.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1867.

Embraced in the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1871.

The Treaty of Washington.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1877-1888.

The Halifax Fishery Award.

Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington.

Renewed Fishery disputes.

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

----------NOVA SCOTIA: End--------

NOVANTÆ, The.

A tribe which, in Roman times, occupied the modern counties of

Kirkcudbright and Wigtown, Scotland.

See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

NOVARA,

Battle of (1513).

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

NOVARA,

Battle of (1821).

See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

NOVARA,

Battle of (1849).

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

NOVELS OF JUSTINIAN.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

NOVEMBER FIFTH.

See Guy FAWKES' DAY.

----------NOVGOROD: Start--------

NOVGOROD: Origin.

See RUSSIA.

RUSSIANS: A. D. 862.

NOVGOROD: 11th Century.

Rise of the Commonwealth.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1054-1237.

NOVGOROD: A. D. 1237-1478.

Prosperity and greatness of the city as a commercial republic.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

NOVGOROD: 14-15th Centuries.

In the Hanseatic League.

See HANSA TOWNS.

----------NOVGOROD: End--------

NOVI, Battle of.

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

NOVIOMAGUS.

Modern Nimeguen.

See BATAVIANS.

NOYADES.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

NOYON, Treaty of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

NUBIANS, The.

See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

NUITHONES, The.

See AVIONES.

----------NULLIFICATION: Start--------

NULLIFICATION:

First assertion of the doctrine

in the United States of America.

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

NULLIFICATION:

Doctrine and Ordinance in South Carolina.

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

----------NULLIFICATION: End--------

NUMANTIAN WAR, The.

"In 143 B. C. the Celtiberians again appeared in the field

[resisting the Romans in Spain]; and when, on the death of

Viriathus, D. Junius Brutus had pushed the legions to the

Atlantic in 137 B. C., and practically subdued Lusitania, the

dying spirit of Spanish independence still held out in the

Celtiberian fortress city of Numantia. Perched on a

precipitous hill by the banks of the upper Douro, occupied

only by eight thousand men, this little place defied the power

of Rome as long as Troy defied the Greeks. … In 137 B. C. the

consul, C. Hostilius Mancinus, was actually hemmed in by a

sortie of the garrison, and forced to surrender. He granted

conditions of peace to obtain his liberty; but the senate

would not ratify them, though the young quæstor, Tiberius

Gracchus, who had put his hand to the treaty, pleaded for

faith and honour. Mancinus, stripped and with manacles on his

hands, was handed over to the Numantines, who, like the

Samnite Pontius, after the Caudine Forks, refused to accept

him. In 134 B. C. the patience of the Romans was exhausted;

Scipio was sent. … The mighty destroyer of Carthage drew

circumvallations five miles in length around the stubborn

rock, and waited for the result. The Virgilian picture of the

fall of Troy is not more moving than are the brave and ghastly

facts of the fall of Numantia. The market-place was turned

into a funeral pyre for the gaunt, famine-stricken citizens to

leap upon. … When the surrender was made only a handful of men

marched out."

R. F. Horton,

History of the Romans,

chapter 18.

ALSO IN:

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

chapters 6-7.

See, also, LUSITANIA;

and SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.

{2390}

NUMERIANUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 283-284.

----------NUMIDIA: Start--------

NUMIDIA: The Country and People.

See NUMIDIANS.

NUMIDIA: B. C. 204.

Alliance with Carthage.

Subjection to Rome.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

The Jugurthine War.

The Numidian kingdom, over which the Romans, at the end of the

second Punic War, had settled their friend Masinissa, passed

at his death to his son Micipsa. In 118 B. C. Micipsa died,

leaving two young sons, and also a bastard nephew, Jugurtha,

whom he feared. He divided the kingdom between these three,

hoping to secure the fidelity of Jugurtha to his sons. It was

a policy that failed. Jugurtha made sure of what was given to

him, and then grasped at the rest. One of his young cousins

was soon cleared from his path by assassination; on the other

he opened war. This latter, Adherbal by name, appealed to

Rome, but Jugurtha despatched agents with money to bribe the

senate, and a commission sent over to divide Numidia gave him

the western and better half. The commissioners were no sooner

out of Africa than he began war upon Adherbal afresh, shut him

up in his strong capital, Cirta [B. C. 112], and placed the

city under siege. The Romans again interfered, but, he

captured Cirta, notwithstanding, and tortured Adherbal to

death. The corrupt party at Rome which Jugurtha kept in his

pay made every effort to stifle discussion of his nefarious

doings; but one bold tribune, C. Memmius, roused the people on

the subject and forced the senate to declare war against him.

Jugurtha's gold, however, was still effectual, and it

paralyzed the armies sent to Africa, by corrupting the venial

officers who commanded them. Once, Jugurtha went to Rome,

under a safe conduct, invited to testify as a witness against

the men whom he had bribed, but really expecting to be able to

further his own cause in the city. He found the people furious

against him and he only saved himself from being forced to

criminate his Roman senatorial mercenaries by buying a

tribune, who brazenly vetoed the examination of the Numidian

king. Jugurtha being, then, ordered out of Rome, the war

proceeded again, and in 109 B. C. the command passed to an

honest general, Q. Metellus, who took with him Caius Marius,

the most capable soldier of Rome, whose capability was at that

time not half understood. Under Metellus the Romans penetrated

Numidia to Zama, but failed to take the town, and narrowly

escaped a great disaster on the Muthul, where a serious battle

was fought. In 107 B. C. Metellus was superseded by Marius,

chosen consul for that year and now really beginning his

remarkable career. Meantime Jugurtha had gained an ally in

Bocchus, king of Mauretania, and Marius, after two campaigns

of doubtful result, found more to hope from diplomacy than

from war. With the help of Sulla,—his future great rival—who

had lately been sent over to his army, in command of a troop

of horse, he persuaded the Mauretanian king to betray Jugurtha

into his hands. The dreaded Numidian was taken to Rome [B. C.

104], exhibited in the triumph of Marius, and then brutally

thrust into the black dungeon called the Tullianum to die of

slow starvation. Bocchus was rewarded for his treachery by the

cession to him of part of Numidia; Marius, intoxicated with

the plaudits of Rome, first saved it from the Cimbri and then

stabbed it with his own sword; Sulla, inexplicable harbinger

of the coming Cæsars, bided his time.

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 7, chapter 8.

ALSO IN:

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 1, chapters 26-29.

Sallust,

Jugurthine War.

NUMIDIA: B. C. 46.

The kingdom extinguished by Cæsar and annexed to Rome.

See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

NUMIDIA: A. D. 374-398.

Revolts of Firmus and Gildo.

See ROME: A. D. 396-398.

----------NUMIDIA: End--------

NUMIDIANS AND MAURI, The.

"The union of the Aryan invaders [of North Africa] with the

ancient populations of the coast sprung from Phut gave birth

to the Mauri, or Maurusii, whose primitive name it has been

asserted was Medes, probably an alteration of the word

Amazigh. The alliance of the same invaders with the Getulians

beyond the Atlas produced the Numidians. The Mauri were

agriculturists, and of settled habits; the Numidians, as their

Greek appellation indicates, led a nomadic life."

F. Lenormant,

Manual of Ancient History of the East,

book 6, chapter 5 (volume 2).

In northern Africa, "on the south and west of the immediate

territory of the Carthaginian republic, lived various races of

native Libyans who are commonly known by the name of

Numidians. But these were in no way, as their Greek name

('Nomads') would seem to imply, exclusively pastoral races.

Several districts in their possession, especially in the

modern Algeria, were admirably suited for agriculture. Hence

they had not only fixed and permanent abodes, but a number of

not unimportant cities, of which Hippo and Cirta, the

residences of the chief Numidian princes, were the most

considerable."

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).

The various peoples of North Africa known anciently and

modernly as Libyans, Numidians, or Nomades, Mauri,

Mauritanians or Moors, Gaetulians and Berbers, belong

ethnographically to one family of men, distinguished alike

from the negroes and the Egyptians.

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 8, chapter 13.

See, also, LIBYANS; CARTHAGE: B. C. 146;

PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND; and NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

NUNCOMAR AND WARREN HASTINGS.

See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

NUR MAHAL, OR NUR JAHAN, Empress of India.

See INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658.

----------NUREMBERG: Start--------

NUREMBERG.

"Nuremberg (Nürnberg) (Norimberga) is situated on the Regnitz,

in the centre of Middle Franconia, about 90 miles northwest of

Munich, to which it is second in size and importance, with a

population of about 90,000. The name is said to be derived

from the ancient inhabitants of Noricum, who migrated hither

about the year 451, on being driven from their early

settlements on the Danube by the Huns. Here they distinguished

themselves by their skill in the working of metals, which

abound in the neighbouring mountains. Before the eleventh

century the history of Nuremberg is enveloped in a mist of

impenetrable obscurity, from which it does not emerge until

the time of the Emperor Henry III., who issued an edict, dated

July 16, 1050, 'ad castrum Noremberc,' a proof that it was a

place of considerable importance even at this early period.

Nuremberg afterwards became the favourite residence of the

Emperor Henry IV."

W. J. Wyatt,

History of Prussia,

volume 2, page 456.

{2391}

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1417.

Office of Burgrave bought by the city.

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1522-1524.

The two diets, and their recesses in favor of the Reformation.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1525.

Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1529.

Joined in the Protest which gave rise to the name Protestants.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1532.

Pacification of Charles V. with the Protestants.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1632.

Welcome to Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.

Siege by Wallenstein.

Battle on the Fürth.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1801-1803.

One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1806.

Loss of municipal freedom.

Absorption in the kingdom of Bavaria.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

----------NUREMBERG: End--------

NUYS, The Siege of

In 1474 Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, ambitious to

extend his dominions along the left bank of the Rhine, down to

the Netherlands, took advantage of a quarrel between the

citizens of Cologne and their prince-archbishop, to ally

himself with the latter. The citizens of Cologne had appointed

Herman of Hesse to be protector of the see, and he had

fortified himself at Nuys. Charles, with 60,000 men, laid

siege to the place, expecting to reduce it speedily. On the

contrary, he wasted months in the fruitless endeavor, and

became involved in the quarrel with the Swiss which brought

about his downfall. The abortive siege of Nuys was the

beginning of his disasters.

C. M. Davies,

History of Holland,

part 2, chapter 2.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.

NYANTICS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NYSTAD, Peace of.

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

O.

O. S.

Old Style.

See GREGORIAN CALENDAR.

OAK BOYS.

See. IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

OATES, Titus, and the "Popish Plot."

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

OBELISKS, Egyptian.

See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400.

OBERPFALZ.

See FRANCONIA: THE DUCHY AND THE CIRCLE.

OBES, The.

See GERUSIA;

and SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

OBLATES, The.

"The Oblates, or Volunteers, established by St. Charles

Borromeo in 1578, are a congregation of secular priests. …

Their special aim was to give edification to the diocese, and

to maintain the integrity of religion by the purity of their

lives, by teaching, and by zealously discharging the duties

committed to them by their bishop. These devoted ecclesiastics

were much loved by St. Charles. … Strange to say, they do not

seem to have been much appreciated elsewhere."

J. Alzog,

Manual of Universal Church History,

volume 3, page 456.

OBNUNTIATIO.

See ÆLIAN AND FUFIAN LAWS.

OBOLLA.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

OBOLUS.

See TALENT.

OBOTRITES, The.

See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

OBRENOVITCH DYNASTY, The.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

OC, Langue d'.

See LANGUE D'OC.

OCANA, Battle of.

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

OCCASIONAL CONFORMITY BILL.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.

OCEAN STEAM NAVIGATION, The beginnings of.

See STEAM NAVIGATION: ON THE OCEAN.

OCHLOCRACY.

This term was applied by the Greeks to an unlimited democracy,

where rights were made conditional on no gradations of

property, and where "provisions were made, not so much that

only a proved and worthy citizen should be elected, as that

everyone, without distinction, should be eligible for

everything."

G. Schömann,

Antiquity of Greece: The State,

part 1, chapter 3.

O'CONNELL, Daniel, The political agitations of.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829, to 1841-1848.

OCTAETËRIS, The.

See METON, THE YEAR OF.

OCTAVIUS, Caius (afterwards called Augustus),

and the founding of the Roman Empire.

See ROME: B. C. 44, after Cæsar's death,

to B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

OCTOBER CLUB, The.

See CLUBS: THE OCTOBER.

ODAL.

See ADEL.

ODELSRET.

See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY, TITLE V., ARTICLE 16.

ODELSTHING.

See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

ODENATHUS, The rule at Palmyra of.

See PALMYRA: THE RISE AND THE FALL.

ODEUM AT ATHENS, The.

"Pericles built, at the south-eastern base of the citadel, the

Odeum, which differed from the neighbouring theatre in this,

that the former was a covered space, in which musical

performances took place before a less numerous public. The

roof, shaped like a tent, was accounted an imitation of the

gorgeous tent pitched of old by Xerxes upon the soil of

Attica."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 3, chapter 3.

ODOACER, and the end of the line of Roman Emperors in the West.

See ROME: A. D. 455-476; and 488-526.

ODYSSEY, The.

See HOMER.

ŒA.

See LEPTIS MAGNA.

ŒCUMENICAL, OR ECUMENICAL, COUNCIL.

A general or universal council of the entire Christian Church.

Twenty such councils are recognized by the Roman Catholic

Church.

See COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH.

{2392}

ŒKIST.

The chief-founder of a Greek colonial city,—the leader of a

colonizing settlement, —was so entitled.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 47.

OELAND, Naval battle of (1713).

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

ŒNOË, Battle of.

A battle of some importance in the Corinthian War, fought

about B. C. 388, in the valley of the Charander, on the road

from Argos to Mantinea. The Lacedæmonians were defeated by the

Argives and Athenians.

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 5, chapter 4.

ŒNOPHYTA, Battle of (B. C. 456).

See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

ŒNOTRIANS, The.

"The territory [in Italy] known to Greek writers of the fifth

century B. C. by the names of Œnotria on the coast of the

Mediterranean, and Italia on that of the Gulfs of Tarentum and

Squillace, included all that lies south of a line drawn across

the breadth of the country, from the Gulf of Poseidonia

(Pæstum) and the river Silarus on the Mediterranean Sea, to

the north-west corner of the Gulf of Tarentum. It was bounded

northwards by the Iapygians and Messapians, who occupied the

Salentine peninsula and the country immediately adjoining to

Tarentum, and by the Peuketians on the Ionic Gulf. … This

Œnotrian or Pelasgian race were the population whom the Greek

colonists found there on their arrival. They were known

apparently under other names, such as the Sikels [Sicels],

(mentioned even in the Odyssey, though their exact locality in

that poem cannot be ascertained) the Italians, or Itali,

properly so called—the Morgetes,—and the Chaones,—all of them

names of tribes either cognate or subdivisional. The Chaones

or Chaonians are also found, not only in Italy, but in Epirus,

as one of the most considerable of the Epirotic tribes. … From

hence, and from some other similarities of name, it has been

imagined that Epirots, Œnotrians, Sikels, &c., were all names

of cognate people, and all entitled to be comprehended under

the generic appellation of Pelasgi. That they belonged to the

same ethnical kindred there seems fair reason to presume, and

also that in point of language, manners, and character, they

were not very widely separated from the ruder branches of the

Hellenic race. It would appear, too (as far as any judgment

can be formed on a point essentially obscure) that the

Œnotrians were ethnically akin to the primitive population of

Rome and Latium on one side, as they were to the Epirots on

the other; and that tribes of this race, comprising Sikels and

Itali properly so called, as sections, had at one time

occupied most of the territory from the left bank of the river

Tiber southward between the Appenines and the Mediterranean."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 22.

OESTERREICH.

See AUSTRIA.

ŒTA.

See THESSALY.

OFEN, Sieges and capture of (1684-1686).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

OFFA, King of Mercia, A. D. 758-794.

OFFA'S DYKE.

An earthen rampart which King Offa, of Mercia, in the eighth

century, built from the mouth of the Wye to the mouth of the

Tee, to divide his kingdom from Wales and protect it from

Welsh incursions. A few remains of it are still to be seen.

J. Rhys,

Celtic Britain.

OGALALAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

OGAM.

See OGHAM.

OGDEN TRACT, The.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

OGHAM INSCRIPTIONS.

"In the south and south-western counties of Ireland are to be

found, in considerable numbers, a class of inscribed

monuments, to which the attention of Irish archæologists has

been from time to time directed, but with comparatively little

result. … They [the inscriptions] are found engraved on pillar

stones in that archaic character known to Irish philologists

as the Ogham, properly pronounced Oum, and in an ancient

dialect of the Gaedhelic (Gaelic). These monuments are almost

exclusively found in the counties of Kerry, Cork, and

Waterford, numbering, as far as I have been able to ascertain,

147; the rest of Ireland supplies 13. … Again it is worthy of

remark, that while 29 Irish counties cannot boast of an Ogham

monument, they have been found in England, Wales, and

Scotland. In Devonshire, at Fardel, a stone has been

discovered bearing not only a fine and well-preserved Ogham

inscription, but also one in Romano-British letters. It is now

deposited in the British Museum. … The Ogham letters, as found

on Megalithic monuments, are formed by certain combinations of

a simple short line, placed in reference to one continuous

line, called the fleasg, or stem line; these combinations

range from one to five, and their values depend upon their

being placed above, across, or below the stem line; there are

five consonants above, five consonants below, and five

consonants across the line, two of which, NG and ST are

double, and scarcely ever used. The vowels are represented by

oval dots, or very short lines across the stem line. … The

characters in general use on the monuments are 18 in number. …

It may be expected from me that I should offer some conjecture

as to the probable age of this mode of writing. This, I

honestly acknowledge, I am unable to do, even approximately. …

I am however decided in one view, and it is this, that the

Ogham was introduced into Ireland long anterior to

Christianity, by a powerful colony who landed on the

south-west coast, who spread themselves along the southern and

round the eastern shores, who ultimately conquered or settled

the whole island, imposing their language upon the aborigines,

if such preceded them."

R. R. Brash,

Trans. Int. Cong. of Prehistoric Archæology, 1868.

ALSO IN:

R. R. Brash,

Ogam Inscribed Monuments.

OGLETHORPE'S GEORGIA COLONY.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

OGULNIAN LAW, The.

See ROME: B. C. 300.

OGYGIA.

See IRELAND: THE NAME.

----------OHIO: Start--------

OHIO:

The Name.

"The words Ohio, Ontario, and Onontio (or Yonnondio)—which

should properly be pronounced as if written 'Oheeyo,'

'Ontareeyo,' and 'Ononteeyo'—are commonly rendered 'Beautiful

River,' 'Beautiful Lake,' 'Beautiful Mountain.' This,

doubtless, is the meaning which each of the words conveys to

an Iroquois of the present day, unless he belongs to the

Tuscarora tribe. But there can be no doubt that the

termination 'īo' (otherwise written 'iyo,' 'iio,' 'eeyo,'

etc.) had originally the sense, not of 'beautiful,' but of

'great.' … Ontario is derived from the Huron 'yontare,' or

'ontare,' lake (Iroquois, 'oniatare'), with this termination.

… Ohio, in like manner, is derived, as M. Cuoq in the valuable

notes to his Lexicon (p. 159) informs us, from the obsolete

'ohia,' river, now only used in the compound form 'ohionha.'"

H. Hale,

The Iroquois Book of Rites,

appendix, note B.

{2393}

OHIO: (Valley):

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICA, PREHISTORIC;

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,

ALLEGHANS, DELAWARES, SHAWANESE.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1700-1735.

The beginnings of French Occupation.

See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1748-1754.

The first movements of the struggle

of French and English for possession.

"The close of King George's War was marked by an extraordinary

development of interest in the Western country. The

Pennsylvanians and Virginians had worked their way well up to

the eastern foot-hills of the last range of mountains

separating them from the interior. Even the Connecticut men

were ready to overleap the province of New York and take

possession of the Susquehanna. The time for the English

colonists to attempt the Great Mountains in force had been

long in coming, but it had plainly arrived. In 1748 the

Ingles-Draper settlement, the first regular settlement of

English-speaking men on the Western waters, was made at

'Draper's Meadow,' on the New River, a branch of the Kanawha.

The same year Dr. Thomas Walker, accompanied by a number of

Virginia gentlemen and a party of hunters, made their way by

Southwestern Virginia into Kentucky and Tennessee. … The same

year the Ohio company, consisting of thirteen prominent

Virginians and Marylanders, and one London merchant, was

formed. Its avowed objects were to speculate in Western lands,

and to carry on trade on an extensive scale with the Indians.

It does not appear to have contemplated the settlement of a

new colony. The company obtained from the crown a conditional

grant of 500,000 acres of land in the Ohio Valley, to be

located mainly between the Monongahela and Kanawha Rivers, and

it ordered large shipments of goods for the Indian trade from

London. … In 1750 the company sent Christopher Gist, a veteran

woodsman and trader living on the Yadkin, down the northern

side of the Ohio, with instructions, as Mr. Bancroft

summarizes them, 'to examine the Western country as far as the

Falls of the Ohio; to look for a large tract of good level

land; to mark the passes in the mountains; to trace the

courses of the rivers; to count the falls; to observe the

strength of the Indian nations.' Under these instructions,

Gist made the first English exploration of Southern Ohio of

which we have any report. The next year he made a similar

exploration of the country south of the Ohio, as far as the

Great Kanawha. … Gist's reports of his explorations added to

the growing interest in the over-mountain country. At that

time the Ohio Valley was waste and unoccupied, save by the

savages, but adventurous traders, mostly Scotch-Irish, and

commonly men of reckless character and loose morals, made

trading excursions as far as the River Miami. The Indian town

of Pickawillany, on the upper waters of that stream, became a

great centre of English trade and influence. Another evidence

of the growing interest in the West is the fact that the

colonial authorities, in every direction, were seeking to

obtain Indian titles to the Western lands, and to bind the

Indians to the English by treaties. The Iroquois had long

claimed, by right of conquest, the country from the Cumberland

Mountains to the Lower Lakes and the Mississippi, and for many

years the authorities of New York had been steadily seeking to

gain a firm treaty-hold of that country. In 1684, the

Iroquois, at Albany, placed themselves under the protection of

King Charles and the Duke of York [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1684];

in 1726, they conveyed all their lands in trust to England

[see NEW YORK: A. D. 1726], to be protected and defended by

his Majesty to and for the use of the grantors and their

heirs, which was an acknowledgment by the Indians of what the

French had acknowledged thirteen years before at Utrecht. In

1744, the very year that King George's War began, the deputies

of the Iroquois at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, confirmed to

Maryland the lands within that province, and made to Virginia

a deed that covered the whole West as effectually as the

Virginian interpretation of the charter of 1609 [see VIRGINIA:

A. D. 1744]. … This treaty is of the greatest importance in

subsequent history; it is the starting-point of later

negotiations with the Indians concerning Western lands. It

gave the English their first real treaty-hold upon the West;

and it stands in all the statements of the English claim to

the Western country, side by side with the Cabot voyages. …

There was, indeed, no small amount of dissension among the

colonies, and it must not be supposed that they were all

working together to effect a common purpose, The royal

governors could not agree. There were bitter dissensions

between governors and assemblies. Colony was jealous of

colony. … Fortunately, the cause of England and the colonies

was not abandoned to politicians. The time had come for the

Anglo-Saxon column, that had been so long in reaching them, to

pass the Endless Mountains; and the logic of events swept

everything into the Westward current. In the years following

the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle the French were not idle.

Galissonière, the governor of Canada, thoroughly comprehended

what was at stake. In 1749 he sent Cèloron de Bienville into

the Ohio Valley, with a suitable escort of whites and savages,

to take formal possession of the valley in the name of the

King of France, to propitiate the Indians, and in all ways

short of actual warfare to thwart the English plans. Bienville

crossed the portage from Lake Erie to Lake Chautauqua, the

easternmost of the portages from the Lakes to the southern

streams ever used by the French, and made his way by the

Alleghany River and the Ohio as far as the Miami, and returned

by the Maumee and Lake Erie to Montreal. His report to the

governor was anything but reassuring. He found the English

traders swarming in the valley, and the Indians generally well

disposed to the English. Nor did French interests improve the

two or three succeeding years. The Marquis Duquesne, who

succeeded Galissonière, soon discovered the drift of events.

He saw the necessity of action; he was clothed with power to

act, and he was a man of action, And so, early in the year

1753, while the English governors and assemblies were still

hesitating and disputing, he sent a strong force by Lake

Ontario and Niagara to seize and hold the northeastern

branches of the Ohio. This was a master stroke: unless

recalled, it would lead to war; and Duquesne was not the man

to recall it.

{2394}

This force, passing over the portage between Presque Isle and

French Creek, constructed Forts Le Bœuf and Venango, the

second at the confluence of French Creek and the Alleghany

River."

B. A. Hinsdale,

The Old Northwest,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

J. H. Perkins,

Annals of the West,

chapter 2.

B. Fernow

The Ohio Valley in Colonial Days,

chapter 5.

See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753.

O. H. Marshall,

De Celoron's Expedition to the Ohio in 1749

(Historical Writings, pages 237-274).

N. B. Craig,

The Olden Time,

volume 1, pages 1-10.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1754.

The opening battle.

Washington's first campaign.

The planting of the French at Forts Le Bœuf and Venango "put

them during high water in easy communication by boat with the

Alleghany River. French tact conciliated the Indians, and

where that failed arrogance was sufficient, and the expedition

would have pushed on to found new forts, but sickness weakened

the men, and Marin, the commander, now dying, saw it was all

he could do to hold the two forts, while he sent the rest of

his force back to Montreal to recuperate. Late in the autumn

Legardeur de Saint-Pierre arrived at Le Bœuf, as the successor

of Marin. He had not been long there when on the 11th of

December [1753] a messenger from Governor Dinwiddie, of

Virginia, with a small escort, presented himself at the fort.

The guide of the party was Christopher Gist; the messenger was

George Washington, then adjutant-general of the Virginia

militia. Their business was to inform the French commander

that he was building forts on English territory, and that he

would do well to depart peaceably. … At Le Bœuf Washington

tarried three days, during which Saint-Pierre framed his

reply, which was in effect that he must hold his post, while

Dinwiddie's letter was sent to the French commander at Quebec.

It was the middle of February, 1754, when Washington reached

Williamsburg on his return, and made his report to Dinwiddie.

The result was that Dinwiddie drafted 200 men from the

Virginia militia, and despatched them under Washington to

build a fort at the forks of the Ohio. The Virginia assembly,

forgetting for the moment its quarrel with the governor, voted

£10,000 to be expended, but only under the direction of a

committee of its own. Dinwiddie found difficulty in getting

the other colonies to assist, and the Quaker element in

Pennsylvania prevented that colony from being the immediate

helper which it might, from its position, have become.

Meanwhile some backwoodsmen had been pushed over the mountains

and had set to work on a fort at the forks. A much larger

French force under Contrecœur soon summoned them, and the

English retired. The French immediately began the erection of

Fort Duquesne [on the site now covered by the city of

Pittsburgh]. While this was doing, Dinwiddie was toiling with

tardy assemblies and their agents to organize a regiment to

support the backwoodsmen. Joshua Fry was to be its colonel,

with Washington as second in command. The latter, with a

portion of the men, had already pushed forward to Will's

Creek, the present Cumberland. Later he advanced with 150 men

to Great Meadows, where he learned that the French, who had

been reinforced, had sent out a party from their new fort,

marching towards him. Again he got word from an Indian —who,

from his tributary character towards the Iroquois, was called

Half-King, and who had been Washington's companion on his trip

to Le Bœuf—that this chieftain with some followers had tracked

two men to a dark glen, where he believed the French party

were lurking. Washington started with forty men to join

Half-King, and under his guidance they approached the glen and

found the French. Shots were exchanged. The French leader,

Jumonville, was killed, and all but one of his followers were

taken or slain. The mission of Jumonville was to scour for

English, by order of Contrecœur, now in command of Duquesne,

and to bear a summons to any he could find, warning them to

retire from French territory. The precipitancy of Washington's

attack gave the French the chance to impute to Washington the

crime of assassination; but it seems to have been a pretence

on the part of the French to cover a purpose which Jumonville

had of summoning aid from Duquesne, while his concealment was

intended to shield him till its arrival. Rash or otherwise,

this onset of the youthful Washington began the war. The

English returned to Great Meadows, and while waiting for

reinforcements from Fry, Washington threw up some

entrenchments, which he called Fort Necessity. The men from

Fry came without their leader, who had sickened and died, and

Washington, succeeding to the command of the regiment, found

himself at the head of 300 men, increased soon by an

independent company from South Carolina. Washington again

advanced toward Gist's settlement, when, fearing an attack, he

sent back for Mackay, whom he had left with a company of

regulars at Fort Necessity. Rumors thickening of an advance of

the French, the English leader again fell back to Great

Meadows, resolved to fight there. It was now the first of

July, 1754. Coulon de Villiers, a brother of Jumonville, was

now advancing from Duquesne. The attack was made on a rainy

day, and for much of the time a thick mist hung between the

combatants. After dark a parley resulted in Washington's

accepting terms offered by the French, and the English marched

out with the honors of war. The young Virginian now led his

weary followers back to Will's Creek. … Thus they turned their

backs upon the great valley, in which not an English flag now

waved."

J. Winsor,

The Struggle for the Great Valleys of North America

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 5, chapter 8).

ALSO IN:

W. Irving,

Life of Washington,

volume 1, chapters 7-12.

H. C. Lodge,

George Washington,

volume 1, chapter 3.

N. B. Craig,

The Olden Time,

volume 1, pages 10-62.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1755.

Braddock's defeat.

The French possess the West and

devastate the English frontiers.

"Now the English Government awoke to the necessity of vigorous

measures to rescue the endangered Valley of the Ohio. A

campaign was planned which was to expel the French from Ohio,

and wrest from them some portions of their Canadian territory.

The execution of this great design was intrusted to General

Braddock, with a force which it was deemed would overbear all

resistance.

{2395}

Braddock was a veteran who had seen the wars of forty years. …

He was a brave and experienced soldier, and a likely man, it

was thought, to do the work assigned to him. But that proved a

sad miscalculation. Braddock had learned the rules of war; but

he had no capacity to comprehend its principles. In the

pathless forests of America he could do nothing better than

strive to give literal effect to those maxims which he had

found applicable in the well-trodden battlegrounds of Europe.

The failure of Washington in his first campaign had not

deprived him of public confidence. Braddock heard such

accounts of his efficiency that he invited him to join his

staff. Washington, eager to efface the memory of his defeat,

gladly accepted the offer. The troops disembarked at

Alexandria. … After some delay, the army, with such

reinforcements as the province afforded, began its march.

Braddock's object was to reach Fort Du Quesne, the great

centre of French influence on the Ohio. … Fort Du Quesne had

been built [or begun] by the English, and taken from them by

the French. It stood at the confluence of the Alleghany and

Monongahela; which rivers, by their union at this point, form

the Ohio. It was a rude piece of fortification, but the

circumstances admitted of no better. … Braddock had no doubt

that the fort would yield to him directly he showed himself

before it. Benjamin Franklin looked at the project with his

shrewd, cynical eye. He told Braddock that he would assuredly

take the fort if he could only reach it; but that the long

slender line which his army must form in its march 'would be

cut like thread into several pieces' by the hostile Indians.

Braddock 'smiled at his ignorance.' Benjamin offered no

further opinion. It was his duty to collect horses and

carriages for the use of the expedition, and he did what was

required of him in silence. The expedition crept slowly

forward, never achieving more than three or four miles in a

day; stopping, as Washington said, 'to level every mole-hill,

to erect a bridge over every brook.' It left Alexandria on the

20th April. On the 9th July Braddock, with half his army, was

near the fort. There was yet no evidence that resistance was

intended. No enemy had been seen; the troops marched on as to

assured victory. So confident was their chief that he refused

to employ scouts, and did not deign to inquire what enemy

might be lurking near. The march was along a road twelve feet

wide, in a ravine, with high ground in front and on both

sides. Suddenly the Indian war-whoop burst from the woods. A

murderous fire smote down the troops. The provincials, not

unused to this description of warfare, sheltered themselves

behind trees and fought with steady courage. Braddock,

clinging to his old rules, strove to maintain his order of

battle on the open ground. A carnage, most grim and

lamentable, was the result. His undefended soldiers were shot

down by an unseen foe. For three hours the struggle lasted;

then the men broke and fled in utter rout and panic. Braddock,

vainly fighting, fell mortally wounded, and was carried off

the field by some of his soldiers. The poor pedantic man never

got over his astonishment at a defeat so inconsistent with the

established rules of war. 'Who would have thought it?' he

murmured, as they bore him from the field. He scarcely spoke

again, and died in two or three days. Nearly 800 men, killed

and wounded, were lost in this disastrous encounter —about

one-half of the entire force engaged. All the while England

and France were nominally at peace. But now war was declared."

R. Mackenzie,

America: a history,

book 2, chapter 3.

"The news of the defeat caused a great revulsion of feeling.

The highest hopes had been built on Braddock's expedition. …

From this height of expectation men were suddenly plunged into

the yawning gulf of gloom and alarm. The whole frontier lay

exposed to the hatchet and the torch of the remorseless red

man. … The apprehensions of the border settlers were soon

fully justified. Dumas, who shortly succeeded de Contrecœur in

the command at Fort Duquesne, set vigorously to work to put

the Indians on the war-path against the defenceless

settlements. 'M. de Contrecœur had not been gone a week,' he

writes, 'before I had six or seven different war parties in

the field at once, always accompanied by Frenchmen. Thus far,

we have lost only two officers and a few soldiers; but the

Indian villages are full of prisoners of every age and sex.

The enemy has lost far more since the battle than on the day

of his defeat.' All along the frontier the murderous work went

on."

T. J. Chapman,

The French in the Allegheny Valley,

pages 71-73.

ALSO IN:

F. Parkman,

Montcalm and Wolfe,

volume 1, chapters 7 and 10.

W. Sargent,

History of Braddock's Expedition

(Pennsylvania Historical Society Mem's, volume 5).

N. B. Craig,

The Olden Time,

volume 1, pages 64-133.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1758.

Retirement of the French.

Abandonment of Fort Duquesne.

See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1763.

Relinquishment to Great Britain by the Treaty of Paris.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1763.

The king's proclamation excluding settlers.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D; 1763-1764.

Pontiac's War.

See PONTIAC'S WAR

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1765-1768.

Indian Treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.

Pretended cession of lands south of the Ohio.

The Walpole Company and its proposed Vandalia settlement.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1772-1782.

The Moravian settlement and mission on the Muskingum.

See MORAVIAN BRETHREN.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1774.

Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.

The territorial claims of Virginia.

The wrongs of Logan and his famous speech.

"On the eve of the Revolution, in 1774, the frontiersmen had

planted themselves firmly among the Alleghanies. Directly west

of them lay the untenanted wilderness, traversed only by the

war parties of the red men, and the hunting parties of both

reds and whites. No settlers had yet penetrated it, and until

they did so there could be within its borders no chance of

race warfare. … But in the southwest and the northwest alike,

the area of settlement already touched the home lands of the

tribes. … It was in the northwest that the danger of collision

was most imminent; for there the whites and Indians had

wronged one another for a generation, and their interests

were, at the time, clashing more directly than ever. Much the

greater part of the western frontier was held or claimed by

Virginia, whose royal governor was, at the time, Lord Dunmore.

{2396}

… The short but fierce and eventful struggle that now broke

out was fought wholly by Virginians, and was generally known

by the name of Lord Dunmore's war. Virginia, under her

charter, claimed that her boundaries ran across to the South

Seas, to the Pacific Ocean. The king of Britain had graciously

granted her the right to take so much of the continent as lay

within these lines, provided she could win it from the

Indians, French, and Spaniards. … A number of grants had been

made with the like large liberality, and it was found that

they sometimes conflicted with one another. The consequence

was that while the boundaries were well marked near the coast,

where they separated Virginia from the long-settled regions of

Maryland and North Carolina, they became exceeding vague and

indefinite the moment they touched the mountains. Even at the

south this produced confusion, … but at the north the effect

was still more confusing, and nearly resulted in bringing

about an inter-colonial war between Pennsylvania and Virginia.

The Virginians claimed all of extreme western Pennsylvania,

especially Fort Pitt and the valley of the Monongahela, and,

in 1774, proceeded boldly to exercise jurisdiction therein.

Indeed a strong party among the settlers favored the Virginian

claim. … The interests of the Virginians and Pennsylvanians

not only conflicted in respect to the ownership of the land,

but also in respect to the policy to be pursued regarding the

Indians. The former were armed colonists, whose interest it

was to get actual possession of the soil; whereas in

Pennsylvania the Indian trade was very important and

lucrative. … The interests of the white trader from

Pennsylvania and of the white settler from Virginia were so

far from being identical that they were usually diametrically

opposite. The northwestern Indians had been nominally at peace

with the whites for ten years, since the close of Bouquet's

campaign. … Each of the ten years of nominal peace saw plenty

of bloodshed. Recently they had been seriously alarmed by the

tendency of the whites to encroach on the great

hunting-grounds south of the Ohio. … The cession by the

Iroquois of the same hunting-grounds, at the treaty of Fort

Stanwix [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768], while

it gave the whites a colorable title, merely angered the

northwestern Indians. Half a century earlier they would hardly

have dared dispute the power of the Six Nations to do what

they chose with any land that could be reached by their war

parties; but in 1774 they felt quite able to hold their own

against their old oppressors. … The savages grew continually

more hostile, and in the fall of 1773 their attacks became so

frequent that it was evident a general outbreak was at hand. …

The Shawnees were the leaders in all these outrages; but the

outlaw bands, such as the Mingos and Cherokees, were as bad,

and parties of Wyandots and Delawares, as well as of the

various Miami and Wabash tribes, joined them. Thus the spring

of 1774 opened with everything ripe for an explosion. … The

borderers were anxious for a war; and Lord Dunmore was not

inclined to baulk them. … Unfortunately the first stroke fell

on friendly Indians." Dunmore's agent or lieutenant in the

country, one Dr. Conolly, issued an open letter in April which

was received by the backwoodsmen as a declaration and

authorization of war. One band of these, led by a Maryland

borderer, Michael Cresap, proceeded to hostilities at once by

ambushing and shooting down some friendly Shawnees who were

engaged in trade. This same party then set out to attack the

camp of the famous chief Logan, whose family and followers

were then dwelling at Yellow Creek, some 50 miles away. Logan

was "an Iroquois warrior, who lived at that time away from the

bulk of his people, but who was a man of note … among the

outlying parties of Senecas and Mingos, and the fragments of

broken tribes that dwelt along the upper Ohio. … He was

greatly liked and respected by all the white hunters and

frontiersmen whose friendship and respect were worth having;

they admired him for his dexterity and prowess, and they loved

him for his straightforward honesty, and his noble loyalty to

his friends." Cresap's party, after going some miles toward

Logan's camp, "began to feel ashamed of their mission; calling

a halt, they discussed the fact that the camp they were

preparing to attack consisted exclusively of friendly Indians,

and mainly of women and children; and forthwith abandoned

their proposed trip and returned home. … But Logan's people

did not profit by Cresap's change of heart. On the last day of

April a small party of men, women, and children, including

almost all of Logan's kin, left his camp and crossed the river

to visit Greathouse [another borderer, of a more brutal type],

as had been their custom; for he made a trade of selling rum

to the savages, though Cresap had notified him to stop. The

whole party were plied with liquor, and became helplessly

drunk, in which condition Greathouse and his associated

criminals fell on and massacred them, nine souls in all. … At

once the frontier was in a blaze, and the Indians girded

themselves for revenge. … They confused the two massacres,

attributing both to Cresap, whom they well knew as a warrior.

… Soon all the back country was involved in the unspeakable

horrors of a bloody Indian war," which lasted, however, only

till the following October. Governor Dunmore, during the

summer, collected some 3,000 men, one division of which he led

personally to Fort Pitt and thence down the Ohio,

accomplishing nothing of importance. The other division,

composed exclusively of backwoodsmen, under General Andrew

Lewis, marched to the mouth of the Kanawha River, and there,

at Point Pleasant, the cape of land jutting out between the

Ohio and the Kanawha, they fought, on the 10th of October, a

great battle with the Indians which practically ended the war.

This is sometimes called the battle of Point Pleasant, and

sometimes the battle of the Great Kanawha. "It was the most

closely contested of any battle ever fought with the

northwestern Indians; and it was the only victory gained over

a large body of them by a force but slightly superior in

numbers. … Its results were most important. It kept the

northwestern tribes quiet for the first two years of the

Revolutionary struggle; and above all it rendered possible the

settlement of Kentucky, and therefore the winning of the West.

Had it not been for Lord Dunmore's War, it is more than likely

that when the colonies achieved their freedom they would have

found their western boundary fixed at the Alleghany

Mountains."

{2397}

For some time after peace had been made with the other chiefs

Logan would not join in it. When he did yield a sullen assent,

Lord Dunmore "was obliged to communicate with him through a

messenger, a frontier veteran named John Gibson. … To this

messenger Logan was willing to talk. Taking him aside, he

suddenly addressed him in a speech that will always retain its

place as perhaps the finest outburst of savage eloquence of

which we have any authentic record. The messenger took it down

in writing, translating it literally." The authenticity of

this famous speech of Logan has been much questioned, but

apparently with no good ground.

T. Roosevelt,

The Winning of the West,

volume 1, chapters 8-9.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11941

ALSO IN:

J. H. Perkins,

Annals of the West,

chapter 5.

J. G. M. Ramsey,

Annals of Tennessee,

page 112.

V. A. Lewis,

History of West Virginia,

chapter 9.

J. R. Gilmore (E. Kirke),

The Rear-guard of the Revolution,

chapter 4.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1774.

Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1778-1779.

Conquest of the Northwest from the British by the Virginia

General Clark, and its annexation to the Kentucky

District of Virginia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1781-1786.

Conflicting territorial claims of Virginia, New York and

Connecticut.

Their cession to the United States,

except the Western Reserve of Connecticut.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

OHIO: (Valley): A: D. 1784.

Included in the proposed States of Metropotamia, Washington,

Saratoga and Pelisipia.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1786-1788.

The Ohio Company of Revolutionary soldiers

and their settlement at Marietta.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1786-1788.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1786-1796.

Western Reserve of Connecticut.

Founding of Cleveland.

In September, 1786, Connecticut ceded to Congress the western

territory which she claimed under her charter (see UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786; and PENNSYLVANIA: A. D.

1753-1799), reserving, however, from the cession a tract

"bounded north by the line of 42° 2', or, rather, the

international line, east by the western boundary of

Pennsylvania, south by the 41st parallel, and west by a line

parallel with the eastern boundary and distant from it 120

miles—supposed, at the time, to be equal in extent to the

Susquehanna tract given to Pennsylvania, 1782. … This

territory Connecticut was said 'to reserve,' and it soon came

to be called 'The Connecticut Western Reserve,' 'The Western

Reserve,' etc. … On May 11, 1792, the General Assembly

quit-claimed to the inhabitants of several Connecticut towns

who had lost property in consequence of the incursions into

the State made by the British troops in the Revolution, or

their legal representatives when they were dead, and to their

heirs and assigns, forever, 500,000 acres lying across the

western end of the reserve, bounded north by the lake shore. …

The total number of sufferers, as reported, was 1,870, and the

aggregate losses, £161,548, 11s., 6½. The grant was of the

soil only. These lands are known in Connecticut history as

'The Sufferers' Lands,' in Ohio history as 'The Fire Lands.'

In 1796 the Sufferers were incorporated in Connecticut, and in

1803 in Ohio, under the title 'The Proprietors of the

Half-million Acres of Land lying south of Lake Erie.' … In

May, 1793, the Connecticut Assembly offered the remaining part

of the Reserve for sale." In September, 1795, the whole tract

was sold, without surveyor measurement, for $1,200,000, and

the Connecticut School Fund, which amounts to something more

than two millions of dollars, consists wholly of the proceeds

of that sale, with capitalized interest. "The purchasers of

the Reserve, most of them belonging to Connecticut, but some

to Massachusetts and New York, were men desirous of trying

their fortunes in Western lands. Oliver Phelps, perhaps the

greatest land-speculator of the time, was at their head.

September 5, 1795, they adopted articles of agreement and

association, constituting themselves the Connecticut Land

Company. The company was never incorporated, but was what is

called to-day a 'syndicate.'" In the spring of 1796 the

company sent out a party of surveyors, in charge of its agent,

General Moses Cleaveland, who reached "the mouth of the

Cuyahoga River, July 22d, from which day there have always

been white men on the site of the city that takes its name

from him." In 1830 the spelling of the name of the infant city

was changed from Cleaveland to Cleveland by the printer of its

first newspaper, who found that the superfluous "a" made a

heading too long for his form, and therefore dropped it out.

B. A. Hinsdale,

The Old Northwest,

chapter 19, with foot-notes.

ALSO IN:

C. Whittlesey,

Early History of Cleveland,

page 145, and after.

H. Rice,

Pioneers of the Western Reserve,

chapters 6-7.

R. King,

Ohio,

chapters 7-8.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1787.

The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.

Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1788.

The founding of Cincinnati.

See CINCINNATI: A. D. 1788.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1790-1795.

Indian war.

Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair,

and Wayne's decisive victory.

The Greenville Treaty.

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

OHIO: (Territory and State): A. D. 1800-1802.

Organized as a separate Territory

and admitted to the Union as a State.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.

OHIO: A. D. 1812-1813.

Harrison's campaign for the recovery of Detroit.

Winchester's defeat.

Perry's naval victory.

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

OHIO: A. D. 1835.

Settlement of Boundary dispute with Michigan.

See MICHIGAN: A. D. 1836.

OHIO: A. D. 1863.

John Morgan's Rebel Raid.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

----------OHIO: End--------

OHOD, Battle of.

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

OJIBWAS, OR CHIPPEWAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OJIBWAS;

also, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

OKLAHOMA, The opening of.

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

OL., OR OLYMP.

See OLYMPIADS.

OLAF II.,

King of Denmark, A. D. 1086-1095.

Olaf III., King of Denmark, 1376-

{2398}

1387; and VII. of Norway, 1380-1387.

Olaf III. (Tryggveson), King of Norway, 995-1000.

Olaf IV. (called The Saint), King of Norway, 1000-1030.

Olaf V., King of Norway, 1069-1093.

Olaf VI., King of Norway, 1103-1116.

OLBIA.

See BORYSTHENES.

OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

OLD COLONY, The.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

OLD DOMINION, The.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1650-1660.

OLD IRONSIDES.

This name was popularly given to the "Constitution," the most

famous of the American frigates in the War of 1812-14 with

Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813; and 1814.

OLD LEAGUE OF HIGH GERMANY, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.

OLD MAN OF THE MOUNTAIN, The.

See ASSASSINS.

OLD POINT COMFORT: Origin of its Name.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

----------OLD SARUM: Start--------

OLD SARUM:

Origin.

See SORBIODUNUM.

OLD SARUM:

A Rotten Borough.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.

----------OLD SARUM: End--------

OLD SOUTH CHURCH, The founding of the.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

OLD STYLE.

See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

OLDENBURG: The duchy annexed to France by Napoleon.

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

OLERON, The Laws of.

"The famous maritime laws of Oleron (which is an island

adjacent to the coast of France) are usually ascribed to

Richard I, though none of the many writers, who have had

occasion to mention them, have been able to find any

contemporary authority, or even any antient satisfactory

warrant for affixing his name to them. They consist of

forty-seven short regulations for average, salvage, wreck, &c.

copied from the antient Rhodian maritime laws, or perhaps more

immediately from those of Barcelona."

D. Macpherson,

Annals of Commerce,

volume 1, page 358.

OLIGARCHY.

See ARISTOCRACY.

OLISIPO.

The ancient name of Lisbon.

See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

OLIVA, Treaty of (1660).

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688;

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

OLIVETANS, The.

"The Order of Olivetans, or Brethren of St. Mary of Mount

Olivet, … was founded in 1313, by John Tolomei of Siena, a

distinguished professor of philosophy in his native city, in

gratitude for the miraculous restoration of his sight. In

company with a few companions, he established himself in a

solitary olive-orchard, near Siena, obtained the approbation

of John XXII. for his congregation, and, at the command of the

latter, adopted the Rule of St. Benedict."

J. Alzog,

Manual of Universal Church History,

volume 3, page 149.

OLLAMHS.

The Bards (see FILI) of the ancient Irish.

OLMUTZ, Abortive siege of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

OLNEY, Treaty of.

A treaty between Edmund Ironsides and Canute, or Cnut,

dividing the English kingdom between them, A. D. 1016. The

conference was held on an island in the Severn, called Olney.

OLPÆ, Battle of.

A victory won, in the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 426-5) by the

Acarnanians and Messenians, under the Athenian general

Demosthenes, over the Peloponnesians and Ambraciotes, on the

shore of the Ambracian gulf.

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 4, chapter 2.

OLUSTEE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: FLORIDA).

OLYBRIUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 472.

OLYMPIA, Battle of (B. C. 365).

See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

OLYMPIADS, The Era of the.

"The Era of the Olympiads, so called from its having

originated from the Olympic games, which occurred every fifth

year at Olympia, a city in Elis, is the most ancient and

celebrated method of computing time. It was first instituted

in the 776th year before the birth of our Saviour, and

consisted of a revolution of four years. The first year of

Jesus Christ is usually considered to correspond with the

first year of the 195th olympiad; but as the years of the

olympiads commenced at the full moon next after the summer

solstice, i. e., about the first of July, … it must be

understood that it corresponds only with the six last months

of the 195th olympiad. … Each year of an olympiad was

luni–solar, and contained 12 or 13 months, the names of which

varied in the different states of Greece. The months consisted

of 30 and 29 days alternately; and the short year consequently

contained 354 days, while the intercalary year had 384. The

computation by olympiads … ceased after the 364th olympiad, in

the year of Christ 440."

Sir H. Nicolas,

Chronology of History,

pages 1-2.

OLYMPIC GAMES.

"The character of a national institution, which the

Amphictyonic council affected, but never really acquired, more

truly belonged to the public festivals, which, though

celebrated within certain districts, were not peculiar to any

tribe, but were open and common to all who could prove their

Hellenic blood. The most important of these festivals was that

which was solemnized every fifth year on the banks of the

Alpheus, in the territory of Elis; it lasted four days, and,

from Olympia, the scene of its celebration, derived the name

of the Olympic contest, or games, and the period itself which

intervened between its returns was called an olympiad. The

origin of this institution is involved in some obscurity,

partly by the lapse of time, and partly by the ambition of the

Eleans to exaggerate its antiquity and sanctity. … Though,

however, the legends fabricated or adopted by the Eleans to

magnify the antiquity and glory of the games deserve little

attention, there can be no doubt that, from very early times,

Olympia had been a site hallowed by religion; and it is highly

probable that festivals of a nature similar to that which

afterwards became permanent had been occasionally celebrated

in the sanctuary of Jupiter. … Olympia, not so much a town as

a precinct occupied by a great number of sacred and public

buildings, originally lay in the territory of Pisa, which, for

two centuries after the beginning of the olympiads, was never

completely subject to Elis, and occasionally appeared as her

rival, and excluded her from all share in the presidency of

the games.

{2399}

… It is probable that the northern Greeks were not at first

either consulted or expected to take any share in the

festival; and that, though never expressly confined to certain

tribes, in the manner of an Amphictyonic congress, it

gradually enlarged the sphere of its fame and attraction till

it came to embrace the whole nation. The sacred truce was

proclaimed by officers sent round by the Eleans: it put a stop

to warfare, from the time of the proclamation, for a period

sufficient to enable strangers to return home in safety.

During this period the territory of Elis itself was of course

regarded as inviolable, and no armed force could traverse it

without incurring the penalty of sacrilege. … It [the

festival] was very early frequented by spectators, not only

from all parts of Greece itself, but from the Greek colonies

in Europe, Africa, and Asia; and this assemblage was not

brought together by the mere fortuitous impulse of private

interest or curiosity, but was in part composed of deputations

which were sent by most cities as to a religious solemnity,

and were considered as guests of the Olympian god. The

immediate object of the meeting was the exhibition of various

trials of strength and skill, which, from time to time, were

multiplied so as to include almost every mode of displaying

bodily activity. They included races on foot and with horses

and chariots; contests in leaping, throwing, wrestling, and

boxing; and some in which several of the exercises were

combined; but no combats with any kind of weapon. The

equestrian contests, particularly that of the four-horsed

chariots, were, by their nature, confined to the wealthy; and

princes and nobles vied with each other in such demonstrations

of their opulence. But the greater part were open to the

poorest Greek, and were not on that account the lower in

public estimation. … In the games described by Homer valuable

prizes were proposed, and this practice was once universal;

but, after the seventh olympiad, a simple garland, of leaves

of the wild olive, was substituted at Olympia, as the only

meed of victory. The main spring of emulation was undoubtedly

the celebrity of the festival and the presence of so vast a

multitude of spectators, who were soon to spread the fame of

the successful athletes to the extremity of the Grecian world.

… The Altis, as the ground consecrated to the games was called

at Olympia, was adorned with numberless statues of the

victors, erected, with the permission of the Eleans, by

themselves or their families, or at the expense of their

fellow citizens. It was also usual to celebrate the joyful

event, both at Olympia and at the victor's home, by a

triumphal procession, in which his praises were sung, and were

commonly associated with the glory of his ancestors and his

country. The most eminent poets willingly lent their aid on

such occasions, especially to the rich and great. And thus it

happened that sports, not essentially different from those of

our village greens, gave birth to masterpieces of sculpture,

and called forth the sublimest strains of the lyric muse. …

Viewed merely as a spectacle designed for public amusement,

and indicating the taste of the people, the Olympic games

might justly claim to be ranked far above all similar

exhibitions of other nations. It could only be for the sake of

a contrast, by which their general purity, innocence, and

humanity would be placed in the strongest light, that they

could be compared with the bloody sports of a Roman or a

Spanish amphitheatre, and the tournaments of our chivalrous

ancestors, examined by their side, would appear little better

than barbarous shows."

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 10.

OLYMPIUM AT ATHENS, The.

The building of a great temple to Jupiter Olympius was begun

at Athens by Peisistratus as early as 530 B. C. Republican

Athens refused to carry on a work which would be associated

with the hateful memory of the tyrant, and it stood untouched

until B. C. 174, when Antiochus Epiphanes employed a Roman

architect to proceed with it. He, in turn, left it still

unfinished, to be afterwards resumed by Augustus, and

completed at last by Hadrian, 650 years after the foundations

were laid.

W. M. Leake,

Topography of Athens,

volume 1, appendix 10.

OLYMPUS.

The name Olympus was given by the Greeks to a number of

mountains and mountain ranges; but the one Olympus which

impressed itself most upon their imaginations, and which

seemed to be the home of their gods, was the lofty height that

terminates the Cambunian range of mountains at the east and

forms part of the boundary between Thessaly and Macedonia. Its

elevation is nearly 10,000 feet above the level of the sea and

all travelers have seemed to be affected by the peculiar

grandeur of its aspect. Other mountains called Olympus were in

Elis, near Olympia, where the great games were celebrated, and

in Laconia, near Sellasia. There was also an Olympus in the

island of Cyprus, and two in Asia Minor, one in Lycia, and a

range in Mysia, separating Bithynia from Galatia and Phrygia.

See THESSALY, and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

OLYNTHIAC ORATIONS, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.

----------OLYNTHUS: Start--------

OLYNTHUS: B. C. 383-379.

The Confederacy overthrown by Sparta.

See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.

OLYNTHUS: B. C. 351-348.

War with Philip of Macedon.

Destruction of the city.

See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.

----------OLYNTHUS: End--------

OMAGUAS, The.

See EL DORADO.

OMAHAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY,

and SIOUAN FAMILY.

OMAR I.,

Caliph, A. D. 634-643.

Omar II., Caliph, 717-720.

OMER, OR GOMER, The.

See EPHAH.

OMMIADES,

OMEYYADES, The.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST:

A. D. 661; 680; 715-750, and 756-1031.

OMNIBUS BILL, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

ON.

"A solitary obelisk of red granite, set up at least 4,000

years ago, alone marks the site of On, also called the City of

the Sun, in Hebrew Beth-shemesh, in Greek Heliopolis. Nothing

else can be seen of the splendid shrine and the renowned

university which were the former glories of the place. … The

university to which the wise men of Greece resorted perished

when a new centre of knowledge was founded in the Greek city

of Alexandria. … It was during the temporary independence of

the country under native kings, after the first Persian rule,

that Plato the philosopher and Eudoxus the mathematician

studied at Heliopolis. … The civil name of the town was An,

the Hebrew On, the sacred name Pe-Ra, the 'Abode of the Sun.'"

R. S. Poole,

Cities of Egypt,

chapter 9.

{2400}

The site of On, or Heliopolis, is near Cairo. There was

another city in Upper Egypt called An by the Egyptians, but

Hermonthis by the Greeks.

ONEIDAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

O'NEILS, The wars and the flight of the.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603;

and 1607-1611.

ONONDAGAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

ONTARIO:

The Name.

See OHIO: THE NAME.

ONTARIO, Lake, The Discovery of.

See CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616.

ONTARIO, The province.

The western division of Canada, formerly called Upper Canada,

received the name of Ontario when the Confederation of the

Dominion of Canada was formed.

See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

ONTARIO SCHOOL SYSTEM.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1844-1876.

OODEYPOOR.

See RAJPOOTS.

OPEQUAN CREEK, OR WINCHESTER, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

OPHIR, Land of.

The geographical situation of the land called Ophir in the

Bible has been the subject of much controversy. Many recent

historians accept, as "conclusively demonstrated," the opinion

reached by Lassen in his Indische Alterthumskunde, that the

true Ophir of antiquity was the country of Abhira, near the

mouths of the Indus, not far from the present province of

Guzerat. But some who accept Abhira as being the original

Ophir conjecture that the name was extended in use to southern

Arabia, where the products of the Indian Ophir were marketed.

OPIUM WAR, The.

See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

----------OPORTO: Start--------

OPORTO: Early history.

Its name given to Portugal.

See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

OPORTO: A. D. 1832.

Siege by Dom Miguel.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889.

----------OPORTO: End--------

OPPIAN LAW, The.

A law passed at Rome during the second Punic War (3d century,

B. C.), forbidding any woman to wear a gay–colored dress, or

more than half an ounce of gold ornament, and prohibiting the

use of a car drawn by horses within a mile of any city or

town. It was repealed B. C. 194.

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 4, chapter 3 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

R. F. Horton,

History of the Romans,

chapter 16.

OPPIDUM.

Among the Gauls and the Britons a town, or a fortified place,

was called an oppidum. As Cæsar explained the term, speaking

of the oppidum of Cassivellaunus, in Britain, it signified a

"stockade or enclosed space in the midst of a forest, where

they took refuge with their flocks and herds in case of an

invasion."

E. H. Bunbury,

History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 19, note E (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

Cæsar,

Gallic War,

book 5, chapter 21.

OPTIMATES.

"New names came into fashion [in Rome], but it is difficult to

say when they were first used. We may probably refer the

origin of them to the time of the Gracchi [B. C. 133-121]. One

party was designated by the name of Optimates, 'the class of

the best.' The name shows that it must have been invented by

the 'best,' for the people would certainly not have given it

to them. We may easily guess who were the Optimates. They were

the rich and powerful, who ruled by intimidation, intrigue,

and bribery, who bought the votes of the people and sold their

interests. … Opposed to the Optimates were the Populares."

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 1, chapter 20.

See ROME: B. C. 159-133.

ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

"Wherever the worship of Apollo had fixed its roots, there

were sibyls and prophets; for Apollo is nowhere conceivable

without the beneficent light of prophecy streaming out from

his abode. The happy situation and moral significance of

leading colleges of priests procured a peculiar authority for

individual oracles. Among these are the Lycian Patara, the

Thymbræan oracle near Troja (to which belongs Cassandra, the

most famed of Apollo's prophetesses), the Gryneum on Lesbos,

the Clarian oracle near Colophon, and finally the most

important of all the oracles of Asia Minor, the Didymæum near

Miletus, where the family of the Branchidæ held the prophetic

office as a hereditary honorary right. Delos connects the

Apolline stations on the two opposite sides of the water:

here, too, was a primitive oracle, where Anius, the son of

Apollo, was celebrated as the founder of a priestly family of

soothsayers. … The sanctuaries of Ismenian Apollo in Thebes

were founded, the Ptoïum on the hill which separates the

Hylian plain of the sea from the Copæic, and in Phocis the

oracle of Abæ. The reason why the fame of all these celebrated

seats of Apollo was obscured by that of Delphi lies in a

series of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances by which

this place was qualified to become a centre, not only of the

lands in its immediate neighbourhood, like the other oracles,

but of the whole nation. … With all the more important

sanctuaries there was connected a comprehensive financial

administration, it being the duty of the priests, by shrewd

management, by sharing in profitable undertakings, by

advantageous leases, by lending money, to increase the annual

revenues. … There were no places of greater security, and they

were, therefore, used by States as well as by private persons

as places of deposit for their valuable documents, such as

wills, compacts, bonds, or ready money. By this means the

sanctuary entered into business relations with all parts of

the Greek world, which brought it gain and influence. The

oracles became money-institutions, which took the place of

public banks. … It was by their acquiring, in addition to the

authority of religious holiness, and the superior weight of

mental culture, that power which was attainable by means of

personal relations of the most comprehensive sort, as well as

through great pecuniary means and national credit, that it was

possible for the oracle-priests to gain so comprehensive an

influence upon all Grecian affairs. … With the extension of

colonies the priests' knowledge of the world increased, and

with this the commanding eminence of the oracle-god. … The

oracles were in every respect not only the provident eye, not

only the religious conscience, of the Greek nation, but they

were also its memory."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 2, chapter 4.

{2401}

"The sites selected for these oracles were generally marked by

some physical property, which fitted them to be the scenes of

such miraculous manifestations. They were in a volcanic

region, where gas escaping from a fissure in the earth might

be inhaled, and the consequent exhilaration or ecstasy, partly

real and partly imaginary, was a divine inspiration. At the

Pythian oracle in Delphi there was thought to be such an

exhalation. Others have supposed that the priests possessed

the secret of manufacturing an exhilarating gas. … In each of

the oracular temples of Apollo, the officiating functionary

was a woman, probably chosen on account of her nervous

temperament;—at first young, but, a love affair having

happened, it was decided that no one under fifty should be

eligible to the office. The priestess sat upon a tripod,

placed over the chasm in the centre of the temple."

C. C. Felton,

Greece, Ancient and Modern,

chapter 2, lecture 9.

----------ORAN: Start--------

ORAN: A. D. 1505.

Conquest by Cardinal Ximenes.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.

ORAN: A. D. 1563.

Siege, and repulse of the Moors.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565:

----------ORAN: End--------

ORANGE, The Prince of:

Assassination.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584, and 1584-1585.

ORANGE, The Principality.

"The little, but wealthy and delicious, tract of land, of

which Orange is the capital, being about four miles in length

and as many in breadth, lies in the Comté Venaissin, bordering

upon that of Avignon, within a small distance of the Rhone;

and made no inconsiderable part of that ancient and famous

Kingdom of Arles which was established by Boso towards the end

of the 9th century. …"

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 888-1032; and 1032.

"In the beginning of the 9th century, historians tell us of

one William, sirnamed Cornet, of uncertain extraction,

sovereign of this State, and highly esteemed by the great

Emperor Charlemagne, whose vassal he then was. Upon failure of

the male descendants of this prince in the person of Rambald

IV.; who died in the 13th century, his lands devolved to

Tiburga, great aunt to the said Rambald, who brought them in

marriage to Bertrand II. of the illustrious house of Baux.

These were common ancestors to Raymond V., father to Mary,

with whom John IV. of Chalon contracted an alliance in 1386;

and it was from them that descended in a direct male line the

brave Philibert of Chalon, who, after many signal services

rendered the Emperor Charles V., as at the taking of Rome more

particularly, had the misfortune to be slain, leaving behind

him no issue, in a little skirmish at Pistoya, while he had

the command of the siege before Florence. Philibert had one

only sister, named Claudia, whose education was at the French

court," where, in 1515, she married Henry, of Nassau, whereby

the principality passed to that house which was made most

illustrious, in the next generation, by William the Silent,

Prince of Orange. The Dutch stadtholders retained the title of

Princes of Orange until William III. Louis XIV. seized the

principality in 1672, but it was restored to the House of

Nassau by the Peace of Ryswick.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

On the death of William III. it was declared to be forfeited

to the French crown, and was bestowed on the Prince of Conti;

but the king of Prussia, who claimed it, was permitted, under

the Treaty of Utrecht, to bear the title, without possession

of the domain.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

J. Breval,

History of the House of Nassau.

ALSO IN:

E. A. Freeman,

Orange

(Historical Essays, volume 4).

See, also, NASSAU.

ORANGE, The town: Roman origin.

See ARAUSIO.

ORANGE FREE STATE.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

ORANGE SOCIETY, The formation of the.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.

ORARIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

ORATIONES, Roman Imperial.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

ORATORY, Congregation of the.

See CONGREGATION OF THE ORATORY.

ORBITELLO, Siege of (1646).

See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

ORCHA, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

ORCHAN, Ottoman Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1325-1359.

ORCHIAN, FANNIAN, DIDIAN LAWS.

"In the year 181 B. C. [Rome] a law (the Lex Orchia) was

designed to restrain extravagance in private banquets, and to

limit the number of guests. This law proved ineffectual, and

as early as 161 B. C. a far stricter law was introduced by the

consul, C. Fannius (the Lex Fannia) which prescribed how much

might be spent on festive banquets and common family meals. …

The law, moreover, prohibited certain kinds of food and drink.

By a law in the year 143 B. C. (the Lex Didia) this regulation

was extended over the whole of Italy."

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 6, chapter 12 (volume 4).

ORCHOMENOS.

See MINYI, THE.

ORCHOMENOS, Battle of (B. C. 85).

See MITHRIDATIC WARS.

ORCYNIAN FOREST, The.

See HERCYNIAN.

ORDAINERS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1310-1311.

ORDEAL, The.

"During the full fervor of the belief that the Divine

interposition could at all times be had for the asking, almost

any form of procedure, conducted under priestly observances,

could assume the position and influence of an ordeal. As early

as 592, we find Gregory the Great alluding to a simple

purgatorial oath, taken by a Bishop on the relics of St.

Peter, in terms which convey evidently the idea that the

accused, if guilty, had exposed himself to imminent danger,

and that by performing the ceremony unharmed he had

sufficiently proved his innocence. But such unsubstantial

refinements were not sufficient for the vulgar, who craved the

evidence of their senses, and desired material proof to rebut

material accusations. In ordinary practice, therefore, the

principal modes by which the will of Heaven was ascertained

were the ordeal of fire, whether administered directly, or

through the agency of boiling water or red-hot iron; that of

cold water; of bread or cheese; of the Eucharist; of the

cross; the lot; and the touching of the body of the victim in

cases of murder.

{2402}

Some of these, it will be seen, required a miraculous

interposition to save the accused; others to condemn; some

depended altogether on volition, others on the purest chance;

while others, again, derived their power from the influence

exerted on the mind of the patient. They were all accompanied

with solemn religious observances. … The ordeal of boiling

water ('æneum,' 'judicium aquæ ferventis,' 'cacabus,'

'caldaria') is probably the oldest form in which the

application of fire was judicially administered in Europe as a

mode of proof. … A caldron of water was brought to the boiling

point, and the accused was obliged with his naked hand to find

a small stone or ring thrown into it; sometimes the latter

portion was omitted, and the hand was simply inserted, in

trivial cases to the wrist, in crimes of magnitude to the

elbow, the former being termed the single, the latter the

triple ordeal. … The cold-water ordeal ('judicium aquæ

frigidæ') differed from most of its congeners in requiring a

miracle to convict the accused, as in the natural order of

things he escaped. … The basis of this ordeal was the

superstitious belief that the pure element would not receive

into its bosom anyone stained with the crime of a false oath."

H. C. Lea,

Superstition and Force,

chapter 3.

See, also, LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1198-1199.

ORDERS, Monastic.

See

AUSTIN CANONS;

BENEDICTINE ORDERS;

CAPUCHINS;

CARMELITE FRIARS;

CARTHUSIAN ORDER;

CISTERCIAN ORDER;

CLAIRVAUX;

CLUGNY;

MENDICANT ORDERS;

RECOLLECTS;

SERVITES;

THEATINES;

TRAPPISTS.

ORDERS IN COUNCIL, Blockade by British.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810; and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

ORDERS OF KNIGHTHOOD.

See KNIGHTHOOD.

ORDINANCE OF 1787.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

ORDINANCES OF SECESSION.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER);

1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

ORDINANCES OF 1311.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1310-1311.

ORDOÑO I.,

King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 850-866.

Ordoño II., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 914-923.

Ordoño III., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 950-955.

ORDOVICES, The.

One of the tribes of ancient Wales.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

----------OREGON: Start--------

OREGON:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHINOOKAN FAMILY,

and SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

OREGON: A. D: 1803.

Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase?

Grounds of American possession.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

OREGON: A. D. 1805.

Lewis and Clark's exploring expedition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.

OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.

The Boundary dispute with Great Britain and its settlement.

"The territory along the Pacific coast lying between

California on the south and Alaska on the north —Oregon as it

was comprehensively called—had been a source of dispute for

some time between the United States and Great Britain. After

some negotiations both had agreed with Russia to recognize the

line of 54° 40' as the southern boundary of the latter's

possessions; and Mexico's undisputed possession of California

gave an equally well marked southern limit, at the 42d

parallel. All between was in dispute. The British had trading

posts at the mouth of the Columbia, which they emphatically

asserted to be theirs; we, on the other hand, claimed an

absolutely clear title up to the 49th parallel, a couple of

hundred miles north of the mouth of the Columbia, and asserted

that for all the balance of the territory up to the Russian

possessions our title was at any rate better than that of the

British. In 1818 a treaty had been made providing for the

joint occupation of the territory by the two powers, as

neither was willing to give up its claim to the whole, or at

the time at all understood the value of the possession, then

entirely unpeopled. This treaty of joint occupancy had

remained in force ever since. Under it the British had built

great trading stations, and used the whole country in the

interests of certain fur companies. The Americans, in spite of

some vain efforts, were unable to compete with them in this

line; but, what was infinitely more important, had begun, even

prior to 1840, to establish actual settlers along the banks of

the rivers, some missionaries being the first to come in. …

The aspect of affairs was totally changed when in 1842 a huge

caravan of over 1,000 Americans made the journey from the

frontiers of Missouri, taking with them their wives and their

children, their flocks and herds, carrying their long rifles

on their shoulders, and their axes and spades in the great

canvas-topped wagons. The next year 2,000 more settlers of

the same sort in their turn crossed the vast plains, wound

their way among the Rocky Mountains through the pass explored

by Fremont, Benton's son-in-law, and after suffering every

kind of hardship and danger, and warding off the attacks of

hostile Indians, descended the western slope of the great

water–shed to join their fellows by the banks of the Columbia.

When American settlers were once in actual possession of the

disputed territory, it became evident that the period of Great

Britain's undisputed sway was over. … Tyler's administration

did not wish to embroil itself with England; so it refused any

aid to the settlers, and declined to give them grants of land,

as under the joint occupancy treaty that would have given

England offense and cause for complaint. But Benton and the

other Westerners were perfectly willing to offend England, if

by so doing they could help America to obtain Oregon, and were

too rash and headstrong to count the cost of their actions.

Accordingly, a bill was introduced providing for the

settlement of Oregon, and giving each settler 640 acres, and

additional land if he had a family. … It passed the Senate by

a close vote, but failed in the House. … The unsuccessful

attempts made by Benton and his supporters, to persuade the

Senate to pass a resolution, requiring that notice of the

termination of the joint occupancy treaty should forthwith be

given, were certainly ill-advised. However, even Benton was

not willing to go to the length to which certain Western men

went, who insisted upon all or nothing. … He sympathized with

the effort made by Calhoun while secretary of state to get the

British to accept the line of 49° as the frontier; but the

British government then rejected this proposition. In 1844 the

Democrats made their campaign upon the issue of 'fifty-four

forty or fight'; and Polk, when elected, felt obliged to

insist upon this campaign boundary.

{2403}

To this, however, Great Britain naturally would not consent;

it was, indeed, idle to expect her to do so, unless things

should be kept as they were until a fairly large American

population had grown up along the Pacific coast, and had thus

put her in a position where she could hardly do anything else.

Polk's administration was neither capable nor warlike, however

well disposed to bluster; and the secretary of state, the

timid, shifty, and selfish politician, Buchanan, naturally

fond of facing both ways, was the last man to wish to force a

quarrel on a high-spirited and determined antagonist, like

England. Accordingly, he made up his mind to back down and try

for the line of 49°, as proposed by Calhoun, when in Tyler's

cabinet; and the English, for all their affected indifference,

had been so much impressed by the warlike demonstrations in

the United States, that they in turn were delighted …;

accordingly they withdrew their former pretensions to the

Columbia River and accepted [June 15, 1846] the offered

compromise."

T. Roosevelt,

Life of Thomas H. Benton,

chapter 12.

ALSO IN:

T. H. Benton,

Thirty Years' View,

volume 2, chapters 143, and 156-159.

Treaties and Conventions between the United States

and other countries (edition of 1889),

page 438.

W. Barrows,

Oregon.

OREGON: A. D. 1859.

Admission into the Union, with a constitution

excluding free people of color.

"The fact that the barbarism of slavery was not confined to

the slave States had many illustrations. Among them, that

afforded by Oregon was a signal example. In 1857 she formed a

constitution, and applied for admission into the Union. Though

the constitution was in form free, it was very thoroughly

imbued with the spirit of slavery; and though four fifths of

the votes cast were for the rejection of slavery, there were

seven eighths for an article excluding entirely free people of

color. As their leaders were mainly proslavery, it is probable

that the reason why they excluded slavery from the

constitution was their fear of defeat in their application for

admission. … On the 11th of February, 1859, Mr. Stephens

reported from the Committee on Territories a bill for the

admission of Oregon as a State. A minority report, signed by

Grow, Granger, and Knapp, was also presented, protesting

against its admission with a constitution so discriminating

against color. The proposition led to an earnest debate;" but

the bill admitting Oregon prevailed, by a vote of 114 to 103

in the House and 35 to 17 in the Senate.

H. Wilson,

History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,

volume 2, chapter 49.

----------OREGON: End--------

OREJONES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

ORELLANA, and his discovery of the Amazons River (1541).

See AMAZONS RIVER.

ORESTÆ, The.

See MACEDONIA.

ORIENTAL CHURCH, The.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054;

ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY; and FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.

ORIFLAMME, The.

"The Oriflamme was originally the Banner of the Abbey of St.

Denis, and was received by the Counts of the Vexin, as

'Avoués' of that Monastery, whenever they engaged in any

military expedition. On the union of the Vexin with the Crown

effected by Philip I., a similar connexion with the Abbey was

supposed to be contracted by the Kings; and accordingly Louis

the Fat received the Banner, with the customary solemnities,

on his knees, bare-headed, and ungirt. The Banner was a square

Gonfalon of flame-coloured silk, unblazoned, with the lower

edge cut into three swallow-tails."

E. Smedley,

History of France,

part 1, chapter 3, foot-note.

"The Oriflamme was a flame-red banner of silk; three-pointed

on its lower side, and tipped with green. It was fastened to a

gilt spear."

G. W. Kitchin,

History of France,

volume 1, book 3, chapter 5, foot-note.

ORIK, OR OURIQUE, Battle of (1139).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

ORISKANY, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

ORKNEYS: 8-14th Centuries.

The Norse Jarls.

See NORMANS: 8-9TH CENTURIES; and 10-13TH CENTURIES.

ORLEANISTS.

See LEGITIMISTS.

ORLEANS, The Duke of: Regency.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1715-1723.

----------ORLEANS, The House of: Start--------

ORLEANS, The House of:

Origin.

See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.

ORLEANS, The House of: A. D. 1447.

Origin of claims to the duchy of Milan.

See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

----------ORLEANS, The House of: End--------

----------ORLEANS, The City: Start--------

ORLEANS, The City:

Origin and name.

"The Loire, flowing first northwards, then westwards,

protects, by its broad sickle of waters, this portion of Gaul,

and the Loire itself is commanded at its most northerly point

by that city which, known in Caesar's day as Genabum, had

taken the name Aureliani from the great Emperor, the conqueror

of Zenobia, and is now called Orleans."

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).

See, also, GENABUM.

ORLEANS, The City:

Early history.

See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 451.

Siege by Attila.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 511-752.

A Merovingian capital.

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 1429.

Deliverance by Joan of Arc.

In the summer of 1428 the English, under the Duke of Bedford,

having maintained and extended the conquests of Henry V., were

masters of nearly the whole of France north of the Loire. The

city of Orleans, however, on the north bank of that river, was

still held by the French, and its reduction was determined

upon. The siege began in October, and after some months of

vigorous operations there seemed to be no doubt that the

hard-pressed city must succumb. It was then that Joan of Arc,

known afterwards as the Maid of Orleans, appeared, and by the

confidence she inspired drove the English from the field. They

raised the siege on the 12th of May, 1429, and lost ground in

France from that day.

Monstrelet,

Chronicles,

book 2, chapters 52-60.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 1870.

Taken by the Germans.

Recovered by the French.

Again lost.

Repeated battles.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER); and 1870-1871.

----------ORLEANS, The City: End--------

ORLEANS, The Territory of.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812; and 1812.

ORMÉE OF BORDEAUX, The.

See BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.

{2404}

OROPUS, Naval Battle at.

The Athenians suffered a defeat at the hands of the Spartans

in a sea fight at Oropus, B. C. 411, as a consequence of which

they lost the island of Eubœa. It was one of the most disastrous

in the later period of the Peloponnesian War.

Thucydides,

History,

book 8, section 95.

ORPHANS, The.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

ORSINI, OR URSINI, The.

See ROME: 13-14TH CENTURIES.

ORTHAGORIDÆ, The.

See SICYON.

ORTHES, Battle of (1814).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

ORTHODOX, OR GREEK CHURCH, The.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054;

also, ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY,

and FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.

ORTOSPANA.

The ancient name of the city of Cabul.

ORTYGIA.

See SYRACUSE.

OSAGES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY, and SIOUAN FAMILY.

OSCANS, The.

"The Oscan or Opican race was at one time very widely spread

over the south (of Italy]. The Auruncans of Lower Latium

belonged to this race, as also the Ausonians, who once gave

name to Central Italy, and probably also the Volscians and the

Æquians. In Campania the Oscan language was preserved to a

late period in Roman history, and inscriptions still remain

which can be interpreted by those familiar with Latin."

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

introduction, section 2.

See, also, ITALY: ANCIENT.

OSCAR I.,

King of Sweden, A. D. 1844-1859.

Oscar II., King of Sweden, 1872-.

OSI, The.

See ARAVISCI; also, GOTHINI.

OSISMI, The.

See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

OSMAN.

OSMANLI.

See OTHMAN.

OSMANLIS.

See TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326.

OSNABRÜCK: A. D. 1644-1648.

Negotiation of the Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

OSRHOËNE,

OSROËNE.

A small principality or petty kingdom surrounding the city of

Edessa, its capital, in northwestern Mesopotamia. It appears

to have acquired its name and some little importance during

the period of Parthian supremacy. It was a prince of Osrhoëne

who betrayed the ill-fated army of Crassus to the Parthians at

Carrhæ. In the reign of Caracalla Osrhoëne was made a Roman

province. Edessa, the capital, claimed great antiquity, but is

believed to have been really founded by Seleucus. During the

first ten or eleven centuries of the Christian era Edessa was

a city of superior importance in the eastern world, under

dependent kings or princes of its own. It was especially noted

for its schools of theology.

G. Rawlinson,

Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 11.

ALSO IN:

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 5, chapter 2.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapters 8 and 47.

P. Smith,

History of the World,

volume 3 (American edition),

page 151.

OSSA AND PELION.

See THESSALY.

----------OSTEND: Start--------

OSTEND: A. D. 1602-1604.

Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.

OSTEND: A. D. 1706.

Besieged and reduced by the Allies.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

OSTEND: A. D. 1722-1731.

The obnoxious Company.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725; and 1726-1731.

OSTEND: A. D. 1745-1748.

Taken by the French, and restored.

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

and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

----------OSTEND: End--------

OSTEND MANIFESTO, The.

See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

OSTIA.

Ostia, the ancient port of Rome, at the mouth of the Tiber,

was regarded as a suburb of the city and had no independent

existence. Its inhabitants were Roman citizens. In time, the

maintaining of a harbor at Ostia was found to be

impracticable, owing to deposits of silt from the Tiber, and

artificial harbors were constructed by the emperors Claudius,

Nero and Trajan, about two miles to the north of Ostia. They

were known by the names Portus Augusti and Portus Trajani. In

the 12th century the port and channel of Ostia were partially

restored, for a time, but only to be abandoned again. The

ancient city is now represented by a small hamlet, about two

miles from the sea shore.

R. Burn,

Rome and the Campagna,

chapter 14.

OSTMEN.

See NORMANS: 10-13TH CENTURIES.

OSTRACH, Battle of (1799).

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

OSTRACISM.

"The state [Athens] required means of legally removing persons

who, by an excess of influence and adherents, virtually put an

end to the equality among the citizens established by law, and

thus threatened the state with a revival of party-rule. For

this purpose, in the days of Clisthenes, and probably under

his influence, the institution of ostracism, or judgment by

potsherds, was established. By virtue of it the people were

themselves to protect civic equality, and by a public vote

remove from among them whoever seemed dangerous to them. For

such a sentence, however, besides a public preliminary

discussion, the unanimous vote of six thousand citizens was

required. The honour and property of the exile remained

untouched, and the banishment itself was only pronounced for a

term of ten years."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).

"The procedure (in ostracism] was as follows: —Every year, in

the sixth or seventh Prytany, the question was put to the

people whether it desired ostracism to be put in force or not.

Hereupon of course orators came forward to support or oppose

the proposal. The former they could only do by designating

particular persons as sources of impending danger to freedom,

or of confusion and injury to the commonwealth; in opposition

to them, on the other side, the persons thus designated, and

anyone besides who desired it, were of course free to deny the

danger, and to show that the anxiety was unfounded. If the

people decided in favour of putting the ostracism in force, a

day was appointed on which it was to take place. On this day

the people assembled at the market, where an enclosure was

erected with ten different entrances and accordingly, it is

probable, the same number of divisions for the several Phylæ.

Every citizen entitled to a vote wrote the name of the person

he desired to have banished from the state upon a potsherd. …

At one of the ten entrances the potsherds were put into the

hands of the magistrates posted there, the Prytanes and the

nine Archons, and when the voting was completed were counted

one by one. The man whose name was found written on at least

six thousand potsherds was obliged to leave the country within

ten days at latest."

G. F. Schömann,

Antiquities of Greece,

part 3, chapter 3.

{2405}

OSTROGOTHS.

See GOTHS.

OSTROLENKA, Battle of (1831).

See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

OSTROVNO, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

OSWALD, King of Northumbria, A. D. 635-642.

----------OSWEGO: Start--------

OSWEGO: A. D. 1722.

Fort built by the English.

See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

OSWEGO: A. D. 1755.

English position strengthened.

See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

OSWEGO: A. D. 1756.

The three forts taken by the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

OSWEGO: A. D. 1759.

Reoccupied by the English.

See CANADA: A. D. 1759.

OSWEGO: A. D. 1783-1796.

Retained by the English after peace with the United States.

Final surrender.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1783-1796; and 1794-1795.

----------OSWEGO: End--------

OSWI, King of Northumbria, A. D. 655-670.

OTADENI,

OTTEDENI, The.

One of the tribes in Britain whose territory lay between the

Roman wall and the Firth of Forth. Mr. Skene thinks they were

the same people who are mentioned in the 4th century as the

"Attacotti."

W. F. Skene,

Celtic Scotland,

volume l.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

OTCHAKOF, Siege of (1737).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

OTFORD, Battle of.

Won by Edmund Ironsides, A. D. 1016, over Cnut, or Canute, the

Danish claimant of the English crown.

OTHMAN, Caliph, A. D. 643-655.

Othman, or Osman, founder of the Ottoman or

Osmanli dynasty of Turkish Sultans, 1307-1325.

Othman II., Turkish Sultan, 1618-1622.

Othman III., Turkish Sultan, 1754-1757.

OTHO,

Roman Emperor, A. D. 69.

Otho (of Bavaria), King of Hungary, 1305-1307.

Otho, or Otto I. (called the Great),

King of the East Franks (Germany), 936-973;

King of Lombardy, and Emperor, 962-973.

Otho II., King of the East Franks (Germany),

King of Italy, and Emperor, 967-983.

Otho Ill., King of the East Franks (Germany), 983-1002;

King of Italy and Emperor, 996-1002.

Otho IV., King of Germany, 1208-1212; Emperor, 1209-1212.

OTHRYS.

See THESSALY.

OTIS, James, The speech of, against Writs of Assistance.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.

OTOES,

OTTOES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY, and SIOUAN FAMILY.

OTOMIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OTOMIS.

OTRANTO: Taken by the Turks (1480).

See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481.

OTTAWA, Canada:

The founding of the City.

"In 1826 the village of Bytown, now Ottawa, the capital of the

Dominion of Canada, was founded. The origin of this beautiful

city was this: Colonel By, an officer of the Royal Engineers,

came to survey the country with a view of making a canal to

connect the tidal waters of the St. Lawrence with the great

lakes of Canada. After various explorations, an inland route

up the Ottawa to the Rideau affluent, and thence by a ship

canal to Kingston on Lake Ontario, was chosen. Colonel By made

his headquarters where the proposed canal was to descend, by

eight locks, a steep declivity of 90 feet to the Ottawa River.

'The spot itself was wonderfully beautiful.' … It was the

centre of a vast lumber-trade, and had expanded by 1858 to a

large town."

W. P. Greswell,

History of the Dominion of Canada,

page 168.

OTTAWAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and OJIBWAS;

also PONTIAC'S WAR.

OTTERBURN, Battle of.

This famous battle was fought, August 19, 1388, between a

small force of Scots, harrying the border, under Earl Douglas

and a hastily assembled body of English led by Sir Henry

Percy, the famous Hotspur. The English, making a night attack

on the Scottish camp, not far from Newcastle, were terribly

beaten, and Hotspur was taken prisoner; but Douglas fell

mortally wounded. The battle was a renowned encounter of

knightly warriors, and greatly interested the historians of

the age. It is narrated in Froissart's chronicles (volume 3,

chapter 126), and is believed to be the action sung of in the

famous old ballad of Chevy Chase, or the "Hunting of the

Cheviot."

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapter 26 (volume 3).

OTTIMATI, The.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

OTTO.

See OTHO.

OTTOCAR,

OTOKAR,

King of Bohemia, A. D. 1253-1278.

OTTOMAN EMPIRE.

See TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326, and after.

OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT.

See SUBLIME PORTE.

OTUMBA, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1520-1521.

OTZAKOF:

Storming, capture, and massacre of inhabitants

by the Russians (1788).

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

OUAR KHOUNI, The.

See AVARS.

----------OUDE: Start--------

OUDE, OR OUDH.

"Before the British settler had established himself on the

peninsula of India, Oude was a province of the Mogul Empire.

When that empire was distracted and weakened by the invasion

of Nadir Shah [see INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748], the treachery of

the servant was turned against the master, and little by

little the Governor began to govern for himself. But holding

only an official, though an hereditary title, he still

acknowledged his vassalage; and long after the Great Mogul had

shrivelled into a pensioner and pageant, the Newab–Wuzeer of

Oude was nominally his minister. Of the earliest history of

British connexion with the Court of the Wuzeer, it is not

necessary to write in detail. There is nothing less creditable

in the annals of the rise and progress of the British power in

the East. The Newab had territory; the Newab had subjects; the

Newab had neighbours; more than all, the Newab had money.

{2406}

But although he possessed in abundance the raw material of

soldiers, he had not been able to organise an army sufficient

for all the external and internal requirements of the State;

and so he was fain to avail himself of the superior military

skill and discipline of the white men, and to hire British

battalions to do his work. … In truth it was a vicious system,

one that can hardly be too severely condemned. By it we

established a Double Government of the worst kind. The

Political and Military government was in the hands of the

Company; the internal administration of the Oude territories

still rested with the Newab–Wuzeer. In other words, hedged in

and protected by the British battalions, a bad race of Eastern

Princes were suffered to do, or not to do, what they liked. …

Every new year saw the unhappy country lapsing into worse

disorder, with less disposition, as time advanced, on the part

of the local Government to remedy the evils beneath which it

was groaning. Advice, protestation, remonstrance were in vain.

Lord Cornwallis advised, protested, remonstrated: Sir John

Shore advised, protested, remonstrated. At last a statesman of

a very different temper appeared upon the scene. Lord

Wellesley was a despot in every pulse of his heart. But he was

a despot of the right kind; for he was a man of consummate

vigour and ability, and he seldom made a mistake. The

condition of Oude soon attracted his attention; not because

its government was bad and its people were wretched, but

because that country might either be a bulwark of safety to

our own dominions, or A sea of danger which might overflow and

destroy us. … It was sound policy to render Oude powerful for

good and powerless for evil. To the accomplishment of this it

was necessary that large bodies of ill-disciplined and

irregularly paid native troops in the service of the

Newab-Wuzeer—lawless bands that had been a terror alike to him

and to his people—should be forthwith disbanded, and that

British troops should occupy their place. … The additional

burden to be imposed upon Oude was little less than half a

million of money, and the unfortunate Wuzeer, whose resources

had been strained to the utmost to pay the previous subsidy,

declared his inability to meet any further demands on his

treasury. This was what Lord Wellesley expected—nay, more, it

was what he wanted. If the Wuzeer could not pay in money, he

could pay in money's worth. He had rich lands that might be

ceded in perpetuity to the Company for the punctual payment of

the subsidy. So the Governor-General prepared a treaty ceding

the required provinces, and with a formidable array of British

troops at his call, dragooned the Wuzeer into sullen

submission to the will of the English Sultan. The new treaty

was signed; and districts then yielding a million and a half

of money, and now nearly double that amount of annual revenue,

passed under the administration of the British Government.

Now, this treaty—the last ever ratified between the two

Governments—bound the Newab-Wuzeer to 'establish in his

reserved dominions such a system of administration, to be

carried on by his own officers, as should be conducive to the

prosperity of his subjects, and he calculated to secure the

lives and properties of the inhabitants,' and he undertook at

the same time 'always to advise with and to act in conformity

to the counsels of the officers of the East India Company.'

But the English ruler knew well that there was small hope of

these conditions being fulfilled. … Whilst the counsels of our

British officers did nothing for the people, the bayonets of

our British soldiers restrained them from doing anything for

themselves. Thus matters grew from bad to worse, and from

worse to worst. One Governor-General followed another; one

Resident followed another; one Wuzeer followed another; but

still the great tide of evil increased in volume, in darkness,

and in depth. But, although the Newab-Wuzeers of Oude were,

doubtless, bad rulers and bad men, it must be admitted that

they were good allies. … They supplied our armies, in time of

war, with grain; they supplied us with carriage–cattle; better

still, they supplied us with cash. There was money in the

Treasury of Lucknow, when there was none in the Treasury of

Calcutta; and the time came when the Wuzeer's cash was needed

by the British ruler. Engaged in an extensive and costly war,

Lord Hastings wanted more millions for the prosecution of his

great enterprises. They were forthcoming at the right time;

and the British Government were not unwilling in exchange to

bestow both titles and territories on the Wuzeer. The times

were propitious. The successful close of the Nepaul war placed

at our disposal an unhealthy and impracticable tract of

country at the foot of the Hills. This 'terai' ceded to us by

the Nepaulese was sold for a million of money to the Wuzeer,

to whose domains it was contiguous, and he himself expanded

and bloomed into a King under the fostering sun of British

favour and affection."

J. W. Kaye,

History of the Sepoy War in India,

chapter 3 (volume 1).

"By Lord Wellesley's treaty with the then Nawab-Vizier of

Oude, that prince had agreed to introduce into his then

remaining territories, such a system of administration as

should be conducive to the prosperity of his subjects, and to

the security of the lives and property of the inhabitants; and

always to advise with, and act in conformity to the counsel

of, the officers of the Company's Government. Advantage had

been taken of this clause, from time to time, to remonstrate

with the Oude princes on their misgovernment. I have no doubt

that the charges to this effect were in great measure correct.

The house of Oude has never been remarkable for peculiar

beneficence as governors. A work lately published, the

'Private Life of an Eastern King,' affords, I suppose, a true

picture of what they may have been as men. Still, the charges

against them came, for the most part, from interested lips. …

Certain it is that all disinterested English observers—Bishop

Heber, for instance—entering Oude fresh from Calcutta, and

with their ears full of the current English talk about its

miseries, were surprised to find a well–cultivated country, a

manly and independent people. … Under Lord Dalhousie's rule,

however, and after the proclamation of his annexation policy,

complaints of Oude misgovernment became—at Calcutta—louder

and louder. Within Oude itself, these complaints were met, and

in part justified, by a rising Moslem fanaticism. Towards the

middle of 1855, a sanguinary affray took place at Lucknow"

between Hindoos and Mussulmans, "in which the King took part

with his co-religionists, against the advice of Colonel

Outram, the then Resident. Already British troops near Lucknow

were held in readiness to act; already the newspapers were

openly speculating on immediate annexation. … At Fyzabad, new

disturbances broke out between Hindoos and Moslems.

{2407}

The former were victorious. A Moolavee, or doctor, of high

repute, named Ameer Alee, proclaimed the holy war. Troops were

ordered against him. … The talk of annexation grew riper and

riper. The Indian Government assembled 16,000 men at Cawnpore.

For months the Indian papers had been computing what revenue

Oude yielded to its native prince—what revenue it might yield

under the Company's management. Lord Dalhousie's successor,

Lord Canning, was already at Bombay. But the former seems to

have been anxious to secure for himself the glory of this

step. The plea—the sole plea—for annexation, was maltreatment

of their people by the Kings of Oude. … The King had been

warned by Lord William Bentinck, by Lord Hardinge. He had

declined to sign a new treaty, vesting the government of his

country exclusively in the East India Company. He was now to

be deposed; and all who withheld obedience to the

Governor-General's mandate were to be rebels (7th February,

1856). The King followed the example of Pertaub Shean of

Sattara—withdrew his guns, disarmed his troops, shut up his

palace. Thus we entered into possession of 24,000 square miles

of territory, with 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 inhabitants,

yielding £1,000,000 of revenue. But it was expected by

officials that it could be made to yield £1,500,000 of

surplus. Can you wonder that it was annexed?"

J. M. Ludlow,

British India,

part 2, lecture 15 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

E. Arnold,

The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,

chapter 25 (volume 2).

Sir W. W. Hunter,

The Marquess of Dalhousie,

chapter 8.

W. M. Torrens,

Empire in Asia: How we came by it,

chapter 26.

OUDE: A. D. 1763-1765.

English war with the Nawab.

See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

----------OUDE: End--------

OUDE, The Begums of, and Warren Hastings.

See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

----------OUDENARDE: Start--------

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1582.

Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1659.

Taken by the French and restored to Spain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1667.

Taken by the French.

See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1668.

Ceded to France.

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

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1679.

Restored to Spain.

See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1706.

Surrendered to Marlborough and the Allies.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1708.

Marlborough's victory.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1745-1748.

Taken by the French, and restored.

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

and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE; THE CONGRESS.

----------OUDENARDE: End--------

OUDH.

See OUDE.

OUIARS,

OUIGOURS, The.

See AVARS.

OUMAS,

HUMAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKOGEAN FAMILY.

OUR LADY OF MONTESA, The Order of.

This was an order of knighthood founded by King Jayme II., of

Aragon, in 1317.

S. A. Dunham,

History of Spain and Portugal,

volume 4, page 238 (American edition).

OURIQUE, Battle of (1139).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

OVATION, The Roman.

See TRIUMPH.

OVIEDO, Origin of the kingdom of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.

OVILIA.

See CAMPUS MARTIUS.

OXENSTIERN, Axel: His leadership in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

OXFORD, The Headquarters of King Charles.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

OXFORD, Provisions of.

A system or constitution of government secured in 1258 by the

English barons, under the lead of Earl Simon de Montfort. The

king, Henry III., "was again and again forced to swear to it,

and to proclaim it throughout the country. The special

grievances of the barons were met by a set of ordinances

called the Provisions of Westminster, which were produced

after some trouble in October 1259."

W. Stubbs,

The Early Plantagenets,

page 190.

The new constitution was nominally in force for nearly six

years, repeatedly violated and repeatedly sworn to afresh by

the king, civil war being constantly imminent. At length both

sides agreed to submit the question of maintaining the

Provisions of Oxford to the arbitration of Louis IX. of

France, and his decision, called the Mise of Amiens, annulled

them completely. De Montfort's party thereupon repudiated the

award and the civil war called the "Barons' War" ensued.

C. H. Pearson,

History of England in the Early and Middle Ages,

volume 2, chapter 8.

ALSO IN:

W. Stubbs,

Select Charters,

part 6.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

OXFORD, OR TRACT ARIAN MOVEMENT, The.

"Never was religion in England so uninteresting as it was in

the earlier part of the 19th century. Never was a time when

thought was so active, criticism so keen, taste so fastidious;

and which so plainly demanded a religion intellectual,

sympathetic, and attractive. This want the Tractarian, or

Oxford movement, as it is called, attempted to supply. … But

the Tractarians put before themselves an aim far higher than

that. They attempted nothing less than to develope and place

on a firm and imperishable basis what Laud and the Non-Jurors

had tried tentatively to do; namely, to vindicate the Church

of England from all complicity with foreign Protestantism, to

establish her essential identity with the Church of the

Apostles and Fathers through the mediæval Church, and to place

her for the first time since the Reformation in her true

position with regard to the Church in the East and the West. …

Naturally the first work undertaken was the explanation of

doctrine. The 'Tracts for the Times,' mainly written by Dr.

Newman and Dr. Pusey, put before men what the writers believed

to be the doctrine of the Church of England, with a boldness

and precision of statement hitherto unexampled. The divine

Authority of the Church. Her essential unity in all parts of

the world. The effectiveness of regeneration in Holy Baptism.

The reality of the presence of our Lord in Holy Communion. The

sacrificial character of Holy Communion. The reality of the

power to absolve sin committed by our Lord to the priesthood.

{2408}

Such were the doctrines maintained in the Tractarian writings.

… They were, of course, directly opposed to the popular

Protestantism of the day, as held by the Evangelical party.

They were equally opposed to the Latitudinarianism of the

Broad Church party, who—true descendants of Tillotson and

Burnet—were under the leadership of men like Arnold and

Stanley, endeavouring to unite all men against the wickedness

of the time on the basis of a common Christian morality under

the guardianship of the State, unhampered by distinctive

creeds or definite doctrines. No two methods could be more

opposite."

H. O. Wakeman,

History of Religion in England,

chapter 11.

"The two tasks … which the Tractarians set themselves, were to

establish first that the authority of the primitive Church

resided in the Church of England, and second, that the

doctrines of the English Church were really identical with

those of pre-Tridentine Christianity. … The Tractarians'

second object is chiefly recollected because it produced the

Tract which brought their series to an abrupt conclusion

[1841]. Tract XC. is an elaborate attempt to prove that the

articles of the English Church are not inconsistent with the

doctrines of mediæval Christianity; that they may be

subscribed by those who aim at being Catholic in heart and

doctrine. … Few books published in the present century have

made so great a sensation as this famous Tract. … Bagot,

Bishop of Oxford, Mr. Newman's own diocesan, asked the author

to suppress it. The request placed the author in a singular

dilemma. The double object which he had set himself to

accomplish became at once impossible. He had laboured to prove

that authority resided in the English Church, and authority,

in the person of his own diocesan, objected to his

interpretation of the articles. For the moment Mr. Newman

resolved on a compromise. He did not withdraw Tract XC., but

he discontinued the series. … The discontinuance of the

Tracts, however, did not alter the position of authority. The

bishops, one after another; 'began to charge against' the

author. Authority, the authority which Mr. Newman had laboured

to establish, was shaking off the dust of its feet against

him. The attacks of the bishops made Mr. Newman's continuance

in the Church of England difficult. But, long before the

attack was made, he had regarded his own position with

dissatisfaction." It became intolerable to him when, in 1841,

a Protestant bishop of Jerusalem was appointed, who exercised

authority over both Lutherans and Anglicans. "A communion with

Lutherans, Calvinists, and even Monophysites seemed to him an

abominable thing, which tended to separate the English Church

further and further from Rome. … From the hour that the see

was established, his own lot was practically decided. For a

few years longer he remained in the fold in which he had been

reared, but he felt like a dying man. He gradually withdrew

from his pastoral duties, and finally [in 1845] entered into

communion with Rome. … A great movement never perishes for

want of a leader. After the secession of Mr. Newman, the

control of the movement fell into the hands of Dr. Pusey."

S. Walpole,

History of England from 1815,

chapter 21 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

J. H. Newman,

History of my Religious Opinions (Apologia pro Vita Sua).

J. H. Newman,

Letters and Correspondence to 1845.

R. W. Church,

The Oxford Movement.

W. Palmer,

Narrative of Events Connected with

the Tracts for the Times.

T. Mozley,

Reminiscences.

Sir J. T. Coleridge,

Life of John Keble.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND, and after.

OXGANG.

See BOVATE.

OXUS, The.

Now called the Amoo, or Jihon River, in Russian Central Asia.

OYER AND TERMINER, Courts of.

See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1285.

P.

PACAGUARA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

PACAMORA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

PACHA.

See BEY.

PACIFIC OCEAN:

Its Discovery and its Name.

The first European to reach the shores of the Pacific Ocean

was Vasco Nuñez de Balboa, who saw it, from "a peak in Darien"

on the 25th of September, 1513 (see AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517).

"It was not for some years after this discovery that the name

Pacific was applied to any part of the ocean; and for a long

time after parts only of it were so termed, this part of it

retained the original name of South Sea, so called because it

lay to the south of its discoverer. The lettering of the early

maps is here significant. All along from this time to the

middle of the 17th century, the larger part of the Pacific was

labeled 'Oceanus Indicus Orientalis,' or 'Mar del Sur,' the

Atlantic, opposite the Isthmus, being called 'Mar del Norte.'

Sometimes the reporters called the South Sea 'La Otra Mar,' in

contradistinction to the 'Mare Oceanus' of Juan de la Cosa, or

the 'Oceanus Occidentalis' of Ptolemy, as the Atlantic was

then called. Indeed, the Atlantic was not generally known by

that name for some time yet. Schöner, in 1520, terms it, as

does Ptolemy in 1513, 'Oceanus Occidentalis'; Grynæus, in

1532, 'Oceanus Magnus'; Apianus, appearing in the Cosmography

of 1575, although thought to have been drawn in 1520, 'Mar

Atlicum.' Robert Thorne, 1527, in Hakluyt's Voy., writes'

Oceanus Occiden.'; Bordone, 1528, 'Mare Occidentale'; Ptolemy,

1530, 'Occean Occidentalis'; Ramusio, 1565, Viaggi, iii. 455,

off Central America, 'Mar del Nort,' and in the great ocean,

both north and south, 'Mar Ociano'; Mercator, 1569, north of

the tropic of cancer, 'Oceanius Atlanticvs'; Hondius, 1595,

'Mar del Nort'; West-Indische Spieghel, 1624, 'Mar del Nort';

De Laet, 1633, 'Mar del Norte'; Jacob Colon, 1663, 'Mar del

Nort'; Ogilby, 1671, 'Oceanus Atlanticum,' 'Mar del Norte,'

and 'Oceanus Æthiopicus'; Dampier, 1699, 'the North or

Atlantick Sea.' The Portuguese map of 1518, Munich Atlas, iv.,

is the first upon which I have seen a name applied to the

Pacific; and there it is given … as 'Mar visto pelos

Castelhanos,' Sea seen by the Spaniards. … On the globe of

Johann Schöner, 1520, the two continents of America are

represented with a strait dividing them at the Isthmus.

{2409}

The great island of Zipangri, or Japan, lies about midway

between North America and Asia. North of this island … are the

words 'Orientalis Oceanus,' and to the same ocean south of the

equator the words 'Oceanus Orientalis Indicus' are applied.

Diego Homem, 1558, marks out upon his map a large body of

water to the north-west of 'Terra de Florida,' and west of

Canada, and labels it 'Mare leparamantium.' … Colon and Ribero

call the South Sea 'Mar del Svr.' In Hakluyt's Voy. we find

that Robert Thorne, in 1527, wrote 'Mare Australe.' Ptolemy,

in 1530, places near the Straits of Magellan, 'Mare

pacificum.' Ramusio, 1565, Viaggi, iii. 455, off Central

America, places 'Mar del Sur,' and off the Straits of

Magellan, 'Mar Oceano.' Mercator places in his atlas of 1569

plainly, near the Straits of Magellan, 'El Mar Pacifico,' and

in the great sea off Central America 'Mar del Zur.' On the map

of Hondius, about 1595, in Drake's' 'World Encompassed,' the

general term 'Mare Pacificvm' is applied to the Pacific Ocean,

the words being in large letters extending across the ocean

opposite Central America, while under it in smaller letters is

'Mar del Sur.' This clearly restricts the name South Sea to a

narrow locality, even at this date. In Hondius' Map, 'Purchas,

His Pilgrimes,' iv. 857, the south Pacific is called 'Mare

Pacificum,' and the central Pacific 'Mar del Sur.'"

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 1, pages 373-374, foot-note.

PACTA CONVENTA, The Polish.

See POLAND: A. D. 1573.

PACTOLUS, Battle of the (B. C. 395).

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

PADISCHAH.

See BEY; also CRAL.

----------PADUA: Start--------

PADUA: Origin.

See VENETI OF CISALPINE GAUL.

PADUA: A. D. 452.

Destruction by the Huns.

See HUNS: A. D. 452;

also VENICE: A. D. 452.

PADUA: 11-12th Centuries.

Rise and acquisition of Republican independence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

PADUA: A. D. 1237-1256:

The tyranny of Eccelino di Romano.

The Crusade against him.

Capture and pillage of the city by its deliverers.

See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

PADUA: A. D. 1328-1338.

Submission to Can' Grande della Scala.

Recovery from his successor.

The founding of the sovereignty of the Carrara family.

See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.

PADUA: A. D. 1388.

Yielded to the Visconti of Milan.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

PADUA: A. D. 1402.

Struggle of Francesco Carrara with Visconti of Milan.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447;

and FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1406.

PADUA: A. D. 1405.

Added to the dominion of Venice.

See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

PADUA: A. D. 1509-1513.

In the War of the League of Cambrai.

Siege by the Emperor Maximilian.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

----------PADUA: End--------

PADUCAH: Repulse of Forrest.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (APRIL: TENNESSEE).

PADUS, The.

The name by which the river Po was known to the Romans.

Dividing Cisalpine Gaul, as the river did, into two parts,

they called the northern part Transpadane and the southern

part Cispadane Gaul.

PÆANS.

"The pæans [among the ancient Greeks] were songs of which the

tune and words expressed courage and confidence. 'All sounds

of lamentation,' … says Callimachus, 'cease when the Ie Pæan,

Ie Pæan, is heard.' … Pæans were sung, not only when there was

a hope of being able, by the help of the gods, to overcome a

great and imminent danger, but when the danger was happily

past; they were songs of hope and confidence as well as of

thanksgiving for, victory and safety."

K. O. Müller,

History of the Literature of Ancient Greece,

volume 1, page 27.

PÆONIANS, The.

"The Pæonians, a numerous and much-divided race, seemingly

neither Thracian nor Macedonian nor Illyrian, but professing

to be descended from the Teukri of Troy, … occupied both banks

of the Strymon, from the neighbourhood of Mount Skomius, in

which that river rises, down to the lake near its mouth. … The

Pæonians, in their north-western tribes, thus bordered upon

the Macedonian Pelagonia, —in their northern tribes upon the

Illyrian Dardani and Autariatæ,—in the eastern, southern and

south-eastern tribes, upon the Thracians and Pierians."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 25.

Darius, king of Persia, is said to have caused a great part of

the Pæonians to be transported to a district in Phrygia, but

they escaped and returned home.

PAGANISM: Suppressed in the Roman Empire.

See ROME: A. D. 391-395.

PAGE.

See CHIVALRY.

PAGUS.

See GENS, ROMAN;

also, HUNDRED.

PAIDONOMUS, The.

The title of an officer who was charged with the general

direction of the education and discipline of the young in

ancient Sparta.

G. Schömann,

Antiquities of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapter 1.

PAINE, Thomas, and the American Revolution.

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

KING GEORGE'S WAR MEASURES.

PAINTED CHAMBER.

See WESTMINSTER PALACE.

PAINTSVILLE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

PAIONIANS, The.

See ALBANIANS.

PAIRS, Legislative.

See WHIPS, PARTY.

PAITA: A. D. 1740.

Destroyed by Commodore Anson.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

PAITA, The.

See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

PALACE, Origin of the name.

The house of the first of the Roman Emperors, Augustus, was on

the Palatine Hill, which had been appropriated by the nobility

for their residence from the earliest age of the republic. The

residence of Augustus was a quite ordinary mansion until A. U.

C. 748 (B. C. 6) when it was destroyed by fire. It was then

rebuilt on a grander scale, the people contributing, in small

individual sums—a kind of popular testimonial—to the cost.

Augustus affected to consider it public property, and gave up

a large part of it to the recreation of the citizens. His

successors added to it, and built more and more edifices

connected with it; so that, naturally, it appropriated to

itself the name of the hill and came to be known as the

Palatium, or Palace.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 40.

PALÆOLITHIC PERIOD.

See STONE AGE.

{2410}

PALÆOLOGI, The.

The family which occupied the Greek imperial throne, at Nicæa

and at Constantinople, from 1260, when Michael Palæologus

seized the crown, until the Empire was extinguished by the

Turks in 1453.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 62 (Genealogical table).

ALSO IN:

Sir J. E. Tennant,

History of Modern Greece.

PALÆOPOLIS,

PALÆPOLIS.

See NEAPOLIS.

PALÆSTRA, The.

See GYMNASIA, GREEK.

PALAIS ROYAL, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

----------PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: Start--------

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE.

PALATINE ELECTORATE.

The Palatine Electorate or Palatinate (Pfalz in German), arose

in the breaking up of the old Duchy of Franconia.

See FRANCONIA;

also PALATINE COUNTS,

and GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1214.

Acquisition by the Wittelsbach or Bavarian House.

The House of Wittelsbach (or Wisselbach), which acquired the

Duchy of Bavaria in 1180, came also into possession of the

Palatinate of the Rhine in 1214 (see BAVARIA: A. D.

1180-1356). In the next century the two possessions were

divided. "Rudolph, the elder brother of Louis III. [the

emperor, known as Louis the Bavarian] inherited the County

Palatine, and formed a distinct line from that of Bavaria for

many generations. The electoral dignity was attached to the

Palatine branch."

Sir A. Halliday,

Annals of the House of Hanover,

volume I, page 424.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1518-1572.

The Protestant Reformation.

Ascendancy of Calvinism.

"The Electors Palatine of the Rhine might be justly regarded,

during the whole course of the 16th century, as more powerful

princes than those of Brandenburg. The lower Palatine, of

which Heidelberg was then the capital, formed a considerable

tract of country, situate on the banks of the Rhine and the

Neckar, in a fertile, beautiful, and commercial part of

Germany. … The upper Palatinate, a detached and distant

province situated between Bohemia, Franconia, and Bavaria,

which constituted a part of the Electoral dominions, added

greatly to their political weight, as members of the Germanic

body. … Under Louis V., Luther began to disseminate his

doctrines at Heidelberg, which were eagerly and generally

imbibed; the moderate character of the Elector, by a felicity

rare in that age, permitting the utmost freedom of religious

opinion, though he continued, himself, to profess the Catholic

faith. His successors, who withdrew from the Romish see,

openly declared their adherence to Lutheranism; but, on the

accession of Frederic III., a new ecclesiastical revolution

took place. He was the first among the Protestant German

princes who introduced and professed the reformed religion

denominated Calvinism. As the toleration accorded by the

'Peace of religion' to those who embraced the 'Confession of

Augsburg,' did not in a strict and legal sense extend to or

include the followers of Calvin, Frederic might have been

proscribed and put to the Ban of the Empire: nor did he owe

his escape so much to the lenity or friendship of the

Lutherans, as to the mild generosity of Maximilian II., who

then filled the Imperial throne, and who was an enemy to every

species of persecution. Frederic III., animated with zeal for

the support of the Protestant cause, took an active part in

the wars which desolated the kingdom of France under Charles

IX.; protected all the French exiles who fled to his court or

dominions; and twice sent succours, under the command of his

son John Casimir, to Louis, Prince of Condé, then in arms, at

the head of the Hugonots."

Sir N. W. Wraxall,

History of France, 1574-1610,

volume 2, pages 163-165.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1608.

The Elector at the head of the Evangelical Union.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1619-1620.

Acceptance of the crown of Bohemia by the Elector.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1621-1623.

The Elector placed under the ban of the empire.

Devastation and conquest of his dominions.

The electoral dignity transferred to the Duke of Bavaria.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1631-1632.

Temporary recovery by Gustavus Adolphus.

Obstinate bigotry of the Elector.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1632.

Death of Frederick V.

Treaty with the Swedes.

Nominal restoration of the young Elector.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1648.

Division in the Peace of Westphalia.

Restoration of the Lower Palatinate to the old Electoral Family.

Annexation of the Upper to Bavaria.

The recreated electorate.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1674.

In the Coalition against Louis XIV.

Ravaged by Turenne.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674; and 1674-1678.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1679-1680.

Encroachments by France upon the territory of the Elector.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1680.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1686.

The claims of Louis XIV. in the name of the Duchess of Orleans.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1690.

The second devastation and the War of the League of Augsburg.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, and after.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1697.

The Peace of Ryswick.

Restitutions by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1705.

The Upper Palatinate restored to the Elector.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1705.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A: D. 1709-1710.

Emigration of inhabitants to England,

thence to Ireland and America.

See PALATINES.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1714.

The Upper Palatinate ceded to the Elector of Bavaria

in exchange for Sardinia.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1801-1803.

Transferred in great part to Baden.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1849.

Revolution suppressed by Prussian troops.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.

----------PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: Start--------

PALATINATES, American.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632;

NEW ALBION;

MAINE: A. D. 1639;

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655;

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

PALATINE, Counts.

In Germany, under the early emperors, after the dissolution of

the dominion of Charlemagne, an office came into existence

called that of the 'comes palatii'—Count Palatine. This office

was created in the interest of the sovereign, as a means of

diminishing the power of the local rulers.

{2411}

The Counts Palatine were appointed as their coadjutors, often

with a concurrent and sometimes with a sole jurisdiction.

Their "functions were more extensive than those of the ancient

'missi dominici.' Yet the office was different. Under the

Carlovingian emperors there had been one dignitary with that

title, who received appeals from all the secular tribunals of

the empire. The missi dominici were more than his mere

colleagues, since they could convoke any cause pending before

the ordinary judges and take cognisance of more serious cases

even in the first instance. As the missi were disused, and as

the empire became split among the immediate descendants of

Louis le Debonnaire, the count palatine (comes palatii) was

found inadequate to his numerous duties; and coadjutors were

provided him for Saxony, Bavaria, and Swabia. After the

elevation of Arnulf, however, most of these dignities ceased;

and we read of one count palatine only—the count or duke of

Franconia or Rhenish France. Though we have reason to believe

that this high functionary continued to receive appeals from

the tribunals of each duchy, he certainly could not exercise

over them a sufficient control; nor, if his authority were

undisputed, could he be equal to his judicial duties. Yet to

restrain the absolute jurisdiction of his princely vassals was

no less the interest of the people than the sovereign; and in

this view Otho I. restored, with even increased powers, the

provincial counts palatine. He gave them not only the

appellant jurisdiction of the ancient comes palatii, but the

primary one of the missi dominici. … They had each a castle,

the wardenship of which was intrusted to officers named

burgraves, dependent on the count palatine of the province. In

the sequel, some of these burgraves became princes of the

empire."

S. A. Dunham,

History of the Germanic Empire,

volume 1, pages 120-121.

PALATINE, The Elector.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152;

and PALATINATE OF THE RHINE.

PALATINE, The English Counties.

"The policy of the Norman kings stripped the earls of their

official character. They ceased to have local jurisdiction or

authority. Their dignity was of a personal nature, and they

must be regarded rather as the foremost of the barons, and as

their peers, than as a distinct order in the state. … An

exception to the general policy of William [the Conqueror] as

to earldoms was made in those governments which, in the next

century, were called palatine. These were founded in Cheshire,

and perhaps in Shropshire, against the Welsh, and in the

bishopric of Durham both to oppose the Scots, and to restrain

the turbulence of the northern people, who slew Walcher, the

first earl bishop, for his ill government. An earl palatine

had royal jurisdiction within his earldom. So it was said of

Hugh, earl of Chester, that he held his earldom in right of

his sword, as the king held all England in right of his crown.

All tenants-in–chief held of him; he had his own courts, took

the whole proceeds of jurisdiction, and appointed his own

sheriff. The statement that Bishop Odo had palatine

jurisdiction in Kent may be explained by the functions which

he exercised as justiciary."

W. Hunt,

Norman Britain,

pages 118-119.

"The earldom of Chester has belonged to the eldest son of the

sovereign since 1396; the palatinate jurisdiction of Durham

was transferred to the crown in 1836 by act of Parliament, 6

Will. IV, c. 19."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 9,

section 98, footnote (volume 1).

See, also, PALATINE, THE IRISH COUNTIES.

PALATINE, The Hungarian.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

PALATINE, The Irish Counties.

"The franchise of a county palatine gave a right of exclusive

civil and criminal jurisdiction; so that the king's writ

should not run, nor his judges come within it, though judgment

in its courts might be reversed by writ of error in the king's

bench. The lord might enfeoff tenants to hold by knights'

service of himself; he had almost all regalian rights; the

lands of those attainted for treason escheated to him; he

acted in every thing rather as one of the great feudatories of

France or Germany than a subject of the English crown. Such

had been the earl of Chester, and only Chester, in England;

but in Ireland this dangerous independence was permitted to

Strongbow in Leinster, to Lacy in Meath, and at a later time

to the Butlers and Geraldines in parts of Munster. Strongbow's

vast inheritance soon fell to five sisters, who took to their

shares, with the same palatine rights, the counties of Carlow,

Wexford, Kilkenny, Kildare, and the district of Leix, since

called the Queen's County. In all these palatinates, forming

by far the greater portion of the English territories, the

king's process had its course only within the lands belonging

to the church."

E. Hallam,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 18 (volume 3).

PALATINE HILL, The.

The Palatine City.

The Seven Mounts.

"The town which in the course of centuries grew up as Rome, in

its original form embraced according to trustworthy testimony

only the Palatine, or 'square Rome' (Roma quadrata), as it was

called in later times from the irregularly quadrangular form

of the Palatine hill. The gates and walls that enclosed this

original city remained visible down to the period of the

empire. … Many traces indicate that this was the centre and

original seat of the urban settlement. … The 'festival of the

Seven Mounts' ('septimontium'), again, preserved the memory of

the more extended settlement which gradually formed round the

Palatine. Suburbs grew up one after another, each protected by

its own separate though weaker circumvallation and joined to

the original ring-wall of the Palatine. … The 'Seven Rings'

were, the Palatine itself; the cermalus, the slope of the

Palatine in the direction of the morass that in the earliest

times extended between it and the Capitoline (velabrum); the

Velia, the ridge which connected the Palatine with the

Esquiline, but in subsequent times was almost wholly

obliterated by the buildings of the empire; the Fagutal, the

Oppius, and the Cispius, the three summits of the Esquiline;

lastly, the Sucusa, or Subura, a fortress constructed outside

of the earthern rampart which protected the new town on the

Carinae, in the low ground between the Esquiline and the

Quirinal, beneath S. Pietro in Vincoli. These additions,

manifestly the results of a gradual growth, clearly reveal to

a certain extent the earliest history of the Palatine Rome. …

The Palatine city of the Seven Mounts may have had a history

of its own; no other tradition of it has survived than simply

that of its having once existed. But as the leaves of the

forest make room for the new growth of spring, although they

fall unseen by human eyes, so has this unknown city of the

Seven Mounts made room for the Rome of history."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

See, also, QUIRINAL;

and SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

{2412}

PALATINES: A. D. 1709-1710.

Migration to Ireland and America.

"The citizens of London [England] were astonished to learn, in

May and June, 1709, that 5,000 men, women and children,

Germans from the Rhine, were under tents in the suburbs. By

October the number had increased to 13,000, and comprised

husbandmen, tradesmen, school teachers and ministers. These

emigrants had deserted the Palatinate, owing to French

oppression and the persecution by their prince, the elector

John William, of the House of Newburgh, who had become a

devoted Romanist, though his subjects were mainly Lutherans

and Calvinists. Professor Henry A. Homes, in a paper treating

of this emigration, read before the Albany Institute in 1871,

holds that the movement was due not altogether to unbearable

persecutions, but largely to suggestions made to the Palatines

in their own country by agents of companies who were anxious

to obtain settlers for the British colonies in America, and

thus give value to the company's lands. The emigrants were

certainly seized with the idea that by going to England its

government would transport them to the provinces of New York,

the Carolinas, and Pennsylvania. Of the latter province they

knew much, as many Germans were already there. … Great efforts

were made to prevent suffering among these poor people;

thousands of pounds were collected for their maintenance from

churches and individuals all over England; they were lodged in

warehouses, empty dwellings and in barns, and the Queen had a

thousand tents pitched for them back of Greenwich, on

Blackheath. … Notwithstanding the great efforts made by the

English people, very much distress followed this unhappy

hegira. … Numbers of the younger men enlisted in the British

army serving in Portugal, and some made their own way to

Pennsylvania. … The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland petitioned the

Queen that some of the people might be sent to him, and by

February, 1710, 3,800 had been located across the Irish Sea,

in the province of Munster, near Limerick. … Professor Homes

recites in his monograph that they 'now number about 12,000

souls, and, under the name of Palatinates, continue to impress

a peculiar character upon the whole district they inhabit.' …

According to 'Luttrell's Diary,' about one-tenth of the whole

number that reached England were returned by the Crown to

Germany." A Swiss land company, which had bought 10,000 acres

of land from the Lords Proprietors of Carolina, "covenanted

with the English authorities for the transfer of about 700 of

these poor Heidelberg refugees to the colony. Before the end

of the year they had arrived with them at a point in North

Carolina where the rivers Neuse and Trent join. Here they

established a town, calling it New-Berne, in honor of Berne,

Switzerland. … It has not been found possible to properly

account for all the 13,000 Palatines who reached England.

Queen Anne sent some of them to Virginia, settling them above

the falls of the Rappahanock, in Spottsylvania County, from

whence they spread into several adjoining counties, and into

North Carolina. … After the Irish transportation, the largest

number that was moved in one body, and probably the final one

under government auspices, was the fleet-load that in the

spring of 1710 was despatched to New York. … A fleet of ten

ships set sail with Governor Hunter in March, having on board,

as is variously estimated, between 3,000 and 4,000 Germans. …

The immigrants were encamped on Nut, now Governor's Island,

for about three months, when a tract of 6,000 acres of the

Livingston patent was purchased for them, 100 miles up the

Hudson, the locality now being embraced in Germantown,

Columbia County. Eight hundred acres were also acquired on the

opposite side of the river at the present location of

Saugerties, in Ulster County. To these two points most of the

immigrants were removed." But dissatisfaction with their

treatment and difficulties concerning land titles impelled

many of these Germans to move off, first into Schoharie

County, and afterwards to Palatine Bridge, Montgomery County

and German Flats, Herkimer County, New York, to both of which

places they have affixed the names. Others went into

Pennsylvania, which was for many years the favorite colony

among German immigrants.

A. D. Mellick, Jr.,

The Story of an Old Farm,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

C. B. Todd,

Robert Hunter and the Settlement of the Palatines

(Memorial History of the City of New York,

volume 2, chapter 4).

PALE, The English.

"That territory within which the English retreated and

fortified themselves when a reaction began to set in after

their first success [under Henry II.] in Ireland," acquired

the name of the Pale or the English Pale. But "that term did

not really come into use until about the beginning of the 16th

century. In earlier times this territory was called the

English Land. It is generally called Galldacht, or the

'foreigner's territory,' in the Irish annals, where the term

Galls comes to be applied to the descendants of the early

adventurers, and that of Saxons to Englishmen newly arrived.

The formation of the Pale is generally considered to date from

the reign of Edward I. About the period of which we are now

treating [reign of Henry IV.—beginning of 15th century] it

began to be limited to the four counties of Louth, Meath,

Kildare, and Dublin, which formed its utmost extent in the

reign of Henry VIII. Beyond this the authority of the king of

England was a nullity."

M. Haverty,

History of Ireland,

pages 313-314, foot-note.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175; and 1515.

PALE, The Jewish, in Russia.

See JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880, and 19TH CENTURY.

PALE FACES, The (Ku-Klux Klan).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

PALENQUE, Ruins of.

See MEXICO, ANCIENT;

and AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

----------PALERMO: Start--------

PALERMO: Origin.

See PANORMUS;

also SICILY: EARLY INHABITANTS.

PALERMO: A. D. 1146.

Introduction of silk culture.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

PALERMO: A. D. 1282.

The Sicilian Vespers.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

PALERMO: A. D. 1848-1849.

Expulsion of the Neapolitan garrison.

Surrender to King "Bomba."

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

PALERMO: A. D. 1860.

Capture by Garibaldi and his volunteers.

Bombardment by the Neapolitans.

See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

{2413}

----------PALESTINE: Start--------

PALESTINE:

Early inhabitants.

See

AMALEKITES;

AMMONITES;

AMORITES;

HITTITES;

JEWS: EARLY HEBREW HISTORY;

MOABITES; PHILISTINES; PHŒNICIANS.

PALESTINE:

Name.

After the suppression of the revolt of the Jews in A. D. 130,

by Hadrian, the name of their province was changed from Judæa

to Syria Palæstina, or Syria of the Philistines, as it had

been called by Herodotus six centuries before. Hence the

modern name, Palestine.

See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

PALESTINE:

History.

See

EGYPT: about B. C. 1500-1400;

JEWS;

JERUSALEM;

SYRIA;

CHRISTIANITY;

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE;

CRUSADES.

----------PALESTINE: End--------

PALESTRO, Battle of (1859).

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

PALFREYS,

PALAFRENI.

See DESTRIERS.

PALI.

"The earlier form of the ancient spoken language [of the Aryan

race in India], called Pali or Magadhi, … was introduced into

Ceylon by Buddhist missionaries from Magadha when Buddhism

began to spread, and is now the sacred language of Ceylon and

Burmah, in which all their Buddhist literature is written."

The Pali language is thought to represent one of the stages in

the development of the Prakrit, or common speech of the

Hindus, as separated from the Sanskrit, or language of the

learned.

See SANSKRIT.

M. Williams,

Indian Wisdom,

introduction, pages xxix-xxx, foot-note.

PALILIA, Festival of the.

"The festival named Palilia [at Rome] was celebrated on the

Palatine every year on the 21st April, in honour of Pales, the

tutelary divinity of the shepherds, who dwelt on the Palatine.

This day was held sacred as an anniversary of the day on which

Romulus commenced the building of the city."

H. M. Westropp,

Early and Imperial Rome,

page 40.

PALLA, The.

See STOLA.

PALLADIUM, The.

"The Palladium, kept in the temple of Vesta at Rome, was a

small figure of Pallas, roughly carved out of wood, about

three feet high. Ilos, King of Troy, grandfather of Priam,

after building the city asked Zeus to give him a visible sign

that he would take it under his special protection. During the

night the Palladium fell down from heaven, and was found the

next morning outside his tent. The king built a temple for it,

and from that time the Trojans firmly believed that as long as

they could keep this figure their town would be safe; but if

at any time it should be lost or stolen, some dreadful

calamity would overtake them. The story further relates that,

at the siege of Troy, its whereabouts was betrayed to Diomed,

and he and the wily Ulysses climbed the wall at night and

carried it off. The Palladium, enraged at finding itself in

the Grecian camp, sprang three times in the air, its eyes

flashing wildly, while drops of sweat stood on its brow. The

Greeks, however, would not give it up, and Troy, robbed of her

guardian, was soon after conquered by the Greeks. But an

oracle having warned Diomed not to keep it, he, on landing in

Italy, gave it to one of Æneas' companions, by whom it was

brought into the neighbourhood of the future site of Rome.

Another legend relates that Æneas saved it after the

destruction of Troy, and fled with it to Italy, where it was

afterwards placed by his descendants in the Temple of Vesta,

in Rome. Here the inner and most sacred place in the Temple

was reserved for it, and no man, not even the chief priest,

was allowed to see it except when it was shown on the occasion

of any high festival. The Vestals had strict orders to guard

it carefully, and to save it in case of fire, as the welfare

of Rome depended on its preservation."

F. Nösselt,

Mythology, Greek and Roman,

page 3.

PALLESCHI, The.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

PALLIUM, The.

"The pallium, or mantle of the Greeks, from its being less

cumbersome and trailing than the toga of the Romans, by

degrees superseded the latter in the country and in the camp.

When worn over armour, and fastened on the right shoulder with

a clasp or button, this cloak assumed the name of

paludamentum."

T. Hope,

Costume of the Ancients,

volume 1, p 37.

PALM, The Execution of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

PALMERSTON MINISTRIES.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1855; 1858-1859.

PALMI.

See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

----------PALMYRA: Start--------

PALMYRA,

Earliest knowledge of.

"The outlying city of Palmyra—the name of which is first

mentioned during the wars of M. Antony in Syria [B. C. 41]—was

certainly at this period [of Augustus, B. C. 31-A. D. 14]

independent and preserved a position of neutrality between the

Romans and Parthians, while it carried on trade with both. It

does not appear however to have as yet risen to a place of

great importance, as its name is not mentioned by Strabo. The

period of its prosperity dates only from the time of Hadrian."

E. H. Bunbury,

History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 20, section 1 (volume 2).

PALMYRA:

Rise and fall.

"Amidst the barren deserts of Arabia a few cultivated spots

rise like islands out of the sandy ocean. Even the name of

Tadmor, or Palmyra, by its signification in the Syriac as well

as in the Latin language, denoted the multitude of palm-trees

which afforded shade and verdure to that temperate region. The

air was pure, and the soil, watered by some invaluable

springs, was capable of producing fruits as well as corn. A

place possessed of such singular advantages, and situated at a

convenient distance between the gulf of Persia and the

Mediterranean, was soon frequented by the caravans which

conveyed to the nations of Europe a considerable part of the

rich commodities of India. [It has been the opinion of some

writers that Tadmor was founded by Solomon as a commercial

station, but the opinion is little credited at present.]

Palmyra insensibly increased into an opulent and independent

city, and, connecting the Roman and the Parthian monarchies by

the mutual benefits of commerce, was suffered to observe an

humble neutrality, till at length, after the victories of

Trajan, the little republic sunk into the bosom of Rome, and

flourished more than one hundred and fifty years in the

subordinate though honourable rank of a colony." On the

occasion of the invasion of Syria by the Persian king, Sapor,

when the Emperor Valerian was defeated and taken prisoner (A.

D. 260-261), the only effectual resistance opposed to him was

organized and led by a wealthy senator of Palmyra, Odenathus

(some ancient writers call him a Saracen prince), who founded,

by his exploits at that time, a substantial military power.

{2414}

Aided and seconded by his famous wife, Zenobia, who is one of

the great heroines of history, he extended his authority over

the Roman East and defeated the Persian king in several

campaigns. On his death, by assassination, in 267, Zenobia

ascended the Palmyrenian throne and ruled with masculine

firmness of character. Her dominions were extended from the

Euphrates and the frontiers of Bithynia to Egypt, and are

said, with some doubtfulness, to have included even that rich

province, for a time. But the Romans, who had acquiesced in

the rule of Odenathus, and recognized it, in the day of their

weakness, now resented the presumption and the power of his

widowed queen. Perhaps they had reason to fear her ambition

and her success. Refusing to submit to the demands that were

made upon her, she boldly challenged the attack of the warlike

emperor, Aurelian, and suffered defeat in two great, battles,

fought A. D. 272 or 273, near Antioch and near Emesa. A vain

attempt to hold Palmyra against the besieging force of the

Roman, an unsuccessful flight and a capture by pursuing

horsemen, ended the political career of the brilliant 'Queen

of the East.' She saved her life somewhat ignobly by giving up

her counsellors to Aurelian's vengeance. The philosopher

Longinus was one who perished. Zenobia was sent to Rome and

figured among the captives in Aurelian's triumph. She was then

given for her residence a splendid villa at Tibur (Tivoli)

twenty miles from Rome, and lived quietly through the

remainder of her days, connecting herself, by the marriage of

her daughters, with the noble families of Rome. Palmyra, which

had been spared on its surrender, rashly rose in revolt

quickly after Aurelian had left its gates. The enraged emperor

returned and inflicted on the fated city a chastisement from

which it never rose."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapters 10-11.

----------PALMYRA: End--------

PALMYRÊNÉ, The.

"Palmyrêné, or the Syrian Desert—the tract lying between

Cœle-Syria on the one hand, and the valley of the middle

Euphrates on the other, and abutting towards the south on the

great Arabian Desert, to which it is sometimes regarded as

belonging. It is for the most part a hard sandy, or gravelly

plain, intersected by low rocky ranges, and either barren or

productive only of some sapless shrubs and of a low thin

grass. Occasionally, however, there are oases, where the

fertility is considerable. Such an oasis is the region about

Palmyra itself, which derived its name from the palm groves in

the vicinity; here the soil is good, and a large tract is even

now under cultivation. … Though large armies can never have

traversed the desert even in this upper region, where it is

comparatively narrow, trade in ancient times found it

expedient to avoid the long 'détour' by the Orontes valley,

Aleppo, and Bambuk and to proceed directly from Damascus by

way of Palmyra to Thapsacus on the Euphrates."

G. Rawlinson,

Five Great Monarchies: Babylonia,

chapter 1.

PALO ALTO, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

PALSGRAVE.

An Anglicized form of Pfalzgraf.

See PALATINE COUNT.

PALUDAMENTUM, The.

"As soon as the [Roman] consul entered upon his military

career, he assumed certain symbols of command. The cloak of

scarlet or purple which the imperator threw over his corslet

was named the paludamentum, and this, which became in later

times the imperial robe, he never wore except on actual

service."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 31.

See, also, PALLIUM.

PALUS MÆOTIS,

MÆOTIS PALUS.

The ancient Greek name of the Sea of Azov.

PAMLICOS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PAMPAS.

LLANOS.

"In the southern continent [of America], the regions which

correspond with the prairies of the United States are the

'pampas' of the La Plata and the 'llanos' of Columbia [both

'pampa' and 'llano' having in Spanish the signification of 'a

plain']. … The llanos of Venezuela and New Granada have an

area estimated at 154,000 square miles, nearly equal to that

of France. The Argentine pampas, which are situated at the

other extremity of the continent, have a much more

considerable extent, probably exceeding 500,000 square miles.

This great central plain … stretches its immense and nearly

horizontal surface over a length of at least 1,900 miles, from

the burning regions of tropical Brazil to the cold countries

of Patagonia."

E. Reclus,

The Earth,

chapter 15.

For an account of the Indian tribes of the Pampas.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

PAMPELUNA: Siege by the French (1521).

See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

PAMPTICOKES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PAN-AMERICAN CONGRESS, The.

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

PAN-HANDLE, The.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779-1786.

PAN-IONIC AMPHICTYONY.

See IONIC AMPHICTYONY.

----------PANAMA: Start--------

PANAMA: A. D. 1501-1502.

Discovery by Bastidas.

Coasted by Columbus.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505, and 1500.

PANAMA: A. D. 1509.

Creation of the Province of Castilla del Oro.

Settlement on the Gulf of Uraba.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.

PANAMA: A. D. 1513-1517.

Vasco Nuñez de Balboa and the discovery of the Pacific.

The malignant rule of Pedrarias Davila.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517.

PANAMA: A. D. 1519.

Name and Origin of the city.

Originally, Panama was the native name of an Indian fishing

village, on the Pacific coast of the Isthmus, the word

signifying "a place where many fish are taken." In 1519 the

Spaniards founded there a city which they made their capital

and chief mart on the Pacific coast.

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 1, chapters 10-11 and 15.

PANAMA: A. D. 1671-1680.

Capture, destruction and recapture of the city of Panama

by the Buccaneers.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

PANAMA: A. D. 1688-1699.

The Scottish colony of Darien.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1695-1699.

PANAMA: A. D. 1826.

The Congress of American States.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

PANAMA: A. D. 1846-1855.

American right of transit secured by Treaty.

Building of the Panama Railroad.

See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

PANAMA: A. D. 1855.

An independent state in the Colombian Confederation.

Opening of the Panama Railway.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1830-1886.

{2415}

PANAMA CANAL.

PANAMA SCANDAL.

"The commencement of an undertaking [projected by Count

Ferdinand de Lesseps, the builder of the Suez Canal] for

connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, through the

Isthmus of Panama, was a natural result of the success

achieved by the Suez Canal. Various sites have been proposed

from time to time for the construction of a canal across the

Isthmus, the most northern being the Tehuantepec route, at a

comparatively broad part of the Isthmus, and the most southern

the Atrato route, following for some distance the course of

the Atrato River. The site eventually selected, in 1879, for

the construction of a canal was at the narrowest part of the

Isthmus, and where the central ridge is the lowest, known as

the Panama route, nearly following the course of the Panama

Rail way. It was the only scheme that did not necessarily

involve a tunnel or locks. The length of the route between

Colon on the Atlantic, and Panama on the Pacific, is 46 miles,

not quite half the length of the Suez Canal; but a tide-level

canal involved a cutting across the Cordilleras, at the

Culebra Pass, nearly 300 feet deep, mainly through rock. The

section of the canal was designed on the lines of the Suez

Canal, with a bottom width of 72 feet, and a depth of water of

27 feet, except in the central rock cutting, where the width

was to be increased to 78¾ feet on account of the nearly

vertical sides, and the depth to 29½ feet. … The work was

commenced in 1882. … The difficulties and expenses, however,

of the undertaking had been greatly under–estimated. The

climate proved exceptionally unhealthy, especially when the

soil began to be turned up by the excavations. The actual cost

of the excavation was much greater than originally estimated;

and the total amount of excavation required to form a level

canal, which had originally been estimated at 100 million

cubic yards, was subsequently computed, on more exact data, at

176½ million cubic yards. The preliminary works were also very

extensive and costly; and difficulties were experienced, after

a time, in raising the funds for carrying on the works, even

when shares were offered at a very great discount. Eventually,

in 1887, the capital at the disposal of the company had nearly

come to an end; whilst only a little more than one-fifth of

the excavation had been completed. … At that period it was

determined to expedite the work, and reduce the cost of

completing the canal, by introducing locks, and thus diminish

the remaining amount of excavation by 85 million cubic yards;

though the estimated cost, even with this modification, had

increased from £33,500,000 to £65,500,000. … The financial

embarrassments, however, of the company have prevented the

carrying out of this scheme for completing the canal; and the

works are at present [1891] at a standstill, in a very

unfinished state."

L. F. Vernon-Harcourt,

Achievements in Engineering,

chapter 14.

"It was on December 14, 1888, that the Panama Canal Company

stopped payments. Under the auspices of the French Government,

a parliamentary inquiry was started in the hope of finding

some means of saving the enterprise. Facts soon came to light,

which, in the opinion of many, justified a prosecution. The

indignation of the shareholders against the Count de Lesseps,

his son, and the other Directors, waxed loud. In addition to

ruinous miscalculations, these men were charged with corrupt

expenditure with a view to influence public opinion. … The

gathering storm finally burst on November 21 [1892], when the

interpellation in regard to the Canal question was brought

forward in the Chamber. M. Delahaye threw out suggestions of

corruption against a large number of persons, alleging that

3,000,000 francs had been used by the company to bribe 150

Senators and Deputies. Challenged to give their names, he

persisted in merely replying that if the Chamber wanted

details, they must vote an inquiry. … It was ultimately

agreed, by 311 to 243, to appoint a special Committee of 33

Members to conduct an investigation. The judicial summonses

against the accused Directors were issued the same day,

charging them with 'the use of fraudulent devices for creating

belief in the existence of a chimerical event, the spending of

sums accruing from issues handed to them for a fixed purpose,

and the swindling of all or part of the fortune of others.'

The case being called in the Court of Appeals, November 25,

when all of the defendants—M. Ferdinand de Lesseps; Charles,

his son; M. Marius Fontanes, Baron Cottu, and M. Eiffel—were

absent, it was adjourned to January 10, 1893. … On November

28, the Marquis de la Ferronaye, followed by M. Brisson, the

Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry, called the attention of

the Government to the rumors regarding the death of Baron

Reinach, and pressed the demand of the Committee that the body

be exhumed, and the theory of suicide be tested. But for his

sudden death, the Baron would have been included in the

prosecution. He was said to have received immense sums for

purposes of corruption; and his mysterious and sudden death on

the eve of the prosecution started the wildest rumors of

suicide and even murder. Public opinion demanded that full

light be thrown on the episode; but the Minister of Justice

said, that, as no formal charges of crime had been laid, the

Government had no power to exhume the body. M. Loubet would

make no concession in the matter; and, when M. Brisson moved a

resolution of regret that the Baron's papers had not been

sealed at his death, petulantly insisted that the order of the

day 'pure and simple' be passed. This the Chamber refused to

do by a vote of 304 to 219. The resignation of the Cabinet

immediately followed. … A few days' interregnum followed

during which M. Brisson and M. Casimir-Périer successively

tried in vain to form a Cabinet. M. Ribot, the Foreign

Minister, finally consented to try the task, and, on December

5, the new Ministry was announced. … The policy of the

Government regarding the scandal now changed. … In the course

of the investigation by the Committee, the most startling

evidence of corruption was revealed. It was discovered that

the principal Paris papers had received large amounts for

puffing the Canal scheme. M. Thierrée, a banker, asserted that

Baron Reinach had paid into his bank 3,390,000 francs in

Panama funds, and had drawn it out in 26 checks to bearer. …

On December 13, M. Rouvier, the Finance Minister, resigned,

because his name had been connected with the scandal. … In the

meantime, sufficient evidence had been gathered to cause the

Government, on December 16, to arrest M. Charles de Lesseps,

M. Fontane, and M. Sans-Leroy, Directors of the Canal Company,

on the charge, not, as before, of maladministration of the

company's affairs, but of corrupting public functionaries.

This was followed by the adoption of proceedings against five

Senators and five Deputies.

Quarterly Register of Current History,

March, 1893.

{2416}

"The trial of the De Lesseps, father and son, MM. Fontane,

Cottu, and Eiffel, began January 10, before the court of

appeals. MM. Fontane and Eiffel confessed, the latter to the

bribery of Hebrard, director of 'Le Temps,' a newspaper, with

1,750,000 francs. On February 14, sentence was pronounced

against Ferdinand and Charles De Lesseps, each being condemned

to spend five years in prison and to pay a fine of 3,000

francs; MM. Fontane and Cottu, two years and 3,000 francs

each; and M. Eiffel, two years and 20,000 francs. … On March

8, the trial of the younger de Lesseps, MM. Fontane, Baihaut,

Blondin, and ex-Minister Proust, Senator Beral, and others, on

charges of corruption, began before the assize court. … De

Lesseps, … with MM. Baihaut and Blondin, was found guilty

March 21, and sentenced to one year more of imprisonment. M.

Blondin received a two-year sentence; but M. Baihaut was

condemned to five years, a fine of 75,000 francs, and loss of

civil rights. The others were acquitted."

Cyclopedic Review of Current History,

volume 3, number 1 (1803).

"On June 15 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment in the

first trial on the ground that the acts had been committed

more than three years before the institution of proceedings,

reversing the ruling of the trial court that a preliminary

investigation begun in 1891 suspended the three years'

prescription. Fontane and Eiffel were set at liberty, but

Charles de Lesseps had still to serve out the sentence for

corruption."

Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 1893,

page 321.

The enemies of the Republic had wished to establish the

venality of the popular representatives; "they succeeded only

in showing the resistance that had been made to a temptation

of which the public had not known before the strength and

frequency. Instead of proving that many votes had been sold,

they proved that many were found ready to buy them, which was

very different."

P. De Coubertin,

L'Evolution Frarçaise sous la Troisième Republique,

page 266.

PANATHENÆA, The Festival of the.

See PARTHENON AT ATHENS.

PANDECTS OF JUSTINIAN.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

PANDES.

See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

PANDOURS.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

PANICS OF 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1835-1837, 1873, 1893-1894;

and TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1846-1861.

PANIPAT,

PANNIPUT, Battles of (1526, 1556, and 1761).

See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605; and 1747-1761.

PANIUM, Battle of (B. C. 198).

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

PANJAB, The.

See PUNJAB.

PANNONIA AND NORICUM.

"The wide extent of territory which is included between the

Inn, the Danube, and the Save—Austria, Styria, Carinthia,

Carniola, the Lower Hungary, and Sclavonia—was known to the

ancients under the names of Noricum and Pannonia. In their

original state of independence their fierce inhabitants were

intimately connected. Under the Roman government they were

frequently united."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 1.

Pannonia embraced much the larger part of the territory

described above, covering the center and heart of the modern

Austro-Hungarian empire. It was separated from Noricum, lying

west and northwest of it, by Mons Cetius. For the settlement

of the Vandals in Pannonia, and its conquest by the Huns and

Goths:

See VANDALS: ORIGIN, &c.;

HUNS: A. D. 433-453, and 453;

and GOTHS: A. D. 473-474.

PANO, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

PANORMUS.

The modern city of Palermo was of very ancient origin, founded

by the Phœnicians and passing from them to the Carthaginians,

who made it one of their principal naval stations in Sicily.

Its Greek name, Panorma, signified a port always to be

depended upon.

PANORMUS, Battles at (B. C. 254-251).

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

PANTANO DE BARGAS, Battle of (1819).

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

PANTHEON AT ROME, The.

"At the same time with his Thermæ, Agrippa [son-in-law and

friend of Augustus] built the famous dome, called by Pliny and

Dion Cassius, and in the inscription of Severus on the

architrave of the building itself, the Pantheon, and still

retaining that name, though now consecrated as a Christian

church under the name of S. Maria ad Martyres or dell a

Rotonda. This consecration, together with the colossal

thickness of the walls, has secured the building against the

attacks Of time, and the still more destructive attacks of the

barons of the Middle Ages. … The Pantheon was always be

reckoned among the masterpieces of architecture for solid

durability combined with beauty of interior effect. The Romans

prided themselves greatly upon it as one of the wonders of

their great capital, and no other dome of antiquity could

rival its colossal dimensions. … The inscription assigns its

completion to the year A. D. 27, the third consulship of

Agrippa. … The original name Pantheon, taken in connection

with the numerous niches for statues of the gods in the

interior, seems to contradict the idea that it was dedicated

to any peculiar deity or class of deities. The seven principal

niches may have been intended for the seven superior deities,

and the eight ædiculæ for the next in dignity, while the

twelve niches in the upper ring were occupied by the inferior

inhabitants of Olympus. Dion hints at this explanation when he

suggests that the name was taken from the resemblance of the

dome to the vault of heaven."

R. Burn,

Rome and the Campagna,

chapter 13, part 2.

"The world has nothing else like the Pantheon. … The rust and

dinginess that have dimmed the precious marble on the walls;

the pavement, with its great squares and rounds of porphyry

and granite, cracked crosswise and in a hundred directions,

showing how roughly the troublesome ages have trampled here;

the gray dome above, with its opening to the sky, as if heaven

were looking down into the interior of this place of worship,

left unimpeded for prayers to ascend the more freely: all

these things make an impression of solemnity, which Saint

Peter's itself fails to produce. 'I think,' said the sculptor,

'it is to the aperture in the dome—that great Eye, gazing

heavenward—that the Pantheon owes the peculiarity of its

effect.'"

N. Hawthorne,

The Marble Faun,

chapter 50.

{2417}

PANTIBIBLON, The exhumed Library of.

See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.

PANTIKAPÆUM.

See BOSPHORUS, THE CITY AND KINGDOM.

PAOLI, and the Corsican struggle.

See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

PAOLI, Surprise of Wayne at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

----------PAPACY: Start--------

PAPACY:

St. Peter and the Church at Rome.

"The generally received account among Roman Catholics, and one

which can claim a long traditional acceptance, is that Peter

came to Rome in the second year of Claudius (that is, A. D.

42), and that he held the see twenty-five years, a length of

episcopate never reached again until by Pio Nono, who exceeded

it. … Now if it is possible to prove a negative at all, we may

conclude, with at least high probability, that Peter was not

at Rome during any of the time on which the writings of the

canonical Scriptures throw much light, and almost certainly

that during that time he was not its bishop. We have an

Epistle of Paul to the Romans full of salutations to his

friends there, but no mention of their bishop. Nor is anything

said of work done by Peter in founding that Church. On the

contrary, it is implied that no Apostle had as yet visited it;

for such is the inference from the passage already cited, in

which Paul expresses his wish to see the Roman Christians in

order that he might impart some spiritual gift to the end that

they might be established. We have letters of Paul from Rome

in which no message is sent from Peter; and in the very last

of these letters Paul complains of being left alone, and that

only Luke was with him. Was Peter one of the deserters? The

Scripture accounts of Peter place him in Judæa, in Antioch,

possibly in Corinth, but finally in Babylon. … Plainly, if

Peter was ever at Rome, it was after the date of Paul's second

Epistle to Timothy. Some Protestant controversialists have

asserted that Peter was never at Rome; but though the proofs

that he was there are not so strong as I should like them to

be if I had any doctrine depending on it, I think the historic

probability is that he was; though, as I say, at a late period

of the history, and not long before his death. … For myself, I

am willing, in the absence of any opposing tradition, to

accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at

Rome. We know with certainty from John xxi. that Peter

suffered martyrdom somewhere. If Rome, which early laid claim

to have witnessed that martyrdom, were not the scene of it,

where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim

such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and none but

Rome made the claim. … From the question, whether Peter ever

visited Rome, we pass now to a very different question,

whether he was its bishop. … We think it scandalous when we

read of bishops a hundred years ago who never went near their

sees. … But if we are to believe Roman theory, the bad example

had been set by St. Peter, who was the first absentee bishop.

If he became bishop of Rome in the second year of Claudius, he

appears never afterwards to have gone near his see until close

upon his death. Nay, he never even wrote a letter to his

Church while he was away; or if he did, they did not think it

worth preserving. Baronius (in Ann. lviii. § 51) owns the

force of the Scripture reasons for believing that Peter was

not in Rome during any time on which the New Testament throws

light. His theory is that, when Claudius commanded all Jews to

leave Rome, Peter was forced to go away. And as for his

subsequent absences, they were forced on him by his duty as

the chief of the Apostles, having care of all the Churches. …

These, no doubt, are excellent reasons for Peter's not

remaining at Rome; but why, then, did he undertake duties

which he must have known he could not fulfil?"

G. Salmon,

The Infallibility of the Church,

pages 347-350.

The Roman Catholic belief as to St. Peter's episcopacy, and

the primacy conferred by it on the Roman See, is stated by Dr.

Dollinger as follows: "The time of … [St. Peter's] arrival in

Rome, and the consequent duration of his episcopacy in that

city, have been the subjects of many various opinions amongst

the learned of ancient and modern times; nor is it possible to

reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of ancient

writers, unless we suppose that the prince of the apostles

resided at two distinct periods in the imperial capital.

According to St. Jerome, Eusebius, and Orosius, his first

arrival in Rome was in the second year of the reign of

Claudius (A. D. 42); but he was obliged, by the decree of the

emperor, banishing all Jews from the city, to return to

Jerusalem. From Jerusalem he undertook a journey through Asia

Minor, and founded, or at least, visited, the Churches of

Pontus, Gallacia, Cappadocia, and Bythinia. To these Churches

he afterwards addressed his epistle from Rome. His second

journey to Rome was in the reign of Nero; and it is of this

journey that Dionysius, of Corinth, and Lactantius, write.

There, with the blessed Paul, he suffered, in the year 67, the

death of a martyr. We may now ascertain that the period of

twenty-five years assigned by Eusebius and St. Jerome, to the

episcopacy of St. Peter in Rome, is not a fiction of their

imaginations; for from the second year of Claudius, in which

the apostle founded the Church of Rome, to the year of his

death, there intervene exactly twenty-five years. That he

remained during the whole of this period in Rome, no one has

pretended. … Our Lord conferred upon his apostle, Peter, the

supreme authority in the Church. After he had required and

obtained from him a public profession of his faith, he

declared him to be the rock, the foundation upon which he

would build his Church; and, at the same time, promised that

he would give to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. … In

the enumeration of the apostles, frequently repeated by the

Evangelists, we find that Peter is always the first named:—he

is sometimes named alone, when the others are mentioned in

general.

{2418}

After the ascension of our Lord, it is he who directs and

governs: he leads the assembly in which a successor to the

apostle who had prevaricated, is chosen: after the descent of

the Holy Ghost, he speaks first to the people, and announces

to them Jesus Christ: he performs the first miracle, and, in

the name of his brethren, addresses the synedrium: he punishes

the crime of Ananias: he opens the gates of the Church to the

Gentiles, and presides at the first council at Jerusalem. …

The more the Church was extended, and the more its

constitution was formed, the more necessary did the power with

which Peter had been invested become,—the more evident was the

need of a head which united the members in one body, of a

point and centre of unity. … Succession by ordination was the

means, by which from the beginning the power left by Christ in

his Church was continued: thus the power of the apostles

descended to the bishops, their successors, and thus as Peter

died bishop of the Church of Rome, where he sealed his

doctrine with his blood, the primacy which he had received

would be continued in him by whom he was there succeeded. It

was not without a particular interposition of Providence that

this pre-eminence was granted to the city of Rome, and that it

became the depository of ecclesiastical supremacy. This city,

which rose in the midway between the east and the west, by its

position, by its proximity to the sea, by its dignity, as

capital of the Roman empire, being open on all sides to

communication even with the most distant nations, was

evidently more than any other adapted to become the centre of

the universal Church. … There are not wanting, in the first

three centuries, testimonies and facts, some of which directly

attest, and others presuppose, the supremacy of the Roman

Church and of its bishops."

J. J. I. Dollinger,

History of the Church,

period 1, chapter 1, section 4,

and chapter 3, section 4 (volume 1).

PAPACY:

Supremacy of the Roman See: Grounds of the Claim.

The historical ground of the claim to supremacy over the

Christian Church asserted on behalf of the Roman See is stated

by Cardinal Gibbons as follows: "I shall endeavor to show,

from incontestable historical evidence, that the Popes have

always, from the days of the Apostles, continued to exercise

supreme jurisdiction, not only in the Western church, till the

Reformation, but also throughout the Eastern church, till the

great schism of the ninth century.

1. Take the question of appeals. An appeal is never made from

a superior to an inferior court, nor even from one court to

another of co-ordinate jurisdiction. We do not appeal from

Washington to Richmond, but from Richmond to Washington. Now

if we find the See of Rome, from the foundation of

Christianity, entertaining and deciding cases of appeal from

the Oriental churches; if we find that her decision was final

and irrevocable, we must conclude that the supremacy of Rome

over all the churches is an undeniable fact. Let me give you a

few illustrations: To begin with Pope St. Clement, who was the

third successor of St. Peter, and who is laudably mentioned by

St. Paul in one of his Epistles. Some dissension and scandal

having occurred in the church of Corinth, the matter is

brought to the notice of Pope Clement. He at once exercises

his supreme authority by writing letters of remonstrance and

admonition to the Corinthians. And so great was the reverence

entertained for these Epistles, by the faithful of Corinth,

that for a century later it was customary to have them

publicly read in their churches. Why did the Corinthians

appeal to Rome far away in the West, and not to Ephesus so

near home in the East, where the Apostle St. John still lived?

Evidently because the jurisdiction of Ephesus was local, while

that of Rome was universal. About the year 190, the question

regarding the proper day for celebrating Easter was agitated

in the East, and referred to Pope St. Victor I. The Eastern

church generally celebrated Easter on the day on which the

Jews kept the Passover; while in the West it was observed

then, as it is now, on the first Sunday after the full moon of

the vernal equinox. St. Victor directs the Eastern churches,

for the sake of uniformity, to conform to the practice of the

West, and his instructions are universally followed.

Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, about the middle of the third

century, having heard that the Patriarch of Alexandria erred

on some points of faith, demands an explanation of the

suspected Prelate, who, in obedience to his superior, promptly

vindicates his own orthodoxy. St. Athanasius, the great

Patriarch of Alexandria, appeals in the fourth century, to

Pope Julius I., from an unjust decision rendered against him

by the Oriental bishops; and the Pope reverses the sentence of

the Eastern council. St. Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea, in the

same century, has recourse, in his afflictions, to the

protection of Pope Damasus. St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of

Constantinople, appeals in the beginning of the fifth century,

to Pope Innocent I., for a redress of grievances inflicted on

him by several Eastern Prelates, and by the Empress Eudoxia of

Constantinople. St. Cyril appeals to Pope Celestine against

Nestorius; Nestorius also appeals to the same Pontiff, who

takes the side of Cyril. Theodoret, the illustrious historian

and Bishop of Cyrrhus, is condemned by the pseudo-council of

Ephesus in 449, and appeals to Pope Leo. … John, Abbot of

Constantinople, appeals from the decision of the Patriarch of

that city to Pope St. Gregory I., who reverses the sentence of

the Patriarch. In 859, Photius addressed a letter to Pope

Nicholas I., asking the Pontiff to confirm his election to the

Patriarchate of Constantinople. In consequence of the Pope's

conscientious refusal, Photius broke off from the communion of

the Catholic Church, and became the author of the Greek

schism. Here are a few examples taken at random from Church

History. We see Prelates most eminent for their sanctity and

learning, occupying the highest position in the Eastern

church, and consequently far removed from the local influences

of Rome, appealing in every period of the early church, from

the decisions of their own Bishops and their Councils to the

supreme arbitration of the Holy See. If this does not

constitute superior jurisdiction, I have yet to learn what

superior authority means.

2. Christians of every denomination admit the orthodoxy of the

Fathers of the first five centuries of the Church. No one has

ever called in question the faith of such men as Basil,

Chrysostom, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, and Leo. …

Now the Fathers of the Church, with one voice, pay homage to

the Bishops of Rome as their superiors. …

{2419}

3. Ecumenical Councils afford another eloquent vindication of

Papal supremacy. An Ecumenical or General Council is an

assemblage of Prelates representing the whole Catholic Church.

… Up to the present time, nineteen Ecumenical Councils have

been convened, including the Council of the Vatican. … The

first General Council was held in Nicæa, in 325; the second,

in Constantinople, in 381; the third, in Ephesus, in 431; the

fourth, in Chalcedon, in 451; the fifth, in Constantinople, in

553; the sixth, in the same city, in 680; the seventh, in

Nicæa, in 787; and the eighth, in Constantinople, in 809. The

Bishops of Rome convoked these assemblages, or at least

consented to their convocation; they presided by their legates

over all of them, except the first and second councils of

Constantinople, and they confirmed all these eight by their

authority. Before becoming a law, the acts of the Councils

required the Pope's signature.

4. I shall refer to one more historical point in support of

the Pope's jurisdiction over the whole Church. It is a most

remarkable fact that every nation hitherto converted from

Paganism to Christianity, since the days of the Apostles, has

received the light of faith from missionaries who were either

especially commissioned by the See of Rome, or sent by Bishops

in open communion with that See. This historical fact admits

of no exception. Let me particularize: Ireland's Apostle is

St. Patrick. Who commissioned him? Pope St. Celestine, in the

fifth century. St. Palladius is the Apostle of Scotland. Who

sent him? The same Pontiff, Celestine. The Anglo-Saxons

received the faith from St. Augustine, a Benedictine monk, as

all historians Catholic and non-Catholic testify: Who

empowered Augustine to preach? Pope Gregory I., at the end of

the sixth century. St. Remigius established the faith in

France, at the close of the fifth century. He was in active

communion with the See of Peter. Flanders received the Gospel

in the seventh century from St. Eligius, who acknowledged the

supremacy of the reigning Pope. Germany and Bavaria venerate

as their Apostle St. Boniface, who is popularly known in his

native England by his baptismal name of Winfrid. He was

commissioned by Pope Gregory II., in the beginning of the

eighth century, and was consecrated Bishop by the same

Pontiff. In the ninth century, two saintly brothers, Cyril and

Methodius, evangelized Russia, Sclavonia, and Moravia, and

other parts of Northern Europe. They recognized the supreme

authority of Pope Nicholas I., and of his successors, Adrian

II. and John VIII. In the eleventh century, Norway was

converted by missionaries introduced from England by the

Norwegian King St. Olave. The conversion of Sweden was

consummated in the same century by the British Apostles Saints

Ulfrid and Eskill. Both of these nations immediately after

their conversion commenced to pay Rome-scot, or a small annual

tribute to the Holy See,—a clear evidence that they were in

communion with the Chair of Peter. All the other nations of

Europe, having been converted before the Reformation, received

likewise the light of faith from Roman Catholic missionaries,

because Europe then recognized only one Christian Chief."

James, Cardinal Gibbons,

The Faith of our Fathers,

chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

Francis P. Kenrick, Archbishop of Baltimore,

The Primacy of the Apostolic See vindicated.

PAPACY:

Supremacy of the Roman See:

Grounds of the Denial.

"The first document by which the partisans of the Papal

sovereignty justify themselves, is the letter written by St.

Clement in the name of the Church at Rome to the Church at

Corinth. They assert, that it was written by virtue of a

superior authority attached to his title of Bishop of Rome.

Now, it is unquestionable, 1st. That St. Clement was not

Bishop of Rome when he wrote to the Corinthians. 2d. That in

this matter he did not act of his own authority, but in the

name of the Church at Rome, and from motives of charity. The

letter signed by St. Clement was written A. D. 69, immediately

after the persecution by Nero, which took place between the

years 64 and 68, as all learned men agree. … It may be seen

from the letter itself that it was written after a

persecution; if it be pretended that this persecution was that

of Domitian, then the letter must be dated in the last years

of the first century, since it was chiefly in the years 95 and

96 that the persecution of Domitian took place. Now, it is

easy to see from the letter itself, that it was written before

that time, for it speaks of the Jewish sacrifices as still

existing in the temple of Jerusalem. The temple was destroyed

with the city of Jerusalem, by Titus A. D. 70. Hence, the

letter must have been written before that year. Besides, the

letter was written after some persecution, in which had

suffered, at Rome, some very illustrious martyrs. There was

nothing of the kind in the persecution of Domitian. The

persecution of Nero lasted from the year 64 to the year 68.

Hence it follows, that the letter to the Corinthians could

only have been written in the year 69, that is to say,

twenty-four years before Clement was Bishop of Rome. In

presence of this simple calculation what becomes of the stress

laid by the partisans of Papal sovereignty, upon the

importance of this document as emanating from Pope St.

Clement? Even if it could be shown that the letter of St.

Clement was written during his episcopate, this would prove

nothing, because this letter was not written by him by virtue

of a superior and personal authority possessed by him, but

from mere charity, and in the name of the Church at Rome. Let

us hear Eusebius upon this subject: 'Of this Clement there is

one epistle extant, acknowledged as genuine, … which he wrote

in the name of the Church at Rome to that of Corinth, at the

time when there was a dissension in the latter.' … He could

not say more explicitly, that Clement did not in this matter

act of his own authority, by virtue of any power he

individually possessed. Nothing in the letter itself gives a

suspicion of such authority. It thus commences: 'The Church of

God which is at Rome, to the Church of God which is at

Corinth.' … There is every reason to believe that St. Clement

draughted this letter to the Corinthians. From the first

centuries it has been considered as his work. It was not as

Bishop of Rome, but as a disciple of the Apostles, that he

wrote it. … In the second century the question concerning

Easter was agitated with much warmth. Many Oriental Churches

wished to follow the Judaical traditions, preserved by several

Apostles in the celebration of that feast, and to hold it upon

the fourteenth day of the March moon; other Eastern Churches,

in agreement with the Western Churches according to an equally

Apostolic tradition, celebrated the festival of Easter the Sunday

following the fourteenth day of the March moon.

{2420}

The question in itself considered was of no great importance;

and yet it was generally thought that all the Churches should

celebrate at one and the same time the great Christian

festival, and that some should not be rejoicing over the

resurrection of the Saviour, while others were contemplating

the mysteries of his death. How was the question settled? Did

the Bishop of Rome interpose his authority and overrule the

discussion, as would have been the case had he enjoyed a

supreme authority? Let us take the evidence of History. The

question having been agitated, 'there were synods and

convocations of the Bishops on this question,' says Eusebius,

'and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which

they communicated to all the Churches in all places. … There

is an epistle extant even now of those who were assembled at

the time; among whom presided Theophilus, Bishop of the Church

in Cesarea and Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem. There is

another epistle' (of the Roman Synod) 'extant on the same

question, bearing the name of Victor. An epistle also of the

Bishops in Pontus, among whom Palmas, as the most ancient,

presided; also of the Churches of Gaul over whom Irenæus

presided. Moreover, one from those in Osrhoene, and the cities

there. And a particular epistle from Bacchyllus, Bishop of the

Corinthians; and epistles of many others who, advancing one

and the same doctrine, also passed the same vote.' It is

evident that Eusebius speaks of the letter of the Roman synod

in the same terms as of the others; he does not attribute it

to Bishop Victor, but to the assembly of the Roman Clergy; and

lastly, he only mentions it in the second place after that of

the Bishops of Palestine. Here is a point irrefragably

established; it is that in the matter of Easter, the Church of

Rome discussed and judged the question in the same capacity as

the other churches, and that the Bishop of Rome only signed

the letter in the name of the synod which represented that

Church."

Abbé Guettée,

The Papacy,

pages 53-58.

"At the time of the Council of Nicæa it was clear that the

metropolitans of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, held a

superior rank among their brethren, and had a kind of

ill-defined jurisdiction over the provinces of several

metropolitans. The fathers of Nicæa recognized the fact that

the privileges of these sees were regulated by customs already

regarded as primitive, and these customs they confirmed. … The

empire was afterwards divided for the purposes of civil

government into four Prefectures. … The organization of the

Church followed in its main lines that of the empire. It also

had its dioceses and provinces, coinciding for the most part

with the similarly named political divisions. Not only did the

same circumstances which marked out a city for political

preeminence also indicate it as a fit centre of ecclesiastical

rule, but it was a recognized principle with the Church that

the ecclesiastical should follow the civil division. At the

head of a diocese was a patriarch, at the head of a province

was a metropolitan; the territory of a simple bishop was a

parish. … The see of Constantinople … became the oriental

counterpart of that of Rome. … But the patriarchal system of

government, like every other, suffered from the shocks of

time. The patriarch of Antioch had, in the first instance, the

most extensive territory, for he claimed authority not only

over the civil diocese of the East, but over the Churches in

Persia, Media, Parthia, and India, which lay beyond the limits

of the empire. But this large organization was but loosely

knit, and constantly tended to dissolution. … After the

conquests of Caliph Omar the great see of Antioch sank into

insignificance. The region subject to the Alexandrian

patriarch was much smaller than that of Antioch, but it was

better compacted. Here too however the Monophysite tumult so

shook its organization that it was no longer able to resist

the claims of the patriarch of Constantinople. It also fell

under the dominion of the Saracens—a fate which had already

befallen Jerusalem. In the whole East there remained only the

patriarch of Constantinople in a condition to exercise actual

authority. … According to Rufinus's version of the sixth canon

of the Council of Nicæa, the Bishop of Rome had entrusted to

him the care of the suburbicarian churches [probably including

Lower Italy and most of Central Italy, with Sicily, Sardinia

and Corsica]. … But many causes tended to extend the authority

of the Roman patriarch beyond these modest limits. The

patriarch of Constantinople depended largely for his authority

on the will of the emperor, and his spiritual realm was

agitated by the constant intrigues of opposing parties. His

brother of Rome enjoyed generally more freedom in matters

spiritual, and the diocese over which he presided, keeping

aloof for the most part from controversies on points of dogma,

was therefore comparatively calm and united. Even the

Orientals were impressed by the majesty of old Rome, and gave

great honour to its bishop. In the West, the highest respect

was paid to those sees which claimed an Apostle as founder,

and among these the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul naturally

took the highest place. It was, in fact, the one apostolic see

of Western Europe, and as such received a unique regard. …

Doubtful questions about apostolic doctrine and custom were

addressed certainly to other distinguished bishops, as

Athanasius and Basil, but they came more readily and more

constantly to Rome, as already the last appeal in many civil

matters. We must not suppose however that the Churches of the

East were ready to accept the sway of Rome, however they might

respect the great city of the West. … The authority of the

Roman see increased from causes which are sufficiently obvious

to historical enquirers. But the greatest of the Roman bishops

were far too wise to tolerate the supposition that their power

depended on earthly sanctions. They contended steadfastly that

they were the heads of the Church on earth, because they were

the successors of him to whom the Lord had given the keys of

the kingdom of heaven, St. Peter. And they also contended that

Rome was, in the most emphatic sense, the mother-church of the

whole West. Innocent I. claims that no Church had ever been

founded in Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, or the

Mediterranean islands, except by men who had received their

commission from St. Peter or his successors. At the same time,

they admitted that the privileges of the see were not wholly

derived immediately from its founder, but were conferred by

past generations out of respect for St. Peter's see.

{2421}

But the bishop who most clearly and emphatically asserted the

claims of the Roman see to preeminence over the whole Church

on earth was no doubt Leo I., a great man who filled a most

critical position with extraordinary firmness and ability.

Almost every argument by which in later times the authority of

the see of St. Peter was supported is to be found in the

letters of Leo. … The Empire of the West never seriously

interfered with the proceedings of the Roman bishop; and when

it fell, the Church became the heir of the empire. In the

general crash, the Latin Christians found themselves compelled

to drop their smaller differences, and rally round the

strongest representative of the old order. The Teutons, who

shook to pieces the imperial system, brought into greater

prominence the essential unity of all that was Catholic and

Latin in the empire, and so strengthened the position of the

see of Rome. … It must not however be supposed that the views

of the Roman bishops as to the authority of Rome were

universally accepted even in the West. Many Churches had grown

up independently of Rome and were abundantly conscious of the

greatness of their own past. … And in the African Church the

reluctance to submit to Roman dictation which had showed

itself in Cyprian's time was maintained for many generations.

… In Gaul too there was a vigorous resistance to the

jurisdiction of the see of St. Peter."

S. Cheetham,

History of the Christian Church

during the First Six Centuries,

pages 181-195.

"A colossal city makes a colossal bishop, and this principle

reached its maximum embodiment in Rome. The greatest City of

the World made the greatest Bishop of the World. Even when the

Empire was heathen the City lifted the Bishop so high that he

drew to himself the unwelcome attention of the secular power,

and in succession, in consequence, as in no other see, the

early Bishops of Rome were martyrs. When the Empire became

Christian, Rome's place was recognized as first, and the

principle on which that primacy rested was clearly and

accurately defined when the Second General Council, acting on

this principle, assigned to the new seat of empire,

Constantinople, the second place; it was the principle,

namely, of honor, based upon material greatness. … The

principle of the primacy, as distinguished from the supremacy

growing out of Petrine claims was the heart and soul of

Gallicanism in contrast to Ultramontanism, and was crushed out

even in the Roman communion not twenty years ago."

Rt. Rev. G. F. Seymour,

The Church of Rome in her relation to Christian Unity

("History and Teachings of the Early Church," lecture 5).

ALSO IN:

H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 7, part 1.

PAPACY:

Origin of the Papal title.

"'Papa,' that strange and universal mixture of familiar

endearment and of reverential awe, extended in a general sense

to all Greek Presbyters and all Latin Bishops, was the special

address which, long before the names of patriarch or

archbishop, was given to the head of the Alexandrian church. …

He was the Pope. The Pope of Rome was a phrase which had not

yet [at the time of the meeting of the Council of Nicæa, A. D.

325] emerged in history. But Pope of Alexandria was a

well-known dignity. … This peculiar Alexandrian application of

a name, in itself expressing simple affection, is thus

explained:—Down to Heraclas (A. D. 230), the Bishop of

Alexandria, being the sole Egyptian Bishop, was called 'Abba'

(father), and his clergy 'elders.' From his time more bishops

were created, who then received the name of 'Abba,' and

consequently the name of 'Papa' ('ab-aba,' pater

patrum=grandfather) was appropriated to the primate. The Roman

account (inconsistent with facts) is that the name was first

given to Cyril, as representing the Bishop of Rome in the

Council of Ephesus. (Suicer, in voce). The name was fixed to

the Bishop of Rome in the 7th century."

A. P. Stanley,

Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church,

lecture 3.

ALSO IN:

J. Bingham,

Antiquities of the Christian Church,

book 2, chapter 2, section 7.

J. Alzog,

Manual of Universal Christian History,

section 130.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 312-337.

PAPACY: A. D. 42-461.

The early Bishops of Rome, to Leo the Great.

The following is the succession of the popes, according to

Roman Catholic authorities, during the first four hundred and

twenty years:

"Peter, to the year of Christ 67;

Linus,

Anencletus,

Clement; (to 77?)

Evaristus,

Alexander,

Xystus,

Telesphorus,

Hyginus, to 142;

Pius, to 157;

Anicetus, to 168;

Soter, to 177;

Eleutherius, to 193;

Victor, to 202;

Zephyrinus, to 219;

Callistus, to 223;

Urban, to 230;

Pontianus, to 235;

Anterus, to 236;

Fabian, to 250;

Cornelius, from 251 to 252;

Lucius, to 253;

Stephan, to 257;

Xystus II, to 258;

Dionysius, from 259 to 269;

Felix, to 274;

Eutychianus, to 283;

Caius, to 296;

Marcellinus, to 304;

Marcellus, after a vacancy of four years, from 308 to 310;

Eusebius, from the 20th of May to the 26th of September, 310;

Melchiades, from 311 to 314;

Silvester, from 314 to 335. …

Mark was chosen on the 18th of January 336,

and died on the 7th of October of the same year.

Julius I, from 337 to 352, the steadfast defender of St.

Athanasius. …

The less steadfast Liberius, from 352 to 366, purchased, in

358 his return from exile by an ill-placed condescension to

the demands of the Arians. He, however, soon redeemed .the

honour which he had forfeited by this step, by his

condemnation of the council of Rimini, for which act he was

again driven from his Church. During his banishment, the Roman

clergy were compelled to elect the deacon Felix in his place,

or probably only as administrator of the Roman Church. When

Liberius returned to Rome, Felix fled from the city, and died

in the country, in 365.

Damasus, from 366 to 384, by birth a Spaniard, had, at the

very commencement of his pontificate, to assert his rights

against a rival named Ursicinus, who obtained consecration

from some bishops a few days after the election of Damasus.

The faction of Ursicinus was the cause of much bloodshed. …

Siricius, from 385 to 389, was, although Ursicinus again

endeavoured to intrude himself, unanimously chosen by the

clergy and people. …

Anastasius, from 398 to 402; a pontiff, highly extolled by his

successor, and by St. Jerome, of whom the latter says, that he

was taken early from this earth, because Rome was not longer

worthy of him, and that he might not survive the desolation of

the city by Alaric. He was succeeded by Innocent I, from 402

to 417. … During the possession of Rome by Alaric [see ROME:

A. D. 408-410], Innocent went to Ravenna, to supplicate the

emperor, in the name of the Romans, to conclude a peace with

the Goths. The pontificate of his successor, the Greek

Zosimus, was only of twenty one months.

{2422}

The election of Boniface, from 418 to 422, was disturbed by

the violence of the archdeacon Eulalius, who had attached a

small party to his interests. … He was followed by Celestine

I, from 422 to 432, the combatant of Nestorianism and of

Semipelagianism. To Sixtus III, from 432 to 440, the

metropolitans, Helladius of Tarsus, and Eutherius of Tyana,

appealed, when they were threatened with deposition at the

peace between St. Cyril and John of Antioch. Leo the Great,

from 440 to 461, is the first pope of whom we possess a

collection of writings: they consist of 96 discourses on

festivals, and 141 epistles. By his high and well-merited

authority, he saved Rome, in 452, from the devastation of the

Huns; and induced Attila, named 'the scourge of God,' to

desist from his invasion of Italy [see HUNS: A. D. 452].

Again, when, in 457 [455], the Vandal king Geiserich entered

Rome [see ROME: A. D. 455], the Romans were indebted to the

eloquent persuasions of their holy bishop for the

preservation, at least, of their lives."

J. J. I. Döllinger,

History of the Church,

volume 2, pages 213-215.

"For many centuries the bishops of Rome had been comparatively

obscure persons: indeed, Leo was the first really great man

who occupied the see, but he occupied it under circumstances

which tended without exception to put power in his hand. …

Circumstances were thrusting greatness upon the see of St.

Peter: the glory of the Empire was passing into her hands, the

distracted Churches of Spain and Africa, harassed and torn in

pieces by barbarian hordes and wearied with heresies, were in

no position to assert independence in any matter, and were

only too glad to look to any centre whence a measure of

organization and of strength seemed to radiate; and the popes

had not been slow in rising to welcome and promote the

greatness with which the current and tendency of the age was

investing them. Their rule seems to have been, more than

anything else, to make the largest claim, and enforce as much

of it as they could, but the theory of papal power was still

indeterminate, vague, unfixed. She was Patriarch of the West

—what rights did that give her? … Was her claim … a claim of

jurisdiction merely, or did she hold herself forth as a

doctrinal authority in a sense in which other bishops were

not? In this respect, again, the claim into which Leo entered

was indefinite and unformulated. … The Imperial instincts of

old Rome are dominant in him, all that sense of discipline,

order, government—all the hatred of uniformity, individuality,

eccentricity. These are the elements which make up Leo's mind.

He is above all things a governor and an administrator. He has

got a law of ecclesiastical discipline, a supreme canon of

dogmatic truth, and these are his instruments to subdue the

troubled world. … The rule which governed Leo's conduct as

pope was a very simple one, it was to take every opportunity

which offered itself for asserting and enforcing the authority

of his see: he was not troubled with historical or scriptural

doubts or scruples which might cast a shadow of indecision,

'the pale cast of thought,' on his resolutions and actions. To

him the papal authority had come down as the great inheritance

of his position; it was identified in his mind with the order,

the authority, the discipline, the orthodoxy which he loved so

dearly; it suited exactly his Imperial ambition, in a word,

his 'Roman' disposition and character, and he took it as his

single great weapon against heresy and social confusion."

C. Gore,

Leo the Great,

chapters 6 and 7.

PAPACY: A. D. 461-604.

The succession of Popes from Leo the Great

to Gregory the Great.

The successor of Leo the Great, "the Sardinian Hilarius, from

461 to 468, had been one of his legates at the council of

Ephesus in 449. … The zeal of Simplicius, from 468 to 483, was

called into action chiefly by the confusion occasioned in the

east by the Monophysites. The same may be said of Felix II (or

III) from 483 to 492, in whose election the prefect Basilius

concurred, as plenipotentiary of king Odoacer. Gelasius I,

from 492 to 496, and Anastasius II, laboured, but in vain, in

endeavouring to heal the schism, formed by Acacius, at

Constantinople. This schism occasioned a division in Rome at

the election of a new pontiff. The senator Festus had promised

the emperor that he would enforce the reception of the

Henoticon at Rome; and by means of corruption established

against the deacon Symmachus, who had in his favour the

majority of voices, a powerful party, which chose Laurence as

antipope. Again was a double election the cause of bloody

strife in the streets of Rome, until the Arian king,

Theodoric, at Ravenna, declared for Symmachus, who gave to his

rival the bishopric of Luceria. … More tranquil was the

pontificate of the succeeding pope, Hormisdas, from 514 to

523, and made illustrious by the restoration of peace, in 519,

in the eastern Church.

John I died at Ravenna, in 519, in prison, into which he was

cast by the suspicious Theodoric, after his return from

Constantinople.

Felix III (or IV) from 526 to 530, was chosen by the Romans,

at the command of the king. At short intervals, followed

Boniface II, from 530 to 532; and John II, from 533 to 535.

Agapite I went, at the desire of the Gothic king, Theodatus,

to obtain peace from the emperor, to Constantinople, where he

died in 536.

Sylverius died, in 540, during his second exile, on the island

of Palmaria. … Vigilius, who was ordained in 537, and who

became lawful pope in 540, was compelled to remain in the

east, from 546 to 554, sometimes a prisoner in Constantinople,

and sometimes in exile. He died at Syracuse, on his return to

Rome, in 555. Pelagius I, from 555 to 560, found difficulty in

obtaining an acknowledgement of his election, as, by his

condemnation of the three articles, he was considered in the

west as a traitor to the council of Chalcedon, and because

there existed a suspicion that he was accessory to the death

of Vigilius.

John III, from 560 to 573, beheld the commencement of the

Lombard dominion in Italy.

Benedict I, from 574 to 578, and Pelagius II, from 578 to 590,

ruled the Church during the melancholy times of the Lombard

devastations. One of the most splendid appearances in the

series of the Roman pontiffs was that of Gregory the Great,

from 590 to 604."

J. J. I. Döllinger,

History of the Church,

volume 2, pages 213-217.

{2423}

"Pope Pelagius died on the 8th of February, 590. The people of

Rome … were at this time in the utmost straits. Italy lay

prostrate and miserable under the Lombard invasion; the

invaders now threatened Rome itself, and its inhabitants

trembled; famine and pestilence within the city produced a

climax of distress; an overflow of the Tiber at the time

aggravated the general alarm and misery; Gregory himself, in

one of his letters, compares Rome at this time to an old and

shattered ship, letting in the waves on all sides, tossed by a

daily storm, its planks rotten and sounding of wreck. In this

state of things all men's thoughts at once turned to Gregory.

The pope was at this period the virtual ruler of Rome, and the

greatest power in Italy; and they must have Gregory as their

pope; for, if anyone could save them, it was he. His abilities

in public affairs had been proved; all Rome knew his character

and attainments; he had now the further reputation of eminent

saintliness. He was evidently the one man for the post; and

accordingly he was unanimously elected by clergy, senate, and

people. But he shrank from the proffered dignity. There was

one way by which he might possibly escape it. No election of a

pope could at this time take effect without the emperor's

confirmation, and an embassy had to be sent to Constantinople

to obtain it. Gregory therefore sent at the same time a letter

to the emperor (Mauricius, who had succeeded Tiberius in 582),

imploring him to withhold his confirmation; but it was

intercepted by the prefect of the city, and another from the

clergy, senate, and people sent in its place, entreating

approval of their choice. … At length the imperial

confirmation of his election arrived. He still refused; fled

from the city in disguise, eluding the guards set to watch the

gates, and hid himself in a forest cave. Pursued and

discovered by means, it is said, of a supernatural light, he

was brought back in triumph, conducted to the church of St.

Peter, and at once ordained on the 3rd of September, 590. …

Having been once placed in the high position he so little

coveted, he rose to it at once, and fulfilled its multifarious

duties with remarkable zeal and ability. His comprehensive

policy, and his grasp of great issues, are not more remarkable

than the minuteness of the details, in secular as well as

religious matters, to which he was able to give his personal

care. And this is the more striking in combination with the

fact that, as many parts of his writings show, he remained all

the time a monk at heart, thoroughly imbued with both the

ascetic principles and the narrow credulity of contemporary

monasticism. His private life, too, was still in a measure

monastic: the monastic simplicity of his episcopal attire is

noticed by his biographer; he lived with his clergy under

strict rule, and in 595 issued a synodal decree substituting

clergy for the boys and secular persons who had formerly

waited on the pope in his chamber."

J. Barmby,

Gregory the Great,

chapter 2.

"Of the immense energy shown by St. Gregory in the exercise of

his Principate, of the immense influence wielded by him both

in the East and in the West, of the acknowledgment of his

Principate by the answers which emperor and patriarch made to

his demands and rebukes, we possess an imperishable record in

the fourteen books of his letters which have been preserved to

us. They are somewhat more than 850 in number. They range over

every subject, and are addressed to every sort of person. If

he rebukes the ambition of a patriarch, and complains of an

emperor's unjust law, he cares also that the tenants on the

vast estates of the Church which his officers superintend at a

distance should not be in any way harshly treated. … The range

of his letters is so great, their detail so minute, that they

illuminate his time and enable us to form a mental picture,

and follow faithfully that pontificate of fourteen years,

incessantly interrupted by cares and anxieties for the

preservation of his city, yet watching the beginnings and

strengthening the polity of the western nations, and

counterworking the advances of the eastern despotism. The

divine order of greatness is, we know, to do and to teach.

Few, indeed, have carried it out on so great a scale as St.

Gregory. The mass of his writing preserved to us exceeds the

mass preserved to us from all his predecessors together, even

including St. Leo, who with him shares the name of Great, and

whose sphere of action the mind compares with his. If he

became to all succeeding times an image of the great

sacerdotal life in his own person, so all ages studied in his

words the pastoral care, joining him with St. Gregory of

Nazianzum and St. Chrysostom. The man who closed his life at

sixty-four, worn out, not with age, but with labour and bodily

pains, stands, beside the learning of St. Jerome, the perfect

episcopal life and statesmanship of St. Ambrose, the

overpowering genius of St. Augustine, as the fourth doctor of

the western Church, while he surpasses them all in that his

doctorship was seated on St. Peter's throne. If he closes the

line of Fathers, he begins the period when the Church, failing

to preserve a rotten empire in political existence, creates

new nations; nay, his own hand has laid for them their

foundation-stones."

T. W. Allies,

The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations,

from St. Leo I. to St. Gregory I.,

pages 309-335.

See, also,

ROME: A. D. 590-640.

PAPACY: A. D. 604-731.

The succession of Popes.

Sabinian, A. D. 604-606;

Boniface III., 607;

Boniface IV., 608-615;

Deusdedit, 615-618;

Boniface V., 619-625;

Honorius I., 625-638;

Severinus, 640;

John IV., 640-642;

Theodore I., 642-649;

Martin I., 649-655;

Eugenius I., 655-657;

Vitalian, 657-672;

Adeodatus II., 672-676;

Donus I., 676-678;

Agatho, 678-682;

Leo II., 682-683;

Benedict II., 684-685;

John V., 685-686;

Canon, 686-687;

Sergius I.,687-701;

John VI., 701-705;

John VII., 705-707;

Sisinnius, 708;

Constantine, 708-715;

Gregory II., 715-731.

PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

Rise of the Papal Sovereignty at Rome.

The extinguishment of the authority of the Eastern emperors at

Rome and in Italy began with the revolt provoked by the

attempts of the iconoclastic Leo, the Isaurian, to abolish

image-worship in the Christian churches (see ICONOCLASTIC

CONTROVERSY). The Pope, Gregory II., remonstrated vehemently,

but in vain. At his signal all central Italy rose in revolt.

"The exarch was compelled to shut himself up in Ravenna; for

the cities of Italy, instead of obeying the imperial officers,

elected magistrates of their own, on whom they conferred, in

some cases, the title of duke. Assemblies were held, and the

project of electing an emperor of the West was adopted." But

another danger showed itself at this juncture which alarmed

Rome and Italy more than the iconoclastic persecutions of the

Byzantine emperor. The king of the Lombards took advantage of

the insurrection to extend his own domains. He invaded the

exarchate and got actual possession of Ravenna; whereat Pope

Gregory turned his influence to the Byzantine side, with such

effect that the Lombards were beaten back and Ravenna

recovered.

{2424}

In 731 Gregory II. died and was succeeded by Pope Gregory III.

"The election of Gregory III. to the papal chair was confirmed

by the Emperor Leo in the usual form; nor was that pope

consecrated until the mandate from Constantinople reached

Rome. This was the last time the emperors of the East were

solicited to confirm the election of a pope." Leo continued to

press his severe measures against image-worship, and the pope

boldly convened at Rome a synod of ninety-three bishops which

excommunicated the whole body of the Iconoclasts, emperor and

all. The latter now dispatched a strong expedition to Italy to

suppress the threatening papal power; but it came to naught,

and the Byzantine authority was practically at an end,

already, within the range of papal leadership. "From this

time, A. D. 733, the city of Rome enjoyed political

independence under the guidance and protection of the popes;

but the officers of the Byzantine emperors were allowed to

reside in the city, justice was publicly administered by

Byzantine judges, and the supremacy of the Eastern Empire was

still recognised. So completely, however, had Gregory III.

thrown off his allegiance, that he entered into negotiations

with Charles Martel, in order to induce that powerful prince

to take an active part in the affairs of Italy. The pope was

now a much more powerful personage than the Exarch of Ravenna,

for the cities of central Italy, which had assumed the control

of their local government, intrusted the conduct of their

external political relations to the care of Gregory, who thus

held the balance of power between the Eastern emperor and the

Lombard king. In the year 742, while Constantine V., the son

of Leo, was engaged with a civil war, the Lombards were on the

eve of conquering Ravenna, but Pope Zacharias threw the whole

of the Latin influence into the Byzantine scale, and enabled

the exarch to maintain his position until the year 751, when

Astolph, king of the Lombards, captured Ravenna. The exarch

retired to Naples, and the authority of the Byzantine emperors

in central Italy ended."

G. Finlay,

History of the Byzantine Empire,

book 1, chapter 1, section 2.

The Lombards, having obtained Ravenna and overturned the

throne of the Byzantine exarchs, were now bent on extending

their sovereignty over Rome. But the popes found an ally

beyond the Alps whose interests coincided with their own.

Pepin, the first Carolingian king of the Franks, went twice to

their rescue and broke the Lombard power; his son Charlemagne

finished the work, and by the acts of both these kings the

bishops of Rome were established in a temporal no less than a

spiritual principality.

See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 49.

ALSO IN:

P. Godwin,

History of France: Ancient Gaul,

book 4, chapter 15.

See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

PAPACY: A. D. 731-816.

The succession of Popes.

Gregory III., A. D. 731-741;

Zacharias, 741-752;

Stephen I. (or II.), 752;

Stephen II. (or III.), 752-757;

Paul I., 757-767;

Stephen III. (or IV.), 768-772;

Hadrian I., 772-795;

Leo III., 795-816.

PAPACY: A. D. 755-774.

Origin of the Papal States.

The Donations of Pepin and Charlemagne.

As the result of Pepin's second expedition to Italy (A. D.

755), "the Lombard king sued for quarter, promised to fulfil

the terms of the treaty made in the preceding year, and to

give up all the places mentioned in it. Pepin made them all

over to the Holy See, by a solemn deed, which was placed in

the archives of the Roman Church. … Pepin took such steps as

should insure the execution of the Lombard's oath. Ravenna,

Rimini, Resaro, Fano, Cesena, Sinigaglia, Jesi, Forlimpopoli,

Forli, Castrocaro, Montefeltro, Acerragio, Montelucari,

supposed to be the present Nocera, Serravalle, San Marigni,

Bobio, Urbino, Caglio, Luccoli, Eugubio, Comacchio and Narni

were evacuated by the Lombard troops; and the keys of the 22

cities were laid, with King Pepin's deed of gift, upon the

Confession of St. Peter. The independence of the Holy See was

established."

J; E. Darras,

General History of the Catholic Church,

period 3, chapter 10.

"An embassy from the Byzantine emperor asserted, during the

negotiation of the treaty, the claims of that sovereign to a

restoration of the exarchate; but their petitions and demands

failed of effect on 'the steadfast heart of Pippin' [or

Pepin], who declared that he had fought alone in behalf of St.

Peter, on whose Church he would bestow all the fruits of

victory. Fulrad, his abbot, was commissioned to receive the

keys of the twenty-two towns his arms had won, and to deposit

them as a donation on the grave of the apostle at Rome. Thus

the Pope was made the temporal head of that large district …

which, with some few changes, has been held by his

successors."

P. Godwin,

History of France: Ancient Gaul,

book 4, chapter 15.

"When on Pipin's death the restless Lombards again took up

arms and menaced the possessions of the Church, Pipin's son

Charles or Charlemagne swept down like a whirlwind from the

Alps at the call of Pope Hadrian [774], seized king Desiderius

in his capital, assumed himself the Lombard crown, and made

northern Italy thenceforward an integral part of the Frankish

empire. … Whether out of policy or from that sentiment of

reverence to which his ambitious mind did not refuse to bow,

he was moderate in claims of jurisdiction, he yielded to the

pontiff the place of honour in processions, and renewed,

although in the guise of a lord and conqueror, the gift of the

Exarchate and Pentapolis, which Pipin had made to the Roman

Church twenty years before."

J. Bryce,

The Holy Roman Empire,

chapter 4.

"It is reported, also, … that, jealous of the honor of

endowing the Holy See in his own name, he [Charlemagne]

amplified the gifts of Pippin by annexing to them the island

of Corsica, with the provinces of Parma, Mantua, Venice, and

Istria, and the duchies of Spoleto and Beneventum. … This

rests wholly upon the assertion of Anastasius; but Karl could

not give away what he did not possess, and we know that

Corsica, Venice and Beneventum were not held by the Franks

till several years later. … Of the nature and extent of these

gifts nothing is determined: that they did not carry the right

of eminent domain is clear from the subsequent exercise of

acts of sovereignty within them by the Frankish monarchs; and

the probability is, according to the habits of the times, that

the properties were granted only under some form of feudal

vassalage."

P. Godwin,

History of France: Ancient Gaul,

book 4, chapter 16.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 49.

{2425}

"Indefinite in their terms, these grants were never meant by

the donors to convey full dominion over the districts—that

belonged to the head of the Empire—but only as in the case of

other church estates, a perpetual usufruct or 'dominium

utile.' They were, in fact, mere endowments. Nor had the gifts

been ever actually reduced into possession."

J. Bryce,

The Holy Roman Empire,

chapter 10.

PAPACY: A. D. 774 (?).

Forgery of the "Donation of Constantine."

"Before the end of the 8th century some apostolical scribe,

perhaps the notorious Isidore, composed the decretals and the

donation of Constantine, the two magic pillars of the

spiritual and temporal monarchy of the popes.

See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

This memorable donation was introduced to the world by an

epistle of Adrian I., who exhorts Charlemagne to imitate the

liberality and revive the name of the great Constantine.

According to the legend, the first of the Christian emperors

was healed of the leprosy, and purified in the waters of

baptism, by St. Silvester, the Roman bishop; and never was

physician more gloriously recompensed. His royal proselyte

withdrew from the seat and patrimony of St. Peter, declared

his resolution of founding a new capital in the East; and

resigned to the popes the free and perpetual sovereignty of

Rome, Italy, and the provinces of the West. This fiction was

productive of the most beneficial effects. The Greek princes

were convicted of the guilt of usurpation: and the revolt of

Gregory was the claim of his lawful inheritance. The popes

were delivered from their debt of gratitude; and the nominal

gifts of the Carlovingians were no more than the just and

irrevocable restitution of a scanty portion of the

ecclesiastical State."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 49.

"But this is not all, although this is what historians, in

admiration of its splendid audacity, have chiefly dwelt upon.

The edict proceeds to grant to the Roman pontiff and his

clergy a series of dignities and privileges, all of them

enjoyed by the emperor and his senate, all of them shewing the

same desire to make the pontifical a copy of the imperial

office. The Pope is to inhabit the Lateran palace, to wear the

diadem, the collar, the purple cloak, to carry the sceptre,

and to be attended by a body of chamberlains. … The practice

of kissing the Pope's foot was adopted in imitation of the old

imperial court. It was afterwards revived by the German

Emperors."

J. Bryce,

The Holy Roman Empire,

chapter 7, and foot-note.

ALSO IN:

M. Gosselin,

The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages,

volume 1, page 817.

E. F. Henderson,

Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,

book 8, number 8.

PAPACY: A. D. 800.

The giving of the Roman imperial crown to Charlemagne.

See GERMANY: A. D. 687-800; and 800.

PAPACY: A. D. 816-1073.

The succession of Popes.

Stephen IV. (or V.), A. D. 816-817;

Paschal I., 817-:824;

Eugene II., 824-827;

Valentine, 827;

Gregory IV., 827-844;

Sergius II., 844-847;

Leo IV., 847-855;

Benedict III.; 855-858:

Nicholas I., 858-867;

Hadrian II., 867-872;

John VIII., 872-882;

Marinus: 882-884;

Hadrian III., 884-885;

Stephen V. (or VI.), 885-891;

Formosus, 891-896;

Boniface VI., 896;

Stephen VI. (or VII.), 896-897;

Romanus, 897-898;

Theodore II., 898;

John IX., 898-900;

Benedict IV., 900-908;

Leo V., 908;

Sergius III., 904-911;

Anastasius III., 911-918;

Lando, 913-914;

John X., 914-928;

Leo VI., 928-929;

Stephen VII. (or VIII.), 929-981;

John XI., 981-986;

Leo VII., 936-989;

Stephen VIII. (or IX.). 989-942:

Marinus II.,942-946;

Agapetus II., 946-956;

John XII., 956-964;

Leo VIII., antipope, 963-965;

Benedict V., 964-965;

John XIII., 965-972;

Benedict VI., 972-974;

Donus II., 974-975;

Benedict VII., 975-984;

John XIV., 984-985;

John XV., 985-996;

Gregory V., 996-999;

John XVI., antipope, 997-998;

Sylvester II., 999-1003;

John XVII., 1003;

John XVIII., 1003-1009;

Sergius IV., 1009-1012:

Benedict VIII., 1012-1024;

John XIX., 1024-1033;

Benedict IX., 1033-1044;

Sylvester III., antipope, 1044;

Gregory VI., 1044-1046;

Clement II., 1046-1047;

Benedict IX., 1047-1048;

Damasus II., 1048;

Leo IX., 1049-1054;

Victor II., 1055-1057;

Stephen IX. (or X.), 1057-1058:

Benedict X., antipope, 1058-1059;

Nicholas II., 1058-1061;

Alexander II., 1061-1073.

PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

The False Decretals.

"There existed in each of the national churches, a collection

of ecclesiastical laws, or canons, which were made use of as

circumstances required. One of these collections was in use in

Spain as early as the sixth century, and was subsequently

attributed to Isidore, Bishop of Seville. Towards the middle

of the ninth century, a new recension of these canons appeared

in France, based upon the so–called Isidorian collection, but

into which many spurious fragments, borrowed from private

collections and bearing upon their face incontestable evidence

of the ignorance of their authors, had been introduced. This

recension contained also a number of forged documents. There

were, altogether, above a hundred spurious decrees of popes,

from Clement to Damasus (A. D. 384), not to mention some of

other popes, and many false canons of councils. It also

contained the forged Deed of Donation ascribed to Constantine

[see above: A. D. 774?]. However, these decretals, which, as

they stand, are now proved, both by intrinsic and extrinsic

arguments, to be impudent forgeries, are nevertheless, in

matter of fact, the real utterances of popes, though not of

those to whom they are ascribed, and hence the forgery is, on

the whole, one of chronological location, and does not affect

their essential character."

J. Alzog,

Manual of Universal Church History,

volume 2, page 195.

"Various opinions exist as to the time at which this

collection was made, and the precise date of its publication.

Mabillon supposes the compilation to have been made about A.

D. 785; and in this opinion he is followed by others. But the

collection did not appear until after the death of

Charlemagne. Some think that these Decretals cannot be of an

earlier date than 829, and Blondel supposed that he discovered

in them traces of the acts of a council at Paris held in that

year. All that can be determined is that most probably the

Decretals were first published in France, perhaps at Mayence,

about the middle of the ninth century; but it is impossible to

discover their real author. The spuriousness of these

Decretals was first exposed by the Magdeburg Centuriators,

with a degree of historical and critical acumen beyond the age

in which they lived. The Jesuit Turrianus endeavoured, but in

vain, to defend the spurious documents against this attack. …

Of these Epistles none (except two, which appear on other

grounds to be spurious) were ever heard of before the ninth

century. They contain a vast number of anachronisms and

historical inaccuracies.

{2426}

Passages are quoted from more recent writings, including the

Vulgate, according to the version of Jerome; and, although the

several Epistles profess to have been written by different

pontiffs, the style is manifestly uniform, and often very

barbarous, such as could not have proceeded from Roman writers

of the first century. … The success of this forgery would

appear incredible, did we not take into account the weak and

confused government of the successors of Charlemagne, in whose

time it was promulgated; the want of critical acumen and

resources in that age; the skill with which the pontiffs made

use of the Decretals only by degrees; and the great authority

and power possessed by the Roman pontiffs in these times. The

name of Isidore also served to recommend these documents, many

persons being ready to believe that they were in fact only a

completion of the genuine collection of Isidore, which was

highly esteemed. … The unknown compiler was subsequently

called Pseudo-Isidorus."

J. E. Riddle,

History of the Papacy,

volume 1, pages 405-407.

ALSO IN:

A. Neander,

General History of the Christian Religion and Church,

volume 6 (Bohn's edition), pages 2-8.

H. H. Milman,

History of Latin Christianity,

book 5, chapter 4.

M. Gosselin,

The Power of the Pope,

volume 1, page 317.

J. N. Murphy,

The Chair of Peter,

chapter 9.

H. C. Lea,

Studies in Christian History,

pp. 43-76.

P. Schaff,

History of the Christian Church,

volume 4, chapter 4, section 60.

PAPACY: A. D. 887-1046.

Demoralization of the Church.

Degradation of the Holy See.

Reforms of the Emperor, Henry III.

"No exaggeration is possible of the demoralized state into

which the Christian world, and especially the Church of Rome,

had fallen in the years that followed the extinction of the

Carlovingian line (A. D. 887). The tenth century is even known

among Protestants 'par excellence' as the sæculum obscurum,

and Baronius expresses its portentous corruption in the vivid

remark that Christ was as if asleep in the vessel of the

Church. 'The infamies prevalent among the clergy of the time,'

says Mr. Bowden [Life of Hildebrand], 'as denounced by Damiani

and others, are to be alluded to, not detailed.' … When

Hildebrand was appointed to the monastery of St. Paul at Rome,

he found the offices of devotion systematically neglected, the

house of prayer defiled by the sheep and cattle who found

their way in and out through its broken doors, and the monks,

contrary to all monastic rule, attended in their refectory by

women. The excuse for these irregularities was the destitution

to which the holy house was reduced by the predatory bands of

Campagna; but when the monastic bodies were rich, as was the

case in Germany, matters were worse instead of better. … At

the close of the ninth century, Stephen VI. dragged the body

of an obnoxious predecessor from the grave, and, after

subjecting it to a mock trial, cut off its head and three

fingers, and threw it into the Tiber. He himself was

subsequently deposed, and strangled in prison. In the years

that followed, the power of electing to the popedom fell into

the hands of the intriguing and licentious Theodora, and her

equally unprincipled daughters, Theodora and Marozia.

See ROME: A. D. 903-964].

These women, members of a patrician family, by their arts and

beauty, obtained an unbounded influence over the aristocratic

tyrants of the city. One of the Theodoras advanced a lover,

and Marozia a son, to the popedom. The grandson of the latter,

Octavian, succeeding to her power, as well as to the civil

government of the city, elevated himself, on the death of the

then Pope, to the apostolic chair, at the age of eighteen,

under the title of John XII. (A. D. 956). His career was in

keeping with such a commencement. 'The Lateran Palace,' says

Mr. Bowden, 'was disgraced by becoming a receptacle for

courtezans: and decent females were terrified from pilgrimages

to the threshold of the Apostles by the reports which were

spread abroad of the lawless impurity and violence of their

representative and successor.' … At length he was carried off

by a rapid illness, or by the consequences of a blow received

in the prosecution of his intrigues. Boniface VII. (A. D.

974), in the space of a few weeks after his elevation,

plundered the treasury and basilica of St. Peter of all he

could conveniently carry off, and fled to Constantinople. John

XVIII. (A. D. 1003) expressed his readiness, for a sum of

money from the Emperor Basil, to recognize the right of the

Greek Patriarch to the title of ecumenical or universal

bishop, and the consequent degradation of his own see; and was

only prevented by the general indignation excited by the

report of his intention. Benedict IX. (A. D. 1033) was

consecrated Pope, according to some authorities, at the age of

ten or twelve years, and became notorious for adulteries and

murders. At length he resolved on marrying his first cousin;

and, when her father would not assent except on the condition

of his resigning the popedom, he sold it for a large sum, and

consecrated the purchaser as his successor. Such are a few of

the most prominent features of the ecclesiastical history of

these dreadful times, when, in the words of St. Bruno, 'the

world lay in wickedness, holiness had disappeared, justice had

perished, and truth had been buried; Simon Magus lording it

over the Church, whose bishops and priests were given to

luxury and fornication.' Had we lived in such deplorable times

as have been above described … we should have felt for

certain, that if it was possible to retrieve the Church, it

must be by some external power; she was helpless and

resourceless; and the civil power must interfere, or there was

no hope. So thought the young and zealous emperor, Henry III.

(A. D. 1039), who, though unhappily far from a perfect

character, yet deeply felt the shame to which the Immaculate

Bride was exposed, and determined with his own right hand to

work her deliverance. … This well-meaning prince did begin

that reformation which ended in the purification and

monarchical estate of the Church. He held a Council of his

Bishops in 1047; in it he passed a decree that 'Whosoever

should make any office or station in the Church a subject of

purchase or sale, should suffer deprivation and be visited

with excommunication;' at the same time, with regard to his

own future conduct, he solemnly pledged himself as

follows:—'As God has freely of His mere mercy bestowed upon me

the crown of the empire, so will I give freely and without

price all things that pertain unto His religion.' This was his

first act; but he was aware that the work of reform, to be

thoroughly executed, must proceed from Rome, as the centre of

the ecclesiastical commonwealth, and he determined, upon those

imperial precedents and feudal principles which Charlemagne had

introduced, himself to appoint a Pope, who should be the

instrument of his general reformation.

{2427}

The reigning Pope at this time was Gregory VI., and he

introduces us to so curious a history that we shall devote

some sentences to it. Gregory was the identical personage who

had bought the papal office of the profligate Benedict IX. for

a large sum, and was consecrated by him, and yet he was far

from a bad sort of man after all. … He had been known in the

world as John Gratianus; and at the time of his promotion was

arch-priest of Rome. 'He was considered,' says Mr. Bowden, 'in

those bad times more than ordinarily religious; he had lived

free from the gross vices by which the clergy were too

generally disgraced.' … He could not be quite said to have

come into actual possession of his purchase; for Benedict, his

predecessor, who sold it to him, being disappointed in his

intended bride, returned to Rome after an absence of three

months, and resumed his pontifical station, while the party of

his intended father-in-law had had sufficient influence to

create a Pope of their own, John, Bishop of Sabina, who paid a

high price for his elevation, and took the title of Sylvester

III. And thus there were three self-styled Popes at once in

the Holy City, Benedict performing his sacred functions at the

Lateran, Gregory at St. Peter's, and Sylvester at Santa Maria

Maggiore. Gregory, however, after a time, seemed to

preponderate over his antagonists; he maintained a body of

troops, and with these he suppressed the suburban robbers who

molested the pilgrims. Expelling them from the sacred limits

of St. Peter's, he carried his arms further, till he had

cleared the neighbouring towns and roads of these marauders. …

This was the point of time at which the Imperial Reformer made

his visitation of the Church and See of the Apostles. He came

into Italy in the autumn of 1046, and held a Council at Sutri,

a town about thirty miles to the north of Rome. Gregory was

allowed to preside; and, when under his auspices the

abdication of Benedict had been recorded, and Sylvester had

been stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a

monastery for life, Gregory's own turn came" and he was

persuaded to pronounce a sentence of condemnation upon himself

and to vacate the pontifical chair. "The new Pope whom the

Emperor gave to the Church instead of Gregory VI., Clement

II., a man of excellent character, died within the year.

Damasus II. also, who was his second nomination, died in three

or four weeks after his formal assumption of his pontifical

duties. Bruno, Bishop of Toul, was his third choice. … And now

we are arrived at the moment when the State reformer struck

his foot against the hidden rock. … He had chosen a Pope, but

'quis custodiat ipsos custodes'? What was to keep fast that

Pope in that very view of the relation of the State to the

Church, that plausible Erastianism, as it has since been

called, which he adopted himself? What is to secure the Pope

from the influences of some Hildebrand at his elbow, who, a

young man himself, shall rehearse, in the person of his

superior, that part which he is one day to play in his own, as

Gregory VII.? Such was the very fact; Hildebrand was with Leo,

and thus commences the ecclesiastical career of that wonderful

man."

J. H. Newman,

Essays Critical and Historical,

volume 2, pages 255-265.

See, also, ROME: A. D. 962-1057;

and GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

PAPACY: A. D. 1053.

Naples and Sicily granted as fiefs of the Church

to the sons of Tancred—the Normans.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090.

PAPACY: A. D. 1054.

The Filioque Controversy.

Separation of the Orthodox (Greek) Church.

See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY;

also, CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.

PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122.

Hildebrand and Henry IV.

The imperious pontifical reign of Gregory VII.

Empire and Papacy in conflict.

The War of Investitures.

"Son of a Tuscan carpenter, but, as his name shows, of German

origin, Hildebrand had been from childhood a monk in the

monastery of Sta Maria, on Mount Aventine, at Rome, where his

uncle was abbot, and where he became the pupil of a learned

Benedictine archbishop, the famous Laurentius of Amalfi, and

formed a tender friendship with St. Odilon of Cluny [or

Clugny]. Having early attached himself to the virtuous Pope

Gregory VI., it was with indignation that he saw him

confounded with two unworthy competitors, and deposed together

with them by the arbitrary influence of the emperor at Sutri.

He followed the exiled pontiff to France, and, after his

death, went to enrol himself among the monks of Cluny, where

he had previously resided, and where, according to several

writers, he held the office of prior. During a part of his

youth, however, he must have lived at the German Court, where

he made a great impression on the Emperor Henry III., and on

the best bishops of the country, by the eloquence of his

preaching. … It was at Cluny that Hildebrand met, in 1049, the

new Pope, Bruno, Bishop of Toul. … Bruno himself had been a

monk: his cousin, the Emperor Henry III., had, by his own

authority, caused him to be elected at Worms, December 1048,

and proclaimed under the name of Leo IX. Hildebrand, seeing

him already clothed with the pontifical purple, reproached him

for having accepted the government of the Church, and advised

him to guard ecclesiastical liberty by being canonically

elected at Rome. Bruno yielded to this salutary remonstrance;

laying aside the purple and the pontifical ornaments, he

caused Hildebrand to accompany him to Rome, where his election

was solemnly renewed by the Roman clergy and people. This was

the first blow given to the usurped authority of the emperor.

From that moment Hildebrand was withdrawn from Cluny by the

Pope, in spite of the strong resistance of the Abbot St. Hugh.

Created Cardinal Subdeacon of the Roman Church, and Abbot of

San Paolo fuori le Mura, he went on steadily towards the end

he had in view. Guided by his advice, Leo IX., after having

renewed his courage at Monte Cassino, prepared several decrees

of formal condemnation against the sale of benefices and

against the marriage of priests; and these decrees were

fulminated in a series of councils on both sides the Alps, at

Rome, Verceil, Mayence, and Reims. The enemy, till then calm

in the midst of his usurped rule, felt himself sharply

wounded. Nevertheless, the simoniacal bishops, accomplices or

authors of all the evils the Pope wished to cure, pretended as

well as they could not to understand the nature and drift of

the pontiff's act. They hoped time would be their friend; but

they were soon undeceived.

{2428}

Among the many assemblies convoked and presided over by Pope

Leo IX., the Council of Reims, held in 1094, was the most

important. … Henry I., King of France, opposed the holding of

this Council with all his might. … The Pope stood his ground:

he was only able to gather round him twenty bishops; but, on

the other hand, there came fifty Benedictine abbots. Thanks to

their support, energetic canons were promulgated against the

two great scandals of the time, and several guilty prelates

were deposed. They went still further: a decree pronounced by

this Council vindicated, for the first time in many years, the

freedom of ecclesiastical elections, by declaring that no

promotion to the episcopate should be valid without the choice

of the clergy and people. This was the first signal of the

struggle for the enfranchisement of the Church, and the first

token of the preponderating influence of Hildebrand. From that

time all was changed. A new spirit breathed on the Church —a

new life thrilled the heart of the papacy. … Vanquished and

made prisoner by the Normans—not yet, as under St. Gregory

VII., transformed into devoted champions of the Church —Leo

IX. vanquished them, in turn, by force of courage and

holiness, and wrested from them their first oath of fidelity

to the Holy See while granting to them a first investiture of

their conquests. Death claimed the pontiff when he had reigned

five years. … At the moment when the struggle between the

papacy and the Western empire became open and terrible, the

East, by a mysterious decree of Providence, finally separated

itself from Catholic unity. … The schism was completed by

Michael Cerularius, whom the Emperor Constantine Monomachius

had placed, in 1043, on the patriarchal throne. The separation

took place under the vain pretext of Greek and Latin

observances on the subject of unleavened bread, of strangled

meats, and of the singing of the Alleluia. … Leo IX. being

dead, the Romans wished to elect Hildebrand, and only

renounced their project at his most earnest entreaties. He

then hastened to cross the Alps, and directed his steps to

Germany [1054], provided with full authority from the Roman

clergy and people to choose, under the eyes of the Emperor

Henry III., whoever, among the prelates of the empire, that

prince should judge most worthy of the tiara. … Hildebrand

selected Gebhard, Bishop of Eichstadt; and in spite of the

emperor, who desired to keep near him a bishop who enjoyed his

entire confidence—in spite even of Gebhard himself—he carried

him off to Rome, where, according to the ancient custom, the

clergy proceeded to his election under the name of Victor II.

The new Pope, at the risk of his life, adhered to the counsels

of Hildebrand, and continued the war made by his predecessor

on simoniacal bishops and married priests. … At this crisis

[October, 1056] the Emperor Henry III. died in the flower of

his age, leaving the throne of Germany to his only son, a

child of six years old, but already elected and crowned—the

regent being his mother, the Empress Agnes. … Victor II. had

scarcely followed the emperor to the tomb [July, 1057] when

the Roman clergy hastened, for the first time, to elect a Pope

without any imperial intervention. In the absence of

Hildebrand, the unanimous choice of the electors fixed on the

former chancellor and legate at Constantinople of Leo IX., on

Frederic, monk and abbot of Monte Cassino," raised to the

throne by the name of Stephen, sometimes numbered as the

ninth, but generally as the tenth Pope of that name.

Count de Montalambert,

The Monks of the West,

book 19, chapter 2 (volume 6).

Stephen X. died in the year following his election, and again

the papal chair was filled during the absence of Hildebrand

from Rome. The new Pope, who took the name of Benedict X., was

obnoxious to the reforming party, of which Hildebrand was the

head, and the validity of his election was denied. With the

support of the imperial court in Germany, Gerard, Bishop of

Florence, was raised to the throne, as Nicholas II., and his

rival gave way to him. Nicholas II., dying in 1061, was

succeeded by Alexander II. elected equally under Hildebrand's

influence. On the death of Alexander in 1073, Hildebrand

himself was forced against his will, to accept the papal

tiara. He "knew well the difficulties that would beset one who

should endeavour to govern the Church as became an upright and

conscientious Pope. Hence, dreading the responsibility, he

protested, but to no purpose, against his own elevation to the

papal throne. … Shrinking from its onerous duties, Gregory

thought he saw one way still open by which he might escape the

burden. The last decree on papal elections contained an

article requiring that the Pope-elect should receive the

approval of the Emperor of Germany. Gregory, who still assumed

only the title of 'Bishop-elect of Rome,' notified Henry IV.,

King of Germany and Emperor–elect, of what had taken place,

and begged him not to approve the action or confirm the choice

of the Romans. 'But should you,' he went on to say, 'deny my

prayer, I beg to assure you that I shall most certainly not

allow your scandalous and notorious excesses to go

unpunished.' Several historians, putting this bold declaration

beside the decree of Nicholas II. (A. D. 1059), which went on

the assumption that the King of Germany did not enjoy the

right of approving the Pope-elect until after he had been

crowned Emperor, and then, only by a concession made to

himself personally, have pronounced it suppositious. But when

it is recollected that its authenticity rests upon the

combined testimony of Bonizo, Bishop of Sutri, the friend of

Hildebrand, and of William, abbot of Metz, as well as on the

authority of the Acta Vaticana, it is difficult to see how the

objection can be sustained. … Henry IV., on receiving news of

Hildebrand's election, sent Count Eberhard, of Nellenburg, as

his plenipotentiary to Rome to protest against the proceeding.

The politic Hildebrand was careful not to be taken at a

disadvantage. 'I have indeed' said he, 'been elected by the

people, but against my own will. I would not, however, allow

myself to be forced to take priest's orders until my election

should have been ratified by the king and the princes of

Germany.' Lambert of Hersfeld informs us that Henry was so

pleased with this manner of speech that he gave orders to

allow the consecration to go on, and the ceremony was

accordingly performed on the Feast of the Purification in the

following year (A. D. 1074). This is the last instance of a

papal election being ratified by an emperor. … Out of respect

to the memory of Gregory VI., his former friend and master,

Hildebrand, on ascending the papal throne, took the

ever–illustrious name of Gregory VII."

J. Alzog,

Manual of Universal Church History,

volume 2, page 347-348.

{2429}

"From the most remote Christian antiquity, the marriage of

clergymen had been regarded with the dislike, and their

celibacy rewarded by the commendation, of the people. … This

prevailing sentiment had ripened into a customary law, and the

observance of that custom had been enforced by edicts and

menaces, by rewards and penalties. But nature had triumphed

over tradition, and had proved too strong for Councils and for

Popes. When Hildebrand ascended the chair first occupied by a

married Apostle, his spirit burned within him to see that

marriage held in her impure and unhallowed bonds a large

proportion of those who ministered at the altar, and who

handled there the very substance of the incarnate Deity. It

was a profanation well adapted to arouse the jealousy, not

less than to wound the conscience, of the Pontiff. Secular

cares suited ill with the stern duties of a theocratic

ministry. Domestic affections would choke or enervate in them

that corporate passion which might otherwise be directed with

unmitigated ardour towards their chief and centre. Clerical

celibacy would exhibit to those who trod the outer courts of

the great Christian temple, the impressive and subjugating

image of a transcendental perfection, too pure not only for

the coarser delights of sense, but even for the alloy of

conjugal or parental love. It would fill the world with

adherents of Rome, in whom every feeling would be quenched

which could rival that sacred allegiance. … With such

anticipations, Gregory, within a few weeks from his accession,

convened a council at the Lateran, and proposed a law, not, as

formerly, forbidding merely the marriage of priests, but

commanding every priest to put away his wife, and requiring

all laymen to abstain from any sacred office which any wedded

priest might presume to celebrate. Never was legislative

foresight so verified by the result. What the great Council of

Nicæa had attempted in vain, the Bishops assembled in the

presence of Hildebrand accomplished, at his instance, at once,

effectually, and for ever. Lamentable indeed were the

complaints, bitter the reproaches, of the sufferers. Were the

most sacred ties thus to be torn asunder at the ruthless

bidding of an Italian priest? Were men to become angels, or

were angels to be brought down from heaven to minister among

men? Eloquence was never more pathetic, more just, or more

unavailing. Prelate after prelate silenced these complaints by

austere rebukes. Legate after legate arrived with papal

menaces to the remonstrants. Monks and abbots preached the

continency they at least professed. Kings and barons laughed

over their cups at many a merry tale of compulsory divorce.

Mobs pelted, hooted, and besmeared with profane and filthy

baptisms the unhappy victims of pontifical rigour. It was a

struggle not to be prolonged —broken hearts pined and died

away in silence. Expostulations subsided into murmurs, and

murmurs were drowned in the general shout of victory. Eight

hundred years have since passed away. Amidst the wreck of

laws, opinions, and institutions, this decree of Hildebrand's

still rules the Latin Church, in every land where sacrifices

are offered on her altars. … With this Spartan rigour towards

his adherents, Gregory combined a more than Athenian address

and audacity towards his rivals and antagonists. So long as

the monarchs of the West might freely bestow on the objects of

their choice the sees and abbeys of their states, papal

dominion could be but a passing dream, and papal independency

an empty boast. Corrupt motives usually determined that

choice; and the objects of it were but seldom worthy.

Ecclesiastical dignities were often sold to the highest

bidder, and then the purchaser indemnified himself by a use no

less mercenary of his own patronage; or they were given as a

reward to some martial retainer, and the new churchman could

not forget that he had once been a soldier. The cope and the

coat-of-mail were worn alternately. The same hand bore the

crucifix in the holy festival, and the sword in the day of

battle. … In the hands of the newly consecrated Bishop was

placed a staff, and on his finger a ring, which, received as

they were from his temporal sovereign, proclaimed that homage

and fealty were due to him alone. And thus the sacerdotal

Proconsuls of Rome became, in sentiment at least, and by the

powerful obligation of honour, the vicegerents, not of the

Pontifex Maximus, but of the Imperator. To dissolve this

'trinoda necessitas' of simoniacal preferments, military

service, and feudal vassalage, a feebler spirit would have

exhorted, negotiated, and compromised. To Gregory it belonged

to subdue men by courage, and to rule them by reverence.

Addressing the world in the language of his generation, he

proclaimed to every potentate, from the Baltic to the Straits

of Calpé, that all human authority being holden of the divine,

and God himself having delegated his own sovereignty over men

to the Prince of the Sacred College, a divine right to

universal obedience was the inalienable attribute of the Roman

Pontiffs. … In turning ever the collection of the epistles of

Hildebrand, we are every where met by this doctrine asserted

in a tone of the calmest dignity and the most serene

conviction. Thus he informs the French monarch that every

house in his kingdom owed to Peter, as their father and

pastor, an annual tribute of a penny, and he commands his

legates to collect it in token of the subjection of France to

the Holy See. He assures Solomon the King of Hungary, that his

territories are the property of the Holy Roman Church. Solomon

being incredulous and refractory, was dethroned by his

competitor for the Hungarian crown. His more prudent

successor, Ladislaus, acknowledged himself the vassal of the

Pope, and paid him tribute. … From every part of the European

continent, Bishops are summoned by these imperial missives to

Rome, and there are either condemned and deposed, or absolved

and confirmed in their sees. In France, in Spain, and in

Germany, we find his legates exercising the same power; and

the correspondence records many a stern rebuke, sometimes for

their undue remissness, sometimes for their misapplied

severity. The rescripts of Trajan scarcely exhibit a firmer

assurance both of the right and the power to control every

other authority, whether secular or sacerdotal, throughout the

civilized world."

Sir J. Stephen,

Hildebrand

(Edinburgh Review, April, 1845).

{2430}

"At first Gregory appeared to desire to direct his weapons

against King Philip of France, 'the worst of, the tyrants who

enslaved the Church.' … But with a more correct estimate of

the circumstances of Germany and the dangers which threatened

from Lombardy, he let this conflict drop and turned against

Henry IV. The latter had so alienated Saxony and Thuringia by

harsh proceedings, that they desired to accuse him to the Pope

of oppression and simony. Gregory immediately demanded the

dismissal of the councillors who had been excommunicated by

his predecessor. His mother, who was devoted to the Pope,

sought to mediate, and the Saxon revolt which now broke out

(still in 1073) still further induced him to give way. He

wrote a submissive letter to the Pope, rendered a repentant

confession at Nuremberg in 1074 in the presence of his mother

and two Roman cardinals, and, along with the excommunicated

councillors, who had promised on oath to surrender all church

properties obtained by simony, was received into the communion

of the Church. … But … Henry, after overthrowing his enemies,

soon returned to his old manner, and the German clergy

resisted the interference of the Pope. At the Roman Synod

(February, 1075) Gregory then decreed numerous ecclesiastical

penalties against resistant German and Lombard bishops, and

five councillors of the King were once more laid under the ban

on account of simony. But in addition, at a Roman synod of the

same year, he carried through the bold law of investiture,

which prohibited bishops and abbots from receiving a bishopric

or abbacy from the hands of a layman, and prohibited the

rulers from conferring investiture on penalty of

excommunication. Before the publication of the law Gregory

caused confidential overtures to be made to the King, in

order, as it seems, to give the King an opportunity of taking

measures to obviate the threatening dangers which were

involved in this extreme step. At the same time he himself was

threatened and entangled on all hands; Robert Guiscard, whom

he had previously excommunicated, he once more laid under the

ban. … Henry, who in the summer of 1075 still negotiated

directly with the Pope through ambassadors, after completely

overthrowing the Saxons now ceased to pay any attention. … At

Worms (24th January 1076) he caused a great portion of the

German bishops to declare the deposition of the Pope who, as

was said, was shattering the Empire and degrading the bishops.

The Lombard bishops subscribed the decree of deposition at

Piacenza and Pavia. Its bearers aroused a fearful storm

against themselves at the Lenten Synod of Rome (1076), and

Gregory now declared the excommunication and deposition of

Henry, and released his subjects from their oath. Serious

voices did indeed deny the Pope's right to the latter course;

but a portion of the German bishops at once humbled themselves

before the Pope, others began to waver, and the German

princes, angered over Henry's government, demanded at Tribur

in October, 1076, that the King should give satisfaction to

the Pope, and the Pope hold judgment on Henry in Germany

itself; if by his own fault Henry should remain under the ban

for a year's time, another King was to be elected. Henry then

resolved to make his peace with the Pope in order to take

their weapon out of the hands of the German princes. Before

the Pope came to Germany, he hastened in the winter with his

wife and child from Besançon, over Mont Cenis, and found a

friendly reception in Lombardy, so that the Pope, already on

the way to Germany, betook himself to the Castle of Canossa to

the Margravine Matilda of Tuscany, fearing an evil turn of

affairs from Henry and the Lombards who were hostile to the

Pope. But Henry was driven by his threatened position in

Germany to seek release from the ban above every thing. This

brought him as a penitent into the courtyard of Canossa

(January 1077), where Gregory saw him stand from morning till

evening during three days before he released him from the ban

at the intercession of Matilda."

W. Moeller,

History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages,

pages 256-258.

"It was on the 25th of January, 1077, that the scene took

place, which, as is natural, has seized so strongly upon the

popular imagination, and has so often supplied a theme for the

brush of the painter, the periods of the historian, the verse

of the poet. … The king was bent upon escaping at any

sacrifice from the bond of excommunication and from his

engagement to appear before the Pontiff, at the Diet summoned

at Augsburg for the Feast of the Purification. The character

in which he presented himself before Gregory was that of a

penitent, throwing himself in deep contrition upon the

Apostolic clemency, and desirous of reconciliation with the

Church. The Pope, after so long experience of his duplicity,

disbelieved in his sincerity, while, as a mere matter of

policy, it was in the highest degree expedient to keep him to

his pact with the German princes and prelates. … On three

successive days did he appear barefooted in the snowy

court-yard of the castle, clad in the white garb of a

penitent, suing for relief from ecclesiastical censure. It was

difficult for Gregory to resist the appeal thus made to his

fatherly compassion, the more especially as Hugh, Abbot of

Cluny, and the Countess Matilda besought him 'not to break the

bruised reed.' Against his better judgment, and in despite of

the warnings of secular prudence, the Pope consented on the

fourth day to admit to his presence the royal suppliant. … The

conditions of absolution imposed upon the king were mainly

four: that he should present himself upon a day and at a

place, to be named by the Pontiff, to receive the judgment of

the Apostolic See, upon the charges preferred by the princes

and prelates of Germany, and that he should abide the

Pontifical sentence—his subjects meanwhile remaining released

from their oath of fealty; that he should respect the rights

of the Church and carry out the papal decrees; and that breach

of this engagement should entitle the Teutonic magnates to

proceed to the election of another king. Such were the terms

to which Henry solemnly pledged himself, and on the faith of

that pledge the Pontiff, assuming the vestments of religion,

proceeded to absolve him with the appointed rites. … So ends

the first act in this great tragedy. Gregory's misgivings as

to the king's sincerity soon receive too ample justification.

'Fear not,' the Pontiff is reported to have said, with half

contemptuous sadness to the Saxon envoys who complained of his

lenity to the monarch: 'Fear not, I send him back to you more

guilty than he came.' Henry's words to the Pope had been

softer than butter; but he had departed with war in his heart.

… Soon he lays a plot for seizing Gregory at Mantua, whither

the Pontiff is invited for the purpose of presiding over a

Council. But the vigilance of the Great Countess foils the

proposed treachery.

{2431}

Shortly the ill-advised monarch again assumes an attitude of

open hostility to the Pope. … The Teutonic princes, glad to

throw off an authority which they loathe and despise—not

heeding the advice to pause given by the Roman legates—proceed

at the Diet of Forchein to the election of another king. Their

choice falls upon Rudolph of Swabia, who is crowned at Metz on

the 20th of March, 1077. The situation is now complicated by

the strife between the two rival sovereigns. … At last, in

Lent, 1080, Gregory, no longer able to tolerate the continual

violation by Henry of the pledges given at Canossa, and

greatly moved by tidings of his new and manifold sacrileges

and cruelties, pronounces again the sentence of

excommunication against him, releasing his subjects from their

obedience, and recognizing Rudolph as king. Henry thereupon

calls together some thirty simoniacal and incontinent prelates

at Brixen, and causes them to go through the form of electing

an anti-pope in the person of Guibert, Archbishop of Ravenna,

an ecclesiastic some time previously excommunicated by Gregory

for grave offences. Then the tide turns in Henry's favour. At

the battle of the Elster (15th October, 1080), Rudolph is

defeated and mortally wounded, and on the same day the army of

the Great Countess is overthrown and dispersed at La Volta in

the Mantuan territory. Next year, in the early spring, Henry

crosses the Alps and advances towards Rome. … A little before

Pentecost Henry appears under the walls of the Papal city,

expecting that his party within it will throw open the gates

to him; but his expectation is disappointed. … In 1082, the

monarch again advances upon Rome and ineffectually assaults

it. In the next year he makes a third and more successful

attempt, and captures the Leonine city. … On the 21st of

March, 1084, the Lateran Gate is opened to Henry by the

treacherous Romans, and the excommunicated monarch, with the

anti-pope by his side, rides in triumph through the streets.

The next day, Guibert solemnly takes possession of St. John

Lateran, and bestows the Imperial Crown upon Henry in the

Vatican Basilica. Meanwhile Gregory is shut up in the Castle

of St. Angelo. Thence, after six weeks, he is delivered by

Guiscard, Duke of Calabria, the faithful vassal of the Holy

See. But the burning of the city by Guiscard's troops, upon

the uprising of the Romans, turns the joy of his rescue into

mourning. Eight days afterwards he quits 'the smoking ruins of

his once beautiful Rome,' and after pausing for a few days, at

Monte Casino, reaches Salerno, where his life pilgrimage is to

end."

W. S. Lilly,

The Turning-Point of the Middle Ages

(Contemporary Review, August, 1882).

Gregory died at Salerno on the 25th of May, 1085, leaving

Henry apparently triumphant; but he had inspired the Papacy

with his will and mind, and the battle went on. At the end of

another generation—in A. D. 1122—the question of investitures

was settled by a compromise called the Concordat of Worms.

"Both of the contending parties gave up something, but one

much more than the other; the Church shadows, the State

substance. The more important elections should be henceforth

made in the presence of the Emperor, he engaging not to

interfere with them, but to leave to the Chapter or other

electing body the free exercise of their choice. This was in

fact to give over in most instances the election to the Pope;

who gradually managed to exclude the Emperor from all share in

Episcopal appointments. The temporalities of the See or Abbey

were still to be made over to the Bishop or Abbot elect, not,

however, any longer by the delivering to him of the ring and

crozier, but by a touch of the sceptre, he having done homage

for them, and taken the oath of obedience. All this was in

Germany to find place before consecration, being the same

arrangement that seven years earlier had brought the conflict

between Anselm and our Henry I. to an end."

R. C. Trench,

Lectures on Medieval Church History,

lecture 9.

ALSO IN:

A. F. Villemain,

Life of Gregory VII.,

book 2.

W. R. W. Stephens.

Hildebrand and His Times.

H. H. Milman,

History of Latin Christianity,

books 6-8.

E. F. Henderson,

Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,

book 4.

See, also,

GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122;

CANOSSA;

ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.

PAPACY: A. D. 1059.

Institution of the procedure of Papal Election.

"According to the primitive custom of the church, an episcopal

vacancy was filled up by election of the clergy and people

belonging to the city or diocese. … It is probable that, in

almost every case, the clergy took a leading part in the

selection of their bishops; but the consent of the laity was

absolutely necessary to render it valid. They were, however,

by degrees excluded from any real participation, first in the

Greek, and finally in the western church. … It does not appear

that the early Christian emperors interfered with the freedom

of choice any further than to make their own confirmation

necessary in the great patriarchal sees, such as Rome and

Constantinople, which were frequently the objects of violent

competition, and to decide in controverted elections. … The

bishops of Rome, like those of inferior sees, were regularly

elected by the citizens, laymen as well as ecclesiastics. But

their consecration was deferred until the popular choice had

received the sovereign's sanction. The Romans regularly

despatched letters to Constantinople or to the exarchs of

Ravenna, praying that their election of a pope might be

confirmed. Exceptions, if any, are infrequent while Rome was

subject to the eastern empire. This, among other imperial

prerogatives, Charlemagne might consider as his own. … Otho

the Great, in receiving the imperial crown, took upon him the

prerogatives of Charlemagne. There is even extant a decree of

Leo VIII., which grants to him and his successors the right of

naming future popes. But the authenticity of this instrument

is denied by the Italians. It does not appear that the Saxon

emperors went to such a length as nomination, except in one

instance (that of Gregory V. in 990); but they sometimes, not

uniformly, confirmed the election of a pope, according to

ancient custom. An explicit right of nomination was, however,

conceded to the emperor Henry III. in 1047, as the only means

of rescuing the Roman church from the disgrace and depravity

into which it had fallen. Henry appointed two or three very

good popes. … This high prerogative was perhaps not designed

to extend beyond Henry himself. But even if it had been

transmissible to his successors, the infancy of his son Henry

IV., and the factions of that minority, precluded the

possibility of its exercise. Nicolas II., in 1059, published a

decree which restored the right of election to the Romans, but

with a remarkable variation from the original form.

{2432}

The cardinal bishops (seven in number, holding sees in the

neighbourhood of Rome, and consequently suffragans of the pope

as patriarch or metropolitan) were to choose the supreme

pontiff, with the concurrence first of the cardinal priests

and deacons (or ministers of the parish churches of Rome), and

afterwards of the laity. Thus elected, the new pope was to be

presented for confirmation to Henry, 'now king, and hereafter

to become emperor,' and to such of his successors as should

personally obtain that privilege. This decree is the

foundation of that celebrated mode of election in a conclave

of cardinals which has ever since determined the headship of

the church. … The real author of this decree, and of all other

vigorous measures adopted by the popes of that age, whether

for the assertion of their independence or the restoration of

discipline, was Hildebrand"—afterwards Pope Gregory VII.

H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 7, part 1 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

E. F. Henderson,

Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,

book 4, number 1.

PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

Donation of the Countess Matilda.

"The Countess Matilda, born in 1040, was daughter of Boniface,

Marquis of Tuscany, and Beatrice, sister of the Emperor Henry

III. On the death of her only brother, without issue, she

succeeded to all his dominions, of Tuscany, Parma, Lucca,

Mantua and Reggio. Rather late in life, she married Guelpho,

son of the Duke of Bavaria—no issue resulting from their

union. This princess displayed great energy and administrative

ability in the troubled times in which she lived, occasionally

appearing at the head of her own troops. Ever a devoted

daughter of the Church, she specially venerated Pope Gregory

VII., to whom she afforded much material support, in the

difficulties by which he was constantly beset. To this

Pontiff, she made a donation of a considerable portion of her

dominions, for the benefit of the Holy See, A. D. 1077,

confirming the same in a deed to Pope Pascal II., in 1102,

entituled 'Cartula donationis Comitissæ Mathildis facta S.

Gregorio PP. VII., et innovata Paschali PP. II.'; apud Theiner

'Codex Diplomaticus,' etc., tom. 1, p. 10. As the original

deed to Gregory VII. is not extant, and the deed of

confirmation or renewal does not recite the territories

conveyed, there is some uncertainty about their exact limits.

However, it is generally thought that they comprised the

district formerly known as the Patrimony of Saint Peter, lying

on the right bank of the Tiber, and extending from

Aquapendente to Ostia. The Countess Matilda died in 1115, aged

75."

J. N. Murphy,

The Chair of Peter,

page 235, foot-note.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250.

PAPACY: A. D. 1086-1154.

The succession of Popes.

Victor III., A. D. 1086-1087;

Urban II., 1088-1099;

Pascal 11., 1099-1118;

Gelasius 11., 1118-1119;

Callistus II., 1119-1124;

Honorius II., 1124-1130;

Innocent II., 1130-1143;

Celestine II., 1143-1144;

Lucius II., 1144-1145;

Eugene III., 1145-1153;

Anastasius IV., 1153-1154.

PAPACY: A. D. 1094.

Pope Urban II. and the first Crusade.

The Council of Clermont.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094.

PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250.

Continued conflict with the Empire.

The Popes and the Hohenstaufen Emperors.

"The struggle about investiture ended, as was to be expected,

in a compromise; but it was a compromise in which all the

glory went to the Papacy. Men saw that the Papal claims had

been excessive, even impossible; but the object at which they

aimed, the freedom of the Church from the secularising

tendencies of feudalism, was in the main obtained. … But the

contest with the Empire still went on. One of the firmest

supporters of Gregory VII. had been Matilda, Countess of

Tuscany, over whose fervent piety Gregory had thrown the spell

of his powerful mind. At her death, she bequeathed her

possessions, which embraced nearly a quarter of Italy, to the

Holy See [see PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102]. Some of the lands

which she had held were allodial, some were fiefs of the

Empire; and the inheritance of Matilda was a fruitful source

of contention to two powers already jealous of one another.

The constant struggle that lasted for two centuries gave full

scope for the development of the Italian towns. … The old

Italian notion of establishing municipal freedom by an

equilibrium of two contending powers was stamped still more

deeply on Italian politics by the wars of Guelfs and

Ghibellins. The union between the Papacy and the Lombard

Republics was strong enough to humble the mightiest of the

Emperors. Frederic Barbarossa, who held the strongest views of

the Imperial prerogative, had to confess himself vanquished by

Pope Alexander III. [see ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to

1174-1183], and the meeting of Pope and Emperor at Venice was

a memorable ending to the long struggle; that the great

Emperor should kiss the feet of the Pope whom he had so long

refused to acknowledge, was an act which stamped itself with

dramatic effect on the imagination of men, and gave rise to

fables of a still more lowly submission [see VENICE: A. D.

1177]. The length of the strife, the renown of Frederic, the

unswerving tenacity of purpose with which Alexander had

maintained his cause, all lent lustre to this triumph of the

Papacy. The consistent policy of Alexander III., even in

adverse circumstances, the calm dignity with, which he

asserted the Papal claims, and the wisdom with which he used

his opportunities, made him a worthy successor of Gregory VII.

at a great crisis in the fortunes of the Papacy. It was

reserved, however, for Innocent III. to realise most fully the

ideas of Hildebrand. If Hildebrand was the Julius, Innocent

was the Augustus, of the Papal Empire. He had not the creative

genius nor the fiery energy of his great forerunner; but his

clear intellect never missed an opportunity, and his

calculating spirit rarely erred from its mark. … On all sides

Innocent III. enjoyed successes beyond his hopes. In the East,

the crusading zeal of Europe was turned by Venice to the

conquest of Constantinople [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203],

and Innocent could rejoice for a brief space in the subjection

of the Eastern Church. In the West, Innocent turned the

crusading impulse to the interest of the Papal power, by

diverting it against heretical sects which, in Northern Italy

and the South of France, attacked the system of the Church

[see ALBIGENSES]. … Moreover Innocent saw the beginning,

though he did not perceive the full importance, of a movement

which the reaction against heresy produced within the Church.

The Crusades had quickened men's activity, and the heretical

sects had aimed at kindling greater fervour of spiritual life. …

{2433}

By the side of the monastic aim of averting, by the prayers

and penitence of a few, God's anger from a wicked world, there

grew up a desire for self-devotion to missionary labour.

Innocent III. was wise enough not to repulse this new

enthusiasm, but find a place for it within the ecclesiastical

system. Francis of Assisi gathered round him a body of

followers who bound themselves to a literal following of the

Apostles, to a life of poverty and labour, amongst the poor

and outcast; Dominic of Castile formed a society which aimed

at the suppression of heresy by assiduous teaching of the

truth. The Franciscan and Dominican orders grew almost at once

into power and importance, and their foundation marks a great

reformation within the Church [see MENDICANT ORDERS]. The

reformation movement of the eleventh century, under the

skilful guidance of Hildebrand, laid the foundations of the

Papal monarchy in the belief of Europe. The reformation of the

thirteenth century found full scope for its energy under the

protection of the Papal power; for the Papacy was still in

sympathy with the conscience of Europe, which it could quicken

and direct. These mendicant orders were directly connected

with the Papacy, and were free from all episcopal control.

Their zeal awakened popular enthusiasm; they rapidly increased

in number and spread into every land. The Friars became the

popular preachers and confessors, and threatened to supersede

the old ecclesiastical order. Not only amongst the common

people, but in the universities as well, did their influence

become supreme. They were a vast army devoted to the service

of the Pope, and overran Europe in his name. They preached

Papal indulgences, they stirred up men to crusades in behalf

of the Papacy, they gathered money for the Papal use. … The

Emperor Frederic II., who had been brought up under Innocent's

guardianship, proved the greatest enemy of the newly-won

sovereignty of the Pope. King of Sicily and Naples, Frederic

was resolved to assert again the Imperial pretensions of North

Italy, and then win back the Papal acquisitions in the centre;

if his plan had succeeded, the Pope would have lost his

independence and sunk to be the instrument of the house of

Hohenstaufen. Two Popes of inflexible determination and

consummate political ability were the opponents of Frederic.

Gregory IX. and Innocent IV. flung themselves with ardour into

the struggle, and strained every nerve till the whole Papal

policy was absorbed by the necessities of the strife. …

See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250;

and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.

Frederic II. died [1250], but the Popes pursued with their

hostility his remotest descendants, and were resolved to sweep

the very remembrance of him out of Italy. To accomplish their

purpose, they did not hesitate to summon the aid of the

stranger. Charles of Anjou appeared as their champion, and in

the Pope's name took possession of the Sicilian kingdom.

See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268].

By his help the last remnants of the Hohenstaufen house were

crushed, and the claims of the Empire to rule over Italy were

destroyed for ever. But the Papacy got rid of an open enemy

only to introduce a covert and more deadly foe. The Angevin

influence became superior to that of the Papacy, and French

popes were elected that they might carry out the wishes of the

Sicilian king. By its resolute efforts to escape from the

power of the Empire, the Papacy only paved the way for a

connexion that ended in its enslavement to the influence of

France."

M. Creighton,

History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,

volume 1, pages 18-23.

ALSO IN:

T. L. Kington,

History of Frederick II. Emperor of the Romans.

PAPACY: A. D. 1154-1198.

The succession of Popes.

Hadrian IV., A. D. 1154-1159;

Alexander III., 1159-1181;

Lucius III., 1181-1185;

Urban III., 1185-1187;

Gregory VIII., 1187;

Clement III., 1187-1191;

Celestine III., 1191-1198.

PAPACY: A. D. 1162-1170.

Conflict of Church and State in England.

Becket and Henry II.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.

The establishing of Papal Sovereignty

in the States of the Church.

"Innocent III. may be called the founder of the States of the

Church. The lands with which Pippin and Charles had invested

the Popes were held subject to the suzerainty of the Frankish

sovereign and owned his jurisdiction. On the downfall of the

Carolingian Empire the neighbouring nobles, calling themselves

Papal vassals, seized on these lands; and when they were

ousted in the Pope's name by the Normans, the Pope did not

gain by the change of neighbours. Innocent III. was the first

Pope who claimed and exercised the rights of an Italian

prince. He exacted from the Imperial Prefect in Rome the oath

of allegiance to himself; he drove the Imperial vassals from

the Matildan domain [see TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115], and

compelled Constance, the widowed queen of Sicily, to recognise

the Papal suzerainty over her ancestral kingdom. He obtained

from the Emperor Otto IV. (1201) the cession of all the lands

which the Papacy claimed, and so established for the first

time an undisputed title to the Papal States."

M. Creighton,

History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,

volume 1. page 21.

PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1294.

The succession of Pores.

Innocent III., A. D. 1198-1216;

Honorius II., 1216-1227;

Gregory IX., 1227-1241;

Celestine IV., 1241;

Innocent IV., 1243-1204;

Alexander IV., 1254-1261;

Urban IV., 1261-1264;

Clement IV., 1265-1268;

Gregory X., 1271-1276;

Innocent V., 1276;

Hadrian V., 1276;

John XXI., 1276-1277;

Nicholas III., 1277-1280;

Martin IV., 1281-1285;

Honorius IV., 1285-1287;

Nicholas IV., 1288-1292;

Celestine V., 1294.

PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1303.

The acme of Papal power.

The pontificates from Innocent III. to Boniface VIII.

"The epoch when the spirit of papal usurpation was most

strikingly displayed was the pontificate of Innocent III. In

each of the three leading objects which Rome had pursued,

independent sovereignty, supremacy over the Christian church,

control over the princes of the earth, it was the fortune of

this pontiff to conquer. He realized … that fond hope of so

many of his predecessors, a dominion over Rome and the central

parts of Italy. During his pontificate Constantinople was

taken by the Latins; and however he might seem to regret a

diversion of the crusaders, which impeded the recovery of the

Holy Land, he exulted in the obedience of the new patriarch

and the reunion of the Greek church. Never, perhaps, either

before or since, was the great eastern schism in so fair a way

of being healed; even the kings of Bulgaria and Armenia

acknowledged the supremacy of Innocent, and permitted his

interference with their ecclesiastical institutions.

{2434}

The maxims of Gregory VII. were now matured by more than a

hundred years, and the right of trampling upon the necks of

kings had been received, at least among churchmen, as an

inherent attribute of the papacy. 'As the sun and the moon are

placed in the firmament' (such is the language of Innocent),

'the greater as the light of the day, and the lesser of the

night, thus are there two powers in the church—the pontifical,

which, as having the charge of souls, is the greater; and the

royal, which is the less, and to which the bodies of men only

are intrusted.' Intoxicated with these conceptions (if we may

apply such a word to successful ambition), he thought no

quarrel of princes beyond the sphere of his jurisdiction.

'Though I cannot judge of the right to a fief,' said Innocent

to the kings of France and England, 'yet it is my province to

judge where sin is committed, and my duty to prevent all

public scandals.' … Though I am not aware that any pope before

Innocent III. had thus announced himself as the general

arbiter of differences and conservator of the peace throughout

Christendom, yet the scheme had been already formed, and the

public mind was in some degree prepared to admit it. … The

noonday of papal dominion extends from the pontificate of

Innocent III. inclusively to that of Boniface VIII.; or, in

other words, through the 13th century. Rome inspired during

this age all the terror of her ancient name. She was once more

the mistress of the world, and kings were her vassals."

H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 7, parts 1-2 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

J. Miley,

History of the Papal States,

volume 3, book 1, chapter 3.

M. Gosselin,

The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages,

part 2, chapter 3.

M. Creighton,

History of the Papacy during the Reformation,

introduction, chapter 1 (volume 1).

PAPACY: A. D. 1203.

The planting of the germs of the Papal Inquisition.

See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

PAPACY: A. D. 1205-1213.

Subjugation of the English King John.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1205-1213.

PAPACY: A. D. 1215.

The beginning, in Italy, of the Wars

of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

See ITALY: A. D. 1215.

PAPACY: A. D. 1266.

Transfer of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies

to Charles of Anjou.

See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268.

PAPACY: A. D. 1268.

The Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis,

affirming the rights of the Gallican Church.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1268.

PAPACY: A. D. 1275.

Ratification of the Donation of Charlemagne

and the Capitulation of Otho IV. by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

PAPACY: A. D. 1279.

The English Statute of Mortmain.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1279.

PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

The stormy pontificate of Boniface VIII.

His conflict with Philip IV. of France.

The "Babylonish Captivity."

Purchase of Avignon, which becomes the Papal Seat.

Boniface VIII., who came to the Papal throne in 1294, "was a

man of so much learning that Petrarch extols him as the wonder

of the world. His craft and cruelty, however, were shown in

his treatment of Celestine V. [his predecessor], whom he first

persuaded to resign the pontificate, five months after his

election, on account of his inexperience in politics; and

then, having succeeded to the chair, instead of letting the

good man return to the cloister for which he panted, he kept

him in confinement to the day of his death. His resentment of

the opposition of the two cardinals Colonna to his election

was so bitter, that not content with degrading them, he

decreed the whole family—one of the most illustrious in

Rome—to be for ever infamous, and incapable of ecclesiastical

dignities. He pulled down their town of Præneste, and ordered

the site to be sown with salt to extinguish it, like Carthage,

for ever. This pontificate is famous for the institution of

the Jubilee, though, according to some accounts, it was

established a century before by Innocent III. By a bull dated

22nd February 1300, Boniface granted a plenary remission of

sins to all who, before Christmas, in that and every

subsequent hundredth year, should visit the churches of St.

Peter and St. Paul daily, for 30 days if inhabitants of Rome,

and for half that time if strangers. His private enemies, the

Colonnas, Frederic of Sicily, who had neglected to pay his

tribute, and the abettors of the Saracens, were the only

persons excluded. The city was crowded with strangers, who

flocked to gain the indulgence; enormous sums were offered at

the holy tombs; and the solemnity became so profitable that

Clement VI. reduced the period for its observance from 100

years to 50, and later popes have brought it down to 25.

Boniface appeared at the jubilee with the spiritual and

temporal swords carried before him, the bearers of which

proclaimed the text,—'Behold, here are two swords.' … The pope

had the pleasure of receiving a … respectful recognition from

the barons of Scotland. Finding themselves hard pressed by the

arms of Edward I., they resolved to accept a distant, in

preference to a neighbouring, master; accordingly, they

tendered the kingdom to the pope, pretending that, from the

most ancient times, Scotland had been a fief of the holy Roman

See. Boniface, eagerly embracing the offer, commanded the

archbishop of Canterbury to require the king to withdraw his

troops, and submit his pretensions to the apostolic tribunal.

… Boniface got no other satisfaction than to be told that the

laws of England did not permit the king to subject the rights

of his crown to any foreign tribunal. His conflict with the

king of France was still more unfortunate. Philip the Fair,

like our own Edward I., thought fit to compel the clergy to

contribute towards the expenses of his repeated campaigns. The

pope thereupon issued a bull entitled 'Clericis laicos' (A. D.

1296), charging the laity with inveterate hostility to the

clergy, and prohibiting, under pain of excommunication, any

payment out of ecclesiastical revenues without his consent.

The king retorted by prohibiting the export of coin or

treasure from his dominions, without license from the crown.

This was cutting off the pope's revenue at a blow, and so

modified his anger that he allowed the clergy to grant a 'free

benevolence' to the king, when in urgent need. A few years

after (1301), Philip imprisoned a bishop on charge of

sedition, when Boniface thundered out his bulls 'Salvator

mundi,' and 'Ausculta fili,' the first of which suspended all

privileges accorded by the Holy See to the French king and

people, and the second, asserting the papal power in the now

familiar text from Jeremiah [Jeremiah i. 10], summoned the

superior clergy to Rome. Philip burned the bull, and

prohibited the clergy from obeying the summons.

{2435}

The peers and people of France stood by the crown, treating

the exhortations of the clergy with defiance. The pope,

incensed at this resistance, published the Decretal called

'Unam sanctam,' which affirms the unity of the Church, without

which there is no salvation, and hence the unity of its head

in the successor of St. Peter. Under the pope are two swords,

the spiritual and the material—the one to be used by the

church, the other for the church. … The temporal sword is …

subject to the spiritual, and the spiritual to God only. The

conclusion is, 'that it is absolutely essential to the

salvation of every human being that he be subject unto the

Roman pontiff.' The king, who showed great moderation,

appealed to a general council, and forbad his subjects to obey

any orders of Boniface till it should be assembled. The pope

resorted to the usual weapons. He drew up a bull for the

excommunication of the king; offered France to Albert of

Austria, king of the Romans, and wrote to the king of England

to incite him to prosecute his war. Meantime, Philip having

sent William de Nogaret on an embassy to the pope, this daring

envoy conceived the design of making him prisoner. Entering

Anagni [the pope's native town and frequent residence, 40

miles from Rome] at the head of a small force, privately

raised in the neighbourhood, the conspirators, aided by some

of the papal household, gained possession of the palace and

burst into the pope's presence. Boniface, deeming himself a

dead man, had put on his pontifical robes and crown, but these

had little effect on the irreverent intruders. De Nogaret was

one of the Albigenses; his companion, a Colonna, was so

inflamed at the sight of his persecutor that he struck him on

the face with his mailed hand, and would have killed him but

for the intervention of the other. The captors unaccountably

delaying to carry off their prize, the people of the place

rose and rescued the Holy Father. He hastened back to Rome,

but died of the shock a month after, leaving a dangerous feud

between the Church and her eldest son."

G. Trevor,

Rome: from the Fall of the Western Empire,

chapter 9.

"Boniface has been consigned to infamy by contemporary poets

and historians, for the exhibition of some of the most

revolting features of the human character. Many of the

charges, such as that he did not believe in eternal life; that

he was guilty of monstrous heresy; that he was a wizard; and

that he asserted that it is no sin to indulge in the most

criminal pleasures—are certainly untrue. They are due chiefly

to his cruelty to Celestine and the Celestinians, and his

severity to the Colonnas, which led the two latter to go

everywhere blackening his character. They have been

exaggerated by Dante; and they may be ascribed generally to

his pride and violence, and to the obstinate determination,

formed by a man who 'was born an age too late,' to advance

claims then generally becoming unpopular, far surpassing in

arrogance those maintained by the most arbitrary of his

predecessors. … This victory of Philip over Boniface was, in

fact, the commencement of a wide-spread reaction on the part

of the laity against ecclesiastical predominance. The Papacy

had first shown its power by a great dramatic act, and its

decline was shown in the same manner. The drama of Anagni is

to be set against the drama of Canossa."

A. R. Pennington.

The Church in Italy,

chapter 6.

"The next pope, Benedict XI., endeavoured to heal the breach

by annulling the decrees of Boniface against the French king,

and reinstating the Colonnas; but he was cut off by death in

ten months from his election [1304], and it was generally

suspected that his removal was effected by poison. … On the

death of Benedict, many of the cardinals were for closing the

breach with France by electing a French pope; the others

insisted that an Italian was essential to the independence of

the Holy See. The difference was compromised by the election

of the archbishop of Bordeaux, a Frenchman by birth, but owing

his preferments to Boniface, and an active supporter of his

quarrel against Philip. The archbishop, however, had secretly

come to terms with the king, and his first act, as Clement V.,

was to summon the cardinals to attend him at Lyons, where he

resolved to celebrate his coronation. The Sacred College

crossed the Alps with undissembled repugnance, and

two-and-seventy years elapsed before the Papal court returned

to Rome. This period of humiliation and corruption the Italian

writers not inaptly stigmatise as the 'Babylonish captivity.'

Clement began his pontificate by honourably fulfilling his

engagements with the French. He absolved the king and his

subjects. … If it be true that the king claimed … the

condemnation of Boniface as a heretic, Clement had the

manliness to refuse. He ventured to inflict a further

disappointment by supporting the claim of Henry of Luxembourg

to the empire in preference to the French king's brother. To

escape the further importunities of his too powerful ally, the

pope removed into the dominions of his own vicar, the king of

Naples (A. D. 1309). The place selected was Avignon, belonging

to Charles the Lame as count of Provence. … In the 9th

century, it [Avignon] passed to the kings of Aries, or

Burgundy, but afterwards became a free republic, governed by

its own consuls, under the suzerainty of the count of

Provence. … The Neapolitan dynasty, though of French origin,

was independent of the French crown, when the pope took up his

residence at Avignon. Charles the Lame was soon after

succeeded by his third son Robert, who, dying in 1343, left

his crown to his granddaughter Joanna, the young and beautiful

wife of Andrew, prince of Hungary. … In one of her frequent

exiles Clement took advantage of her necessities to purchase

her rights in Avignon for 80,000 gold florins, but this

inadequate price was never paid. The pope placed it to the

account of the tribute due to himself from the Neapolitan

crown, and having procured a renunciation of the paramount

suzerainty of the emperor, he took possession of the city and

territory as absolute sovereign (A. D. 1348)."

G. Trevor,

Rome: from the Fall of the Western Empire,

chapters 9-10.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Milman,

History of Latin Christianity,

book 12 (volume 5).

J. E. Darras.

History of the Catholic Church,

period 6, chapter 1 (volume 3).

PAPACY: A. D. 1305-1377.

The Popes of "the Babylonish Captivity" at Avignon.

The following is the succession of the Popes during the

Avignon period:

Boniface VIII., A. D. 1294-1303;

Benedict XI., 1303-1304;

Clement V., 1305-1314;

John XXII., 1316-1334;

Benedict XII., 1334-1342;

Clement VI., 1342-1352;

Innocent VI., 1352-1362;

Urban V., 1362-1370;

Gregory XI., 1371-1378.

{2436}

"The Avignon Popes, without exception, were all more or less

dependent upon France. Frenchmen themselves, and surrounded by

a College of Cardinals in which the French element

predominated, they gave a French character to the government

of the Church. This character was at variance with the

principle of universality inherent in it and in the Papacy. …

The migration to France, the creation of a preponderance of

French Cardinals, and the consequent election of seven French

Popes in succession, necessarily compromised the position of

the Papacy in the eyes of the world, creating a suspicion that

the highest spiritual power had become the tool of France.

This suspicion, though in many cases unfounded, weakened the

general confidence in the Head of the Church, and awakened in

the other nations a feeling of antagonism to the

ecclesiastical authority which had become French. The bonds

which united the States of the Church to the Apostolic See

were gradually loosened. … The dark points of the Avignon

period have certainly been greatly exaggerated. The assertion

that the Government of the Avignon Popes was wholly ruled by

the 'will and pleasure of the Kings of France,' is, in this

general sense, unjust. The Popes of those days were not all so

weak as Clement V., who submitted the draft of the Bull, by

which he called on the Princes of Europe to imprison the

Templars, to the French King. Moreover, even this Pope, the

least independent of the 14th century Pontiffs, for many years

offered a passive resistance to the wishes of France, and a

writer [Wenck], who has thoroughly studied the period,

emphatically asserts that only for a few years of the

Pontificate of Clement V. was the idea so long associated with

the 'Babylonian Captivity' of the Popes fully realized. The

extension of this epithet to the whole of the Avignon sojourn

is an unfair exaggeration."

L. Pastor,

History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages,

volume 1, pages 58-60.

PAPACY: A. D. 1306-1393.

Resistance to Papal encroachments in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.

PAPACY: A. D. 1314-1347.

Pretension to settle the disputed election of Emperor.

The long conflict with Louis of Bavaria in Germany and Italy.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.

PAPACY: A. D. 1347-1354.

Rienzi's revolution at Rome.

See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.

Subjugation of the States of the Church

and the return from Avignon to Rome.

Revolt and war in the Papal States, supported by Florence.

"Under the pontificate of Innocent VI. the advantages reaped

by the Papal See from its sojourn at Avignon seemed to have

come to an end. The disturbed condition of France no longer

offered them security and repose. … Moreover, the state of

affairs in Italy called loudly for the Pope's intervention. …

The desperate condition of the States of the Church, which had

fallen into the hands of small princes, called for energetic

measures, unless the Popes were prepared to see them entirely

lost to their authority. Innocent VI. sent into Italy a

Spanish Cardinal, Gil Albornoz, who had already shown his

military skill in fighting against the Moors. The fiery energy

of Albornoz was crowned with success, and the smaller nobles

were subdued in a series of hard fought battles. In 1367 Urban

V. saw the States of the Church once more reduced into

obedience to the Pope." Several motives, accordingly, combined

"to urge Urban V., in 1367, to return to Rome amid the cries

of his agonised Cardinals, who shuddered to leave the luxury

of Avignon for a land which they held to be barbarous. A brief

stay in Rome was sufficient to convince Urban V. that the

fears of his Cardinals were not unfounded. … After a visit of

three years Urban returned to Avignon; his death, which

happened three months after his return, was regarded by many

as a judgment of God upon his desertion of Rome. Urban V. had

returned to Rome because the States of the Church were reduced

to obedience; his successor, Gregory XI., was driven to return

through dread of losing entirely all hold upon Italy. The

French Popes awakened a strong feeling of natural antipathy

among their Italian subjects, and their policy was not

associated with any of the elements of state life existing in

Italy. Their desire to bring the States of the Church

immediately under their power involved the destruction of the

small dynasties of princes, and the suppression of the

democratic liberties of the people. Albornoz had been wise

enough to leave the popular governments untouched, and to

content himself with bringing the towns under the Papal

obedience. But Urban V. and Gregory XI. set up French

governors, whose rule was galling and oppressive; and a revolt

against them was organised by Florence [1376], who, true to

her old traditions, unfurled a banner inscribed only with the

word 'Liberty.' The movement spread through all the towns in

the Papal States, and in a few months the conquests of

Albornoz had been lost. The temporal dominion of the Papacy

might have been swept away if Florence could have brought

about the Italian league which she desired. But Rome hung back

from the alliance, and listened to Gregory XI., who promised

to return if Rome would remain faithful. The Papal

excommunication handed over the Florentines to be the slaves

of their captors in every land, and the Kings of England and

France did not scruple to use the opportunity offered to their

cupidity. Gregory XI. felt that only the Pope's presence could

save Rome for the Papacy. In spite of evil omens—for his horse

refused to let him mount when he set out on his

journey—Gregory XI. left Avignon; in spite of the entreaties

of the Florentines Rome again joyfully welcomed the entry of

its Pope in 1377. But the Pope found his position in Italy to

be surrounded with difficulties. His troops met with some

small successes, but he was practically powerless, and aimed

only at settling terms of peace with the Florentines. A

congress was called for this purpose, and Gregory XI. was

anxiously awaiting its termination that he might return to

Avignon, when death seized him, and his last hours were

embittered by the thoughts of the crisis that was now

inevitable."

M. Creighton,

History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,

introduction, chapter 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

H. E. Napier,

Florentine History,

book 1, chapter 26 (volume 2).

See, also,

FLORENCE; A. D. 1375-1378.

PAPACY: A. D. 1369-1378.

Dealings with the Free Company of Sir John Hawkwood.

Wars with Milan, Florence and other states.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

{2437}

PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.

Election of Urban VI. and Clement VII.

The Great Western Schism.

Battle in Rome and siege and partial

destruction of Castle St. Angelo.

The Council of Pisa.

Forty years of Popes and Anti-Popes.

"For 23 years after Rienzi's death, the seat of the Papal

Court remained at Avignon; and during this period Rome and the

States of the Church were harried to death by contending

factions. … At last Gregory XI. returned, in January, 1377.

The keys of the Castle St. Angelo were sent to him at Corneto;

the papal Court was re-established in Rome; but he survived

only about a year, and died in March, 1378. Then came the

election of a new Pope, which was held in the Castle St.

Angelo. While the conclave was sitting, a crowd gathered round

the place, crying out, 'Romano lo volemo'—we will have a Roman

for Pope. Yet, notwithstanding this clamour, Cardinal

Prignani, Archbishop of Bari, and a Neapolitan by birth, was

finally chosen, under the title of Urban VI.—[this being an

intended compromise between the Italian party and the French

party in the college of Cardinals]. When Cardinal Orsini

presented himself at the window to announce that a new Pope

had been elected, the mob below cried out, 'His name, his

name!' 'Go to St. Peter's and you will learn,' answered the

Cardinal. The people, misunderstanding his answer, supposed

him to announce the election of Cardinal Tebaldeschi, who was

arch-priest of St. Peter's, and a Roman by birth. This news

was received with great joy and acclamation," which turned to

rage when the fact was known. Then "the people … broke in to

still fiercer cries, rushed to arms, and gathering round the

conclave, threatened them with death unless a Roman was

elected. But the conclave was strong in its position, and

finally the people were pacified, and accepted Urban VI. Such,

however, was the fear of the Cardinals, that they were with

difficulty persuaded to proceed to the Vatican and perform the

ceremonies necessary for the installation of the new Pope.

This, however, finally was done, and the Castle was placed in

the charge of Pietro Guntellino, a Frenchman, and garrisoned

by a Gallic guard, the French Cardinals remaining also within

its walls for safety. On the 20th of September they withdrew

to Fondi, and in conjunction with other schismatics they

afterwards [September 20, 1378] elected an anti-Pope [Robert

of Geneva] under the title of Clement VII. Guntellino, who

took part with them, on being summoned by Urban to surrender

the Castle, refused to do so without the order of his

compatriots, the French Cardinals at Avignon. Meantime the

papal and anti-papal party assaulted each other, first with

citations, censures, and angry words, and then with armed

force. The anti-papal party, having with them the Breton and

Gascon soldiery, and the Savoyards of the Count of Mountjoy,

the anti-Pope's nephew, marched upon the city, overcame the

undisciplined party of the Pope, reinforced the Castle St.

Angelo, and fortified themselves in the Vatican, ravaging the

Campagna on their way. The papal party now besieged the

Castle, attacking it with machines and artillery, but for a

year's space it held out. Finally, on the 28th of April, 1379,

the anti-papal party were utterly routed by Alberico, Count of

Palliano and Galeazzo, at the head of the papal, Italian, and

imperial forces. Terrible was the bloodshed of this great

battle, at which, according to Baronius, 5,000 of the

anti-papal army fell. But the Castle still refused to

surrender," until famine forced a capitulation. "The damage

done to it during this siege must have been very great. In

some parts it had been utterly demolished, and of all its

marbles not a trace now remained. … After the surrender of the

Castle to Urban, such was the rage of the people against it

for the injury it had caused them during the siege, that they

passed a public decree ordering it to be utterly destroyed and

razed to the earth. … In consequence of this decree, an

attempt was made to demolish it. It was stripped of everything

by which it was adorned, and its outer casing was torn off;

but the solid interior of peperino defied all their efforts,

and the attempt was given up."

W. W. Story,

Castle St. Angelo,

chapter 5.

"Urban was a learned, pious, and austere man; but, in his zeal

for the reformation of manners, the correction of abuses, and

the retrenchment of extravagant expenditure, he appears to

have been wanting in discretion; for immediately after his

election he began to act with harshness to the members of the

Sacred College, and he also offended several of the secular

princes. Towards the end of June, 12 of the cardinals—11

Frenchmen and one Spaniard—obtained permission to leave Rome,

owing to the summer heats, and withdrew to Anagni. Here, in a

written instrument, dated 9th August, 1378, they protested

against the election, as not having been free, and they called

on Urban to resign. A few days later, they removed to Fondi,

in the kingdom of Naples, where they were joined by three of

the Italians whom they had gained over to their views; and, on

the 19th of September, the 15 elected an antipope, the French

Cardinal Robert of Cevennes [more frequently called Robert of

Geneva], who took the name of Clement VII. and reigned at

Avignon 16 years, dying September 16, 1394. Thus there were

two claimants of the Papal throne—Urban holding his court at

Rome, and Clement residing with his followers at Avignon. The

latter was strong in the support of the sovereigns of France,

Scotland, Naples, Aragon, Castile, and Savoy; while the

remainder of Christendom adhered to Urban. Clement was

succeeded by Peter de Luna, the Cardinal of Aragon, who, on

his election, assumed the name of Benedict XIII., and reigned

at Avignon 23 years—A. D. 1394-1417. This lamentable state of

affairs lasted altogether 40 years. Urban's successors at

Rome, duly elected by the Italian cardinals and those of other

nations acting with them, were:

Boniface IX., a Neapolitan, A. D. 1389-1404;

Innocent VII., a native of Sulmona, A. D. 1404-1406;

Gregory XII., a Venetian, A. D. 1406-1409;

Alexander V., a native of Candia,

who reigned ten months, A. D. 1409-1410;

and John XXIII., a Neapolitan, A. D. 1410-1417.

…

Although the Popes above enumerated, as having reigned at

Rome, are now regarded as the legitimate pontiffs, and, as

such, are inscribed in the Catalogues of Popes, while Clement

and Benedict are classed as anti-popes, there prevailed at the

time much uncertainty on the subject. … In February, 1395,

Charles VI. of France convoked an assembly of the clergy of

his dominions, under the presidency of Simon Cramandus,

Patriarch of Alexandria, in order, if possible, to terminate

the schism. The assembly advised that the rival Pontiffs,

Boniface IX. and Benedict XIII., should abdicate.

{2438}

The same view was taken by most of the universities of

Europe," but the persons chiefly concerned would not accept

it. Nor was it found possible in 1408 to bring about a

conference of the two popes. The cardinals, then, of both

parties, withdrew support from the factious pontiffs and held

a general meeting at Leghorn. There they agreed that Gregory

XII. and Benedict XIII. had equally lost all claim to

obedience, and they resolved to convoke, on their own

authority "a General Council, to meet at Pisa, on the 25th of

March, 1409. Gregory and Benedict were duly informed thereof,

and were requested to attend the council. … The Council of

Pisa sat from March 25th to August 7th, 1409. There were

present 24 cardinals of both 'obediences,' 4 patriarchs, 12

archbishops, 80 bishops, 87 abbots; the procurators of 102

absent archbishops and bishops, and of 200 absent abbots; the

generals of 4 mendicant orders; the deputies of 13

Universities …; the representatives of over 100 cathedral and

collegiate chapters, 282 doctors and licentiates of canon and

civil law; and the ambassadors of the Kings of England,

France, Poland, Bohemia, Portugal, Sicily, and Cyprus." Both

claimants of the Papacy were declared unworthy to preside over

the Church, and forbidden to act as Pope. In June, the

conclave of cardinals assembled and elected a third Pope—one

Peter Filargo, a Friar Minor, who took the name of Alexander

V., but who died ten months afterwards. The cardinals then

elected as his successor Cardinal Cossa, "a politic worldly

man, who assumed the name of John XXIII." But, meantime,

Germany, Naples and some of the other Italian States still

adhered to Gregory, and Benedict kept the support of Scotland,

Spain and Portugal. The Church was as much divided as ever.

"The Council of Pisa … only aggravated the evil which it

laboured to cure. Instead of two, there were now three

claimants of the Papal Chair. It was reserved for the General

Council of Constance to restore union and peace to the

Church."

J. N. Murphy,

The Chair of Peter,

chapter 20.

"The amount of evil wrought by the schism of 1378, the longest

known in the history of the Papacy, can only be estimated,

when we reflect that it occurred at a moment, when thorough

reform in ecclesiastical affairs was a most urgent need. This

was now utterly out of the question, and, indeed, all evils

which had crept into ecclesiastical life were infinitely

increased. Respect for the Holy See was also greatly impaired,

and the Popes became more than ever dependent on the temporal

power, for the schism allowed each Prince to choose which Pope

he would acknowledge. In the eyes of the people, the simple

fact of a double Papacy must have shaken the authority of the

Holy See to its very foundations. It may truly be said that

these fifty years of schism prepared the way for the great

Apostacy of the 16th century."

L. Pastor,

History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages,

volume 1, page 141.

ALSO IN:

A. Neander,

General History of the Christian Religion and Church,

volume 9, section 1.

H. H. Milman,

History of Latin Christianity,

book 13, chapters 1-5 (volume 6).

J. Alzog,

Manual of Universal Church History,

sections 269-270 (volume 3).

J. C. Robertson,

History of the Christian Church,

book 8, chapter 5 (volume 7).

St. C. Baddeley,

Charles III. of Naples and Urban VI.

See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.

PAPACY: A. D. 1378-1415.

Rival Popes during the Great Schism.

Urban VI., A. D. 1378-1389 (Rome);

Clement VII., 1378-1394 (Avignon);

Boniface IX., 1389-1404 (Rome);

Benedict XIII., 1394-1423 (Avignon);

Innocent VII., 1404-1406 (Rome);

Gregory XII., 1406-1415 (Rome);

Alexander V., 1409-1410 (elected by the Council of Pisa);

John XXIII., 1410-1415.

PAPACY: A. D. 1386-1414.

Struggle of the Italian Popes against Ladislas of Naples.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418.

The Council of Constance.

Election of Martin V.

Ending of the Great Schism and failure of Church Reform.

"In April, A. D. 1412, the Pope [John XXIII.], to preserve

appearances, opened at Rome the council which had been agreed

upon at Pisa for the reformation of the Church in her Head and

members. Quite a small number of bishops put in an appearance,

who, after having condemned the antipopes, and some heretical

propositions of Wycliffe and John Huss, hastily adjourned.

John, who does not seem to have had any very earnest wish to

correct his own life, and who, consequently, could not be

expected to be over solicitous about the correction of those

of others, was carefully provident to prevent the bishops

coming to Rome in excessive numbers. He had come to a secret

understanding with Ladislaus, his former enemy, that the

latter should have all the roads well guarded. Ladislaus soon

turned against the Pope, and forced him to quit Rome, and seek

refuge, first at Florence, and next at Bologna (A. D. 1413).

From this city John opened communications with the princes of

Europe with the purpose of fixing a place for holding the

council. … The Emperor Sigismund appointed the city of

Constance, where the council did, in fact, convene, November

1, A. D. 1414. … The abuses which prevailed generally

throughout the Church, and which were considerably increased

by the existence of three rival Popes, and by the various

theories on Church government called forth by the controversy,

greatly perplexed men's minds, and created much anxiety as to

the direction affairs might eventually take. This unsettled

state of feeling accounts for the unusually large number of

ecclesiastics who attended the council. There were 18,000

ecclesiastics of all ranks, of whom, when the number was

largest, 3 were patriarchs, 24 cardinals, 33 archbishops,

close upon 150 bishops, 124 abbots, 50 provosts, and 300

doctors in the various degrees. Many princes attended in

person. There were constantly 100,000 strangers in the city,

and, on one occasion, as many as 150,000, among whom were many

of a disreputable character. Feeling ran so high that, as

might have been anticipated, every measure was extreme. Owing

to the peculiar composition of the Council, at which only a

limited number of bishops were present, and these chiefly in

the interest of John XXIII., it was determined to decide all

questions, not by a majority of episcopal suffrages, but by

that of the representatives of the various nations, including

doctors. The work about to engage the Council was of a

threefold character, viz.,

1. To terminate the papal schism;

2. To condemn errors against faith, and particularly

those of Huss; and

3. To enact reformatory decrees.

… It was with some difficulty that John could be induced to

attend at Constance, and when he did finally consent, it was

only because he was forced to take the step by the

representations of others. …

{2439}

Regarding the Council as a continuation of that of Pisa, he

naturally thought that he would be recognized as the

legitimate successor of the Pope chosen by the latter. … All

questions were first discussed by the various nations, each

member of which had the right to vote. Their decision was next

brought before a general conference of nations, and this

result again before the next session of the Council. This plan

of organisation destroyed the hopes of John XXIII., who relied

for success on the preponderance of Italian prelates and

doctors. … To intimidate John, and subdue his resistance, a

memorial, written probably by an Italian, was put in

circulation, containing charges the most damaging to that

pontiff's private character. … So timely and effective was

this blow that John was thenceforth utterly destitute of the

energy and consideration necessary to support his authority,

or direct the affairs of the Council." In consequence, he sent

a declaration to the Council that, in order to give peace to

the Church, he would abdicate, provided his two rivals in the

Papacy, Gregory XII. and Benedict XIII., would also resign.

Later, in March, 1415, he repeated this promise under oath.

The Emperor, Sigismund, was about to set out to Nizza to

induce the other claimants to resign, when John's conduct gave

rise to a suspicion that he did not intend to act in good

faith. He was charged with an intention to escape from the

Council, with the assistance of Frederic, Duke of Austria. He

now gave his promise under oath not to depart from the city

before the Council had dissolved. "But, notwithstanding these

protestations, John escaped (March 21, 1415), disguised as a

groom, during a great tournament arranged by the duke, and

made his way to Schaffhausen, belonging to the latter, thence

to Laufenburg and Freiburg, thence again to the fortress of

Brisac, whence he had intended to pass to Burgundy, and on to

Avignon. That the Council went on with its work after the

departure of John, and amid the general perplexity and

confusion, was entirely due to the resolution of the emperor,

the eloquence of Gerson [of the University of Paris], and the

indefatigable efforts of the venerable master, now cardinal,

d'Ailly. The following memorable decrees were passed …: 'A

Pope can neither transfer nor dissolve a general Council

without the consent of the latter, and hence the present

Council may validly continue its work even after the flight of

the Pope. All persons, without distinction of rank, even the

Pope himself, are bound by its decisions, in so far as these

relate to matters of faith, to the closing of the present

schism, and to the reformation of the Church of God in her

Head and members. All Christians, not excepting the Pope, are

under obligation to obey the Council.' … Pope John, after

getting away safe to Schaffhausen, complained formally of the

action of the Council towards himself, summoned all the

cardinals to appear personally before him within six days, and

sent memorials to the King of France [and others], …

justifying his flight. Still the Council went on with its

work; disposed, after a fashion, of the papal difficulty, and

of the cases of Buss and Jerome of Prague [whom it condemned

and delivered to the civil authorities, to be burned. …

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415].

In the meantime, Frederic, Margrave of Brandenburg, acting

under the joint order of Council and Emperor, arrested the

fugitive Pope at Freiburg, and led him a prisoner to

Radolfzell, near Constance, where 54 (originally 72) charges

—some of them of a most disgraceful character—extracted from

the testimony of a host of witnesses, were laid before him by

a committee of the Council." He attempted no defense, and on

May 29, 1415, John XXIII. was formally and solemnly deposed

and was kept in confinement for the next three years. In July,

Gregory XII. was persuaded to resign his papal claims and to

accept the dignity of Cardinal Legate of Ancona. Benedict

XIII., more obstinate, refused to give up his pretensions,

though abandoned even by the Spaniards, and was deposed, on

the 26th of July, 1417. "The three claimants to the papacy

having been thus disposed of, it now remained to elect a

legitimate successor to St. Peter. Previously to proceeding to

an election, a decree was passed providing that, in this

particular instance, but in no other, six deputies of each

nation should be associated with the cardinals in making the

choice." It fell upon Otho Colonna, "a cardinal distinguished

for his great learning, his purity of life, and gentleness of

disposition." In November, 1417, he was anointed and crowned

under the name of Martin V. The Council was formally closed on

the 16th of May following, without having accomplished the

work of Church reformation which had been part of its intended

mission. "Sigismund and the German nation, and for a time the

English also, insisted that the question of the reformation of

the Church, the chief points of which had been sketched in a

schema of 18 articles, should be taken up and disposed of

before proceeding to the election of a Pope." But in this they

were baffled. "Martin, the newly elected Pope, did not fully

carry out all the proposed reforms. It is true, he appointed a

committee composed of six cardinals and deputies from each

nation, and gave the work into their hands; but their councils

were so conflicting that they could neither come to a definite

agreement among themselves, nor would they consent to adopt

the plan of reform submitted by the Pope."

J. Alzog,

Manual of Universal Church History,

sections 270-271 (volume 3).

The election of Martin V. might have been a source of

unalloyed happiness to Christendom, if he had at once taken

the crucial question of Church Reform vigorously in hand; but

the Regulations of the Chancery issued soon after his

accession showed that little was to be expected from him in

this respect. They perpetuated most of the practices in the

Roman Court which the Synod had designated as abuses. Neither

the isolated measures afterwards substituted for the universal

reform so urgently required, nor the Concordats made with

Germany, the three Latin nations, and England, sufficed to

meet the exigencies of the case, although they produced a

certain amount of good. The Pope was indeed placed in a most

difficult position, in the face of the various and opposite

demands made upon him, and the tenacious resistance offered by

interests now long established to any attempt to bring things

back to their former state. The situation was complicated to

such a degree that any change might have brought about a

revolution.

{2440}

It must also be borne in mind that all the proposed reforms

involved a diminution of the Papal revenues; the regular

income of the Pope was small and the expenditure was very

great. For centuries, complaints of Papal exactions had been

made, but no one had thought of securing to the Popes the

regular income they required. … The delay of the reform, which

was dreaded by both clergy and laity, may be explained, though

not justified, by the circumstances we have described. It was

an unspeakable calamity that ecclesiastical affairs still

retained the worldly aspect caused by the Schism, and that the

much needed amendment was again deferred."

L. Pastor,

History of the Popes, from the Close of the Middle Ages,

volume 1, pages 209-210.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Milman,

History of Latin Christianity,

book 13, chapters 8-10 (volume 6).

J. C. Robertson,

History of the Christian Church,

book 8, chapter 8 (volume 7).

PAPACY: A. D. 1431.

Election of Eugenius IV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.

The Council of Basle.

Triumph of the Pope and defeat, once more, of Church Reform.

"The Papacy had come forth so little scathed from the perils

with which at one time these assemblies menaced it, that a

Council was no longer that word of terror which a little

before it had been. There was more than one motive for

summoning another, if indeed any help was to be found in them.

Bohemia, wrapt in the flames of the Hussite War, was scorching

her neighbours with fiercer fires than those by which she

herself was consumed. The healing of the Greek Schism was not

yet confessed to be hopeless, and the time seemed to offer its

favourable opportunities. No one could affirm that the

restoration of sound discipline, the reformation of the Church

in head and in members, had as yet more than begun. And thus,

in compliance with the rule laid down at the Council of

Constance,—for even at Rome they did not dare as yet openly to

set at nought its authority,—Pope Eugenius IV. called a third

Council together [1431], that namely of Basle. … Of those who

sincerely mourned over the Church's ills, the most part, after

the unhappy experience of the two preceding Councils, had so

completely lost all faith in these assemblies that slight

regard was at first yielded to the summons; and this Council

seemed likely to expire in its cradle as so many had done

before, as not a few should do after. The number of Bishops

and high Church dignitaries who attended it was never great. A

democratic element made itself felt throughout all its

deliberations; a certain readiness to resort to measures of a

revolutionary violence, such as leaves it impossible to say

that it had not itself to blame for much of its ill-success.

At the first indeed it displayed unlooked-for capacities for

work, entering into important negotiations with the Hussites

for their return to the bosom of the Church; till the Pope,

alarmed at these tokens of independent activity, did not

conceal his ill-will, making all means in his power to

dissolve the Council. This, meanwhile, growing in strength and

in self-confidence, re-affirmed all of strongest which had

been affirmed already at Pisa and Constance, concerning the

superiority of Councils over Popes; declared of itself that,

as a lawfully assembled Council, it could neither be

dissolved, nor the place of its meeting changed, unless by its

own consent; and, having summoned Eugenius and his Cardinals

to take their share in its labours, began the work of

reformation in earnest. Eugenius yielded for the time;

recalled the Bull which had hardly stopped short of

anathematizing the Council; and sent his legates to Basle.

Before long, however, he and the Council were again at strife;

Eugenius complaining, apparently with some reason, that in

these reforms one source after another of the income which had

hitherto sustained the Papal Court was being dried up, while

no other provision was made for the maintenance of its due

dignity, or even for the defraying of its necessary expenses.

As the quarrel deepened the Pope removed the seat of the

Council to Ferrara (September 18, 1437), on the plea that

negotiations with the envoys of the Greek Church would be more

conveniently conducted in an Italian city; and afterwards to

Florence. The Council refused to stir, first suspending

(January 24, 1438), then deposing the Pope (July 7, 1439), and

electing another, Felix V., in his stead; this Felix being a

retired Duke of Savoy, who for some time past had been playing

the hermit in a villa on the shores of the lake of Geneva.

See SAVOY: 11-15th CENTURIES.

The Council in this extreme step failed to carry public

opinion with it. It was not merely that Eugenius denounced his

competitor by the worst names he could think of, declaring him

a hypocrite, a wolf in sheep's clothing, a Moloch, a Cerberus,

a Golden Calf, a second Mahomet, an anti-christ; but the

Church in general shrank back in alarm at the prospect of

another Schism, to last, it might be, for well-nigh another

half century. And thus the Council lost ground daily; its

members fell away; its confidence in itself departed; and,

though it took long in dying, it did in the end die a death of

inanition (June 23, 1448). Again the Pope remained master of

the situation, the last reforming Council,—for it was the

last,—having failed in all which it undertook as completely

and as ingloriously as had done the two which went before."

R. C. Trench,

Lectures on Medieval Church History,

lecture 20.

"In the year 1438 the Emperor John and the Greek Patriarch

made their appearance at the council of Ferrara. In the

following year the council was transferred to Florence, where,

after long discussions, the Greek emperor, and all the members

of the clergy who had attended the council, with the exception

of the Bishop of Ephesus, adopted the doctrine of the Roman

church concerning the possession of the Holy Ghost, the

addition to the Nicene Creed, the nature of purgatory, the

condition of the soul after its separation from the body until

the day of judgment, the use of unleavened bread in the

sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the papal supremacy. The

union of the two churches was solemnly ratified in the

magnificent cathedral of Florence on the 6th of July 1439,

when the Greeks abjured their ancient faith in a vaster

edifice and under a loftier dome than that of their own

much-vaunted temple of St. Sophia. The Emperor John derived

none of the advantages he had expected from the simulated

union of the churches. Pope Eugenius, it is true, supplied him

liberally with money, and bore all the expenses both of the

Greek court and clergy during their absence from

Constantinople; he also presented the emperor with two

galleys, and furnished him with a guard of 300 men, well

equipped, and paid at the cost of the papal treasury; but his

Holiness forgot his promise to send a fleet to defend

Constantinople, and none of the Christian princes showed any

disposition to fight the battles of the Greeks, though they

took up the cross against the Turks.

{2441}

On his return John found his subjects indignant at the manner

in which the honour and doctrines of the Greek church had been

sacrificed in an unsuccessful diplomatic speculation. The

bishops who had obsequiously signed the articles of union at

Florence, now sought popularity by deserting the emperor, and

making a parade of their repentance, lamenting their

wickedness in falling off for a time from the pure doctrine of

the orthodox church. The only permanent result of this

abortive attempt at Christian union was to increase the

bigotry of the orthodox, and to furnish the Latins with just

grounds for condemning the perfidious dealings and bad faith

of the Greeks. In both ways it assisted the progress of the

Othoman power. The Emperor John, seeing public affairs in this

hopeless state, became indifferent to the future fate of the

empire, and thought only of keeping on good terms with the

sultan."

G. Finlay,

History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,

book 4, chapter 2, section 6 (volume 2).

Pope "Eugenius died, February 23, 1447; … but his successors

were able to secure the fruits of the victory [over the

Council of Basel] for a long course of years. The victory was

won at a heavy cost, both for the Popes and for Christendom;

for the Papacy recovered its ascendancy far more as a

political than as a religious power. The Pope became more than

ever immersed in the international concerns of Europe, and his

policy was a tortuous course of craft and intrigue, which in

those days passed for the new art of diplomacy. … To revert to

a basis of spiritual domination lay beyond the vision of the

energetic princes, the refined dilettanti, the dexterous

diplomatists, who sat upon the chair of St. Peter during the

age succeeding the Council of Basle. Of signs of uneasiness

abroad they could not be quite ignorant; but they sought to

divert men's minds from the contemplation of so perplexing a

problem as Church reform, by creating or fostering new

atmospheres of excitement and interest; … or at best (if we

may adopt the language of their apologists) they took

advantage of the literary and artistic movement then active in

Italy as a means to establish a higher standard of

civilisation which might render organic reform needless."

R. L. Poole,

Wycliffe and Movements for Reform,

chapter 12.

ALSO IN:

J. E. Darras,

General History of the Catholic Church, 6th period,

chapter 4 (volume 3).

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1438; and 1515-1518.

PAPACY: A. D. 1439.

Election of Felix V. (by the Council of Basle).

PAPACY: A. D. 1447-1455.

The pontificate of Nicolas V.

Recovery of character and influence.

Beginning of the Renaissance.

See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

PAPACY: A. D. 1455.

Election of Callistus III.

PAPACY: A. D. 1458.

Election of Pius II., known previously as the learned

Cardinal Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini, historian and diplomatist.

PAPACY: A. D. 1464.

Election of Paul II.

PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.

The darkest age of Papal crime and vice.

Sixtus IV. and the Borgias.

The warrior Pontiff, Julius II.

"The impunity with which the Popes escaped the councils held

in the early part of the 15th century was well fitted to

inspire them with a reckless contempt for public opinion; and

from that period down to the Reformation, it would be

difficult to parallel among temporal princes the ambitious,

wicked, and profligate lives of many of the Roman Pontiffs.

Among these, Francesco della Rovere, who succeeded Paul II.

with the title of Sixtus IV., was not the least notorious.

Born at Savona, of an obscure family, Sixtus raised his

nephews, and his sons who passed for nephews, to the highest

dignities in Church and State, and sacrificed for their

aggrandisement the peace of Italy and the cause of Christendom

against the Turks. Of his two nephews, Julian, and Leonard

della Rovere, the former, afterwards Pope Julius II., was

raised to the purple in the second year of his uncle's

pontificate." It was this pope—Sixtus IV.—who had a part in

the infamous "Conspiracy of the Pazzi" to assassinate Lorenzo

de' Medici and his brother.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

"This successor of St. Peter took a pleasure in beholding the

mortal duels of his guards, for which he himself sometimes

gave the signal. He was succeeded [1484] by Cardinal Gian

Batista Cibò, a Genoese, who assumed the title of Innocent

VIII. Innocent was a weak man, without any decided principle.

He had seven children, whom he formally acknowledged, but he

did not seek to advance them so shamelessly as Sixtus had

advanced his 'nephews.' … Pope Innocent VIII. [who died July

25, 1492] was succeeded by the atrocious Cardinal Roderigo

Borgia, a Spaniard of Valencia, where he had at one time

exercised the profession of an advocate. After his election he

assumed the name of Alexander VI. Of 20 cardinals who entered

the conclave, he is said to have bought the suffrages of all

but five; and Cardinal Ascanio Sforza, whom he feared as a

rival, was propitiated with a present of silver that was a

load for four mules. Alexander's election was the signal for

flight to those cardinals who had opposed him. … Pope

Alexander had by the celebrated Vanozza, the wife of a Roman

citizen, three sons: John, whom he made Duke of Gandia, in

Spain; Cæsar and Geoffrey; and one daughter, Lucretia."

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

volume 1, pages 105, 108, 175, 177-178.

Under the Borgias, "treasons, assassinations, tortures, open

debauchery, the practice of poisoning, the worst and most

shameless outrages, are unblushingly and publicly tolerated in

the open light of heaven. In 1490, the Pope's vicar having

forbidden clerics and laics to keep concubines, the Pope

revoked the decree, 'saying that that was not forbidden,

because the life of priests and ecclesiastics was such that

hardly one was to be found who did not keep a concubine, or at

least who had not a courtesan.' Cæsar Borgia at the capture of

Capua 'chose forty of the most beautiful women, whom he kept

for himself; and a pretty large number of captives were sold

at a low price at Rome.' Under Alexander VI., 'all

ecclesiastics, from the greatest to the least, have concubines

in the place of wives, and that publicly. If God hinder it

not,' adds this historian, 'this corruption will pass to the

monks and religious orders, although, to confess the truth,

almost all the monasteries of the town have become

bawd–houses, without anyone to speak against it.' With respect

to Alexander VI., who loved his daughter Lucretia, the reader

may find in Burchard the description of the marvellous orgies

in which he joined with Lucretia and Cæsar, and the

enumeration of the prizes which he distributed.

{2442}

Let the reader also read for himself the story of the

bestiality of Pietro Luigi Farnese, the Pope's son, how the

young and upright Bishop of Fano died from his outrage, and

how the Pope, speaking of this crime as 'a youthful levity,'

gave him in this secret bull 'the fullest absolution from all

the pains which he might have incurred by human incontinence,

in whatever shape or with whatever cause.' As to civil

security, Bentivoglio caused all the Marescotti to be put to

death; Hippolyto d' Este had his brother's eyes put out in his

presence; Cæsar Borgia killed his brother; murder is consonant

with their public manners, and excites no wonder. A fisherman

was asked why he had not informed the governor of the town

that he had seen a body thrown into the water; 'he replied

that he had seen about a hundred bodies thrown into the water

during his lifetime in the same place, and that no one had

ever troubled about it.' 'In our town,' says an old historian,

'much murder and pillage was done by day and night, and hardly

a day passed but some one was killed.' Cæsar Borgia one day

killed Peroso, the Pope's favourite, between his arms and

under his cloak, so that the blood spurted up to the Pope's

face. He caused his sister's husband to be stabbed and then

strangled in open day, on the steps of the palace; count, if

you can, his assassinations. Certainly he and his father, by

their character, morals, open and systematic wickedness, have

presented to Europe the two most successful images of the

devil. … Despotism, the Inquisition, the Cicisbei, dense

ignorance, and open knavery, the shamelessness and the

smartness of harlequins and rascals, misery and vermin,—such

is the issue of the Italian Renaissance."

H. A. Taine,

History of English Literature,

volume 1, pages 354-355.

"It is certain … that the profound horror with which the name

of Alexander VI. strikes a modern ear, was not felt among the

Italians at the time of his election. The sentiment of hatred

with which he was afterwards regarded arose partly from the

crimes by which his Pontificate was rendered infamous, partly

from the fear which his son Cesare inspired, and partly from

the mysteries of his private life which revolted even the

corrupt conscience of the 16th century. This sentiment of

hatred had grown to universal execration at the time of his

death. In course of time, when the attention of the Northern

nations had been directed to the iniquities of Rome, and when

the glaring discrepancy between Alexander's pretension as a

Pope and his conduct as a man had been apprehended, it

inspired a legend, which, like all legends, distorts the facts

which it reflects. Alexander was, in truth, a man eminently

fitted to close an old age and to inaugurate a new, to

demonstrate the paradoxical situation of the Popes by the

inexorable logic of his practical impiety, and to fuse two

conflicting world forces in the cynicism of supreme

corruption. … Alexander was a stronger and a firmer man than

his immediate predecessors. 'He combined,' says Guicciardini,

'craft with singular sagacity, a sound judgment with

extraordinary powers of persuasion; and to all the grave

affairs of life he applied ability and pains beyond belief.'

His first care was to reduce Rome to order. The old factions

of Colonna and Orsini, which Sixtus had scotched, but which

had raised their heads again during the dotage of Innocent,

were destroyed in his pontificate. In this way, as Machiavelli

observed, he laid the real basis for the temporal power of the

Papacy. Alexander, indeed, as a sovereign, achieved for the

Papal See what Louis XI. had done for the throne of France,

and made Rome on its small scale follow the type of the large

European monarchies. … Former Pontiffs had raised money by the

sale of benefices and indulgences: this, of course, Alexander

also practised—to such an extent, indeed, that an epigram

gained currency; 'Alexander sells the keys, the altars,

Christ. Well, he bought them; so he has a right to sell them.'

But he went further and took lessons from Tiberius. Having

sold the scarlet to the highest bidder, he used to feed his

prelate with rich benefices. When he had fattened him

sufficiently, he poisoned him, laid hands upon his hoards, and

recommenced the game. … Former Popes had preached crusades

against the Turk, languidly or energetically according as the

coasts of Italy were threatened. Alexander frequently invited

Bajazet to enter Europe and relieve him of the princes who

opposed his intrigues in the favour of his children. The

fraternal feeling which subsisted between the Pope and the

Sultan was to some extent dependent on the fate of Prince

Djem, a brother of Bajazet and son of the conqueror of

Constantinople, who had fled for protection to the Christian

powers, and whom the Pope kept prisoner, receiving 40,000

ducats yearly from the Porte for his jail fee. … Lucrezia, the

only daughter of Alexander by Vannozza, took three husbands in

succession, after having been formally betrothed to two

Spanish nobles. … History has at last done justice to the

memory of this woman, whose long yellow hair was so beautiful,

and whose character was so colourless. The legend which made

her a poison-brewing Mænad, has been proved a lie—but only at

the expense of the whole society in which she lived. … It

seems now clear enough that not hers, but her father's and her

brother's, were the atrocities which made her married life in

Rome a byeword. She sat and smiled through all the tempests

which tossed her to and fro, until she found at last a fair

port in the Duchy of Ferrara. … [On the 12th of August, 1503],

the two Borgias invited the Cardinal Carneto to dine with them

in the Belvedere of Pope Innocent. Thither by the hands of

Alexander's butler they previously conveyed some poisoned

wine. By mistake they drank the death-cup mingled for their

victim. Alexander died, a black and swollen mass, hideous to

contemplate, after a sharp struggle with the poison."

J. A. Symonds,

Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,

chapter 6.

The long-accepted story of Pope Alexander's poisoning, as

related above by Mr. Symonds, is now discredited. "The

principal reason why this picturesque tale has of late been

generally regarded as a fiction is the apparent impossibility

of reconciling it with a fact in connexion with Pope

Alexander's last illness which admits of no dispute, the date

of its commencement. The historians who relate the poisoning

unanimously assert that the effect was sudden and

overpowering, that the pope was carried back to the Vatican in

a dying state and expired shortly afterwards. The 18th of

August has hitherto been accepted without dispute as the date

of his death: it follows, therefore, that the fatal banquet

must have been on the 17th at the earliest.

{2443}

But a cloud of witnesses, including the despatches of

ambassadors resident at the papal court, prove that the pope's

illness commenced on the 12th, and that by the 17th his

condition was desperate. The Venetian ambassador and a

Florentine letter-writer, moreover, the only two contemporary

authorities who assign a date for the entertainment, state

that it was given on the 5th or 6th, … which would make it a

week before the pope was taken ill. … It admits … of absolute

demonstration that the banquet could not have been given on

the 12th or even on the 11th, and of proof hardly less cogent

that the pope did actually die on the 18th. All the evidence

that any entertainment was ever given, or that any poisoning

was ever attempted, connects the name of Cardinal Corneto with

the transaction. He and no other, according to all respectable

authorities (the statement of late writers that ten cardinals

were to have been poisoned at once may be dismissed without

ceremony as too ridiculous for discussion), was the cardinal

whom Alexander on this occasion designed to remove. Now,

Cardinal Corneto was not in a condition to partake of any banquet

either on 11 August or 12 August Giustiniani, the Venetian

ambassador, who attributes the pope's illness to a fever

contracted at supper at the cardinal's villa on 5 August,

says, writing on the 13th, 'All have felt the effects, and

first of all Cardinal Adrian [Corneto], who attended mass in

the papal chapel on Friday [11 August], and after supper was

attacked by a violent paroxysm of fever, which endured until

the following morning; yesterday [the 12th] he had it again,

and it has returned to-day.' Evidently, then, the cardinal

could not give or even be present at an entertainment on the

12th, and nothing could have happened on that day to throw a

doubt on the accuracy of Burcardus's statement that the pope

was taken ill in the morning, which would put any banquet and

any poisoning during the course of it out of the question. …

There is, therefore, no reason for discrediting the evidence

of the two witnesses, the only contemporary witnesses to date,

who fix the supper to 5 August or 6 August at the latest. It

is possible that poison may have been then administered which

did not produce its effects until 12 August; but the

picturesque statement of the suddenness of the pope's illness

and the consternation thus occasioned are palpable fictions,

which so gravely impair the credit of the historians relating

them that the story of the poisoning cannot be accepted on

their authority. … The story, then, that Alexander

accidentally perished by poison which he had prepared for

another—though not in itself impossible or even very

improbable—must be dismissed as at present unsupported by

direct proof or even incidental confirmation of any kind. It

does not follow that he may not have been poisoned

designedly."

R. Garnett,

The Alleged Poisoning of Alexander VI.

(English Historical Review, April, 1894).

"Of Pius III., who reigned for a few days after Alexander, no

account need be taken. Giuliano della Rovere was made Pope in

1503. Whatever opinion may be formed of him considered as the

high-priest of the Christian faith, there can be no doubt that

Julius II. was one of the greatest figures of the Renaissance,

and that his name, instead of that of Leo X., should by right

be given to the golden age of letters and of arts in Rome. He

stamped the century with the impress of a powerful

personality. It is to him we owe the most splendid of Michael

Angelo's and Raphael's masterpieces. The Basilica of St.

Peter's, that materialized idea, which remains to symbolize

the transition from the Church of the Middle Ages to the

modern semi-secular supremacy of Papal Rome, was his thought.

No nepotism, no loathsome sensuality, no flagrant violation of

ecclesiastical justice stain his pontificate. His one purpose

was to secure and extend the temporal authority of the Popes;

and this he achieved by curbing the ambition of the Venetians,

who threatened to enslave Romagna, by reducing Perugia and

Bologna to the Papal sway, by annexing Parma and Piacenza, and

by entering on the heritage bequeathed to him by Cesare

Borgia. At his death he transmitted to his successors the

largest and most solid sovereignty in Italy. But restless,

turbid, never happy unless fighting, Julius drowned the

peninsula in blood. He has been called a patriot, because from

time to time he raised the cry of driving the barbarians from

Italy: it must, however, be remembered that it was he, while

still Cardinal di San Pietro in Vincoli, who finally moved

Charles VIII. from Lyons; it was he who stirred up the League

of Cambray [see VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509] against Venice, and

who invited the Swiss mercenaries into Lombardy [see ITALY: A.

D. 1510-1513]; in each case adding the weight of the Papal

authority to the forces which were enslaving his country. …

Leo X. succeeded Julius in 1513, to the great relief of the

Romans, wearied with the continual warfare of the old

'Pontefice terribile.'"

J. A. Symonds,

Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

J. C. Robertson,

History of the Christian Church,

book 9, chapter 5 (volume 8).

M. Creighton,

History of the Papacy,

book 5, chapters 3-17.

W. Gilbert,

Lucrezia Borgia.

P. Villari,

Life and Times of Machiavelli,

introduction, chapter 4 (volume 1);

book 1, chapters 6-14 (volumes 2-3).

PAPACY: A. D. 1493.

The Pope's assumption of authority

to give the New World to Spain.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1493.

PAPACY: A. D. 1496-1498.

The condemnation of Savonarola.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

PAPACY: A. D. 1503 (September).

Election of Pius III.

PAPACY: A. D. 1503 (October).

Election of Julius II.

PAPACY: A. D. 1508-1509.

Pope Julius II. and the League of Cambrai against Venice.

See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

PAPACY: A. D. 1510-1513.

The Holy League against France.

The pseudo-council at Pisa.

Conquests of Julius II.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

PAPACY: A. D. 1513.

Election of Leo X.

PAPACY: A. D. 1515-1516.

Treaty of Leo X. with Francis I. of France.

Abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII.

The Concordat of Bologna.

Destruction of the liberties of the Gallican Church.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

{2444}

PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517.

Monetary demands of the court and family of Pope Leo X.,

and his financial expedients.

The theory of Indulgences and their marketability.

"The position which the pope [Leo X.], now absolute lord of

Florence and master of Siena, occupied, the powerful alliances

he had contracted with the other powers of Europe, and the views

which his family entertained on the rest of Italy, rendered it

absolutely indispensable for him, spite of the prodigality of

a government that knew no restraint, to be well supplied with

money. He seized every occasion of extracting extraordinary

revenues from the church. The Lateran council was induced,

immediately before its dissolution (15th of March, 1517), to

grant the pope a tenth of all church property throughout

Christendom. Three different commissions for the sale of

indulgences traversed Germany and the northern states at the

same moment. These expedients were, it is true, resorted to

under various pretexts. The tenths were, it was said, to be

expended in a Turkish war, which was soon to be declared; the

produce of indulgences was for the building of St. Peter's

Church, where the bones of the martyrs lay exposed to the

inclemency of the elements. But people had ceased to believe

in these pretences. … For there was no doubt on the mind of

any reasonable man, that all these demands were mere financial

speculations. There is no positive proof that the assertion

then so generally made —that the proceeds of the sale of

indulgences in Germany was destined in part for the pope's

sister Maddelena—was true. But the main fact is indisputable,

that the ecclesiastical aids were applied to the uses of the

pope's family."

L. Ranke,

History of the Reformation in Germany,

book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

"Indulgences, in the earlier ages of the Church, had been a

relaxation of penance, or of the discipline imposed by the

Church on penitents who had been guilty of mortal sin. The

doctrine of penance required that for such sin satisfaction

should be superadded to contrition and confession. Then came

the custom of commuting these appointed temporal penalties.

When Christianity spread among the northern nations, the

canonical penances were frequently found to be inapplicable to

their condition. The practice of accepting offerings of money

in the room of the ordinary forms of penance, harmonized with

the penal codes in vogue among the barbarian peoples. At first

the priest had only exercised the office of an intercessor.

Gradually the simple function of declaring the divine

forgiveness to the penitent transformed itself into that of a

judge. By Aquinas, the priest is made the instrument of

conveying the divine pardon, the vehicle through which the

grace of God passes to the penitent. With the jubilees, or

pilgrimages to Rome, ordained by the popes, came the plenary

indulgences, or the complete remission of all temporal

penalties—that is, the penalties still obligatory on the

penitent—on the fulfillment of prescribed conditions. These

penalties might extend into purgatory, but the indulgence

obliterated them all. In the 13th century, Alexander of Hales

and Thomas Aquinas set forth the theory of supererogatory

merits, or the treasure of merit bestowed upon the Church

through Christ and the saints, on which the rulers of the

Church might draw for the benefit of the less worthy and more

needy. This was something distinct from the power of the keys,

the power to grant absolution, which inhered in the priesthood

alone. The eternal punishment of mortal sin being remitted or

commuted by the absolution of the priest, it was open to the

Pope or his agents, by the grant of indulgences, to remit the

temporal or terminable penalties that still rested on the head

of the transgressor. Thus souls might be delivered forthwith

from purgatorial fire. Pope Sixtus IV., in 1477, had

officially declared that souls already in purgatory are

emancipated 'per modum suffragii'; that is, the work done in

behalf of them operates to effect their release in a way

analogous to the efficacy of prayer. Nevertheless, the power

that was claimed over the dead, was not practically diminished

by this restriction. The business of selling indulgences had

grown by the profitableness of it. 'Everywhere,' says Erasmus,

'the remission of purgatorial torment is sold; nor is it sold

only, but forced upon those who refuse it.' As managed by

Tetzel and the other emissaries sent out to collect money for

the building of St. Peter's Church, the indulgence was a

simple bargain, according to which, on the payment of a

stipulated sum, the individual received a full discharge from

the penalties of sin or procured the release of a soul from

the flames of purgatory. The forgiveness of sins was offered

in the market for money."

G. P. Fisher,

The Reformation,

chapter 4.

The doctrine concerning indulgences which the Roman Catholic

Church maintains at the present day is stated by one of its

most eminent prelates as follows: "What then is an Indulgence?

It is no more than a remission by the Church, in virtue of the

keys, or the judicial authority committed to her, of a

portion, or the entire, of the temporal punishment due to sin.

The infinite merits of Christ form the fund whence this

remission is derived: but besides, the Church holds that, by

the communion of Saints, penitential works performed by the

just, beyond what their own sins might exact, are available to

other members of Christ's mystical body; that, for instance,

the sufferings of the spotless Mother of God, afflictions such

as probably no other human being ever felt in the soul, —the

austerities and persecutions of the Baptist, the friend of the

Bridegroom, who was sanctified in his mother's womb, and

chosen to be an angel before the face of the Christ,—the

tortures endured by numberless martyrs, whose lives had been

pure from vice and sin,—the prolonged rigours of holy

anchorites, who, flying from the temptations and dangers of

the world, passed many years in penance and contemplation, all

these made consecrated and valid through their union with the

merits of Christ's passion,—were not thrown away, but formed a

store of meritorious blessings, applicable to the satisfaction

of other sinners. It is evident that, if the temporal

punishment reserved to sin was anciently believed to be

remitted through the penitential acts, which the sinner

assumed, any other substitute for them, that the authority

imposing or recommending them received as an equivalent, must

have been considered by it truly of equal value, and as

acceptable before God. And so it must be now. If the duty of

exacting such satisfaction devolves upon the Church,—and it

must be the same now as it formerly was,—she necessarily

possesses at present the same power of substitution, with the

same efficacy, and, consequently, with the same effects. And

such a substitution is what constitutes all that Catholics

understand by the name of an Indulgence. … Do I then mean to

say, that during the middle ages, and later, no abuse took

place in the practise of indulgences? Most certainly not.

{2445}

Flagrant and too frequent abuses, doubtless, occurred through

the avarice, and rapacity, and impiety of men; especially when

indulgence was granted to the contributors towards charitable

or religious foundations, in the erection of which private

motives too often mingle. But this I say, that the Church felt

and ever tried to remedy the evil. … The Council of Trent, by

an ample decree, completely reformed the abuses which had

subsequently crept in, and had been unfortunately used as a

ground for Luther's separation from the Church."

N. Wiseman,

Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and

Practices of the Catholic Church,

lecture 12.

PAPACY: A. D. 1517.

Tetzel and the hawking of Indulgences through Germany.

"In Germany the people were full of excitement. The Church had

opened a vast market on earth. The crowd of customers, and the

cries and jests of the sellers, were like a fair—and that, a

fair held by monks. The article which they puffed off and

offered at the lowest price, was, they said, the salvation of

souls. These dealers travelled through the country in a

handsome carriage, with three outriders, made a great show,

and spent a great deal of money. … When the cavalcade was

approaching a town, a deputy was dispatched to the magistrate:

'The grace of God and St. Peter is before your gates,' said

the envoy; and immediately all the place was in commotion. The

clergy, the priests, the nuns, the council, the schoolmasters,

the schoolboys, the trade corporations with their banners, men

and women, young and old, went to meet the merchants, bearing

lighted torches in their hands, advancing to the sound of

music and of all the bells, 'so that,' says a historian, 'they

could not have received God Himself in greater state.' The

salutations ended, the whole cortege moved towards the church,

the Pope's bull of grace being carried in advance on a velvet

cushion, or on a cloth of gold. The chief indulgence-merchant

followed next, holding in his hand a red wooden cross. In this

order the whole procession moved along, with singing, prayers,

and incense. The organ pealed, and loud music greeted the

hawker monk and those who accompanied him, as they entered the

temple. The cross he bore was placed in front of the altar;

the Pope's arms were suspended from it. … One person

especially attracted attention at these sales. It was he who

carried the great red cross and played the principal part. He

wore the garb of the Dominicans. He had an arrogant bearing

and a thundering voice, and he was in full vigour, though he

had reached his sixty-third year. This man, the son of a

goldsmith of Leipsic, named Dietz, was called John Dietzel, or

Tetzel. He had received numerous ecclesiastical honours. He

was Bachelor in Theology, prior of the Dominicans, apostolic

commissioner and inquisitor, and since the year 1502 he had

filled the office of vendor of indulgences. The skill he had

acquired soon caused him to be named commissioner-in-chief. …

The cross having been elevated and the Pope's arms hung upon

it, Tetzel ascended the pulpit, and with a confident air began

to extol the worth of indulgences, in presence of the crowd

whom the ceremony had attracted to the sacred spot. The people

listened with open mouths. Here is a specimen of one of his

harangues:—'Indulgences,' he said, 'are the most precious and

sublime gifts of God. This cross (pointing to the red cross)

has as much efficacy as the cross of Jesus Christ itself.

Come, and I will give you letters furnished with seals, by

which, even the sins that you may have a wish to commit

hereafter, shall be all forgiven you. I would not exchange my

privileges for those of St. Peter in heaven; for I have saved

more souls by my indulgences than the Apostle by his

discourses. There is no sin so great, that an indulgence

cannot remit it. Repentance is not necessary. But, more than

that; indulgences not only save the living, they save the dead

also. Priest! noble! merchant! woman! young girl! young

man!—harken to your parents and your friends who are dead, and

who cry to you from the depths of the abyss: "We are enduring

horrible tortures! A small alms would deliver us. You can give

it, and you will not!"' The hearers shuddered at these words,

pronounced in the formidable voice of the charlatan monk. 'The

very instant,' continued Tetzel, 'the piece of money chinks at

the bottom of the strong box, the soul is freed from

purgatory, and flies to heaven.' … Such were the discourses

heard by astonished Germany in the days when God was raising

up Luther. The sermon ended, the indulgence was considered as

'having solemnly established its throne' in that place.

Confessionals were arranged, adorned with the Pope's arms; and

the people flocked in crowds to the confessors. They were

told, that, in order to obtain the full pardon of all their

sins, and to deliver the souls of others from purgatory, it

was not necessary for them to have contrition of heart, or to

make confession by mouth; only, let them be quick and bring

money to the box. Women and children, poor people, and those

who lived on alms, all of them soon found the needful to

satisfy the confessor's demands. The confession being over—and

it did not require much time—the faithful hurried to the sale,

which was conducted by a single monk. His counter stood near

the cross. He fixed his sharp eyes upon all who approached

him, scrutinized their manners, their bearing, their dress,

and demanded a sum proportioned to the appearance of each.

Kings, queens, princes, archbishops, bishops, had to pay,

according to regulation, twenty-five ducats; abbots, counts,

and barons, ten; and so on, or according to the discretion of

the commissioner. For particular sins, too, both Tetzel in

Germany, and Samson in Switzerland, had a special scale of

prices."

J. N. Merle D'Aubigne,

The Story of the! Reformation,

part 1, chapter 6

(or History of the Reformation, book 3, chapter 1).

ALSO IN:

M. J. Spalding,

History of the Protestant Reformation,

part 2, chapter 3.

PAPACY: A. D. 1517.

Luther's attack upon the Indulgences.

His 95 Theses nailed to the Wittenberg Church.

The silent support of Elector Frederick of Saxony.

The satisfaction of awakened Germany.

"Wittenberg was an old-fashioned town in Saxony, on the Elbe.

Its main street was parallel with the broad river, and within

its walls, at one end of it, near the Elster gate, lay the

University, founded by the good Elector—Frederic of Saxony—of

which Luther was a professor; while at the other end of it was

the palace of the Elector and the palace church of All Saints.

The great parish church lifted its two towers from the centre

of the town, a little back from the main street.

{2446}

This was the town in which Luther had been preaching for

years, and towards which Tetzel, the seller of indulgences,

now came, just as he did to other towns, vending his 'false

pardons'—granting indulgences for sins to those who could pay

for them, and offering to release from purgatory the souls of

the dead, if any of their friends would pay for their release.

As soon as the money chinked in his money-box, the souls of

their dead friends would be let out of purgatory. This was the

gospel of Tetzel. It made Luther's blood boil. He knew that

what the Pope wanted was people's money, and that the whole

thing was a cheat. This his Augustinian theology had taught

him, and he was not a man to hold back when he saw what ought

to be done. He did see it. On the day [October 31] before the

festival of All Saints, on which the relics of the Church were

displayed to the crowds of country people who flocked into the

town, Luther passed down the long street with a copy of

ninety-five theses or Statements [see text below] against

indulgences in his hand, and nailed them upon the door of the

palace church ready for the festival on the morrow. Also on

All Saints' day he read them to the people in the great parish

church. It would not have mattered much to Tetzel or the Pope

that the monk of Wittenberg had nailed up his papers on the

palace church, had it not been that he was backed by the

Elector of Saxony."

F. Seebohm,

The Era of the Protestant Revolution,

part 2, chapter 3 (c).

"As the abuse complained of had a double character, religious

and political, or financial, so also political events came in

aid of the opposition emanating from religious ideas.

Frederick of Saxony [on the occasion of an indulgence

proclaimed in 1501] … had kept the money accruing from it in

his own dominions in his possession, with the determination

not to part with it, till an expedition against the infidels,

which was then contemplated, should be actually undertaken;

the pope and, on the pope's concession, the emperor, had

demanded it of him in vain: he held it for what it really

was—a tax levied on his subjects; and after all the projects

of a war against the Turks had come to nothing, he had at

length applied the money to his university. Nor was he now

inclined to consent to a similar scheme of taxation. … The

sale of indulgences at Jüterbock and the resort of his

subjects thither, was not less offensive to him on financial

grounds than to Luther on spiritual. Not that the latter were

in any degree excited by the former; this it would be

impossible to maintain after a careful examination of the

facts; on the contrary, the spiritual motives were more

original, powerful, and independent than the temporal, though

these were important, as having their proper source in the

general condition of Germany. The point whence the great

events arose which were soon to agitate the world, was the

coincidence of the two. There was … no one who represented the

interests of Germany in the matter. There were innumerable

persons who saw through the abuse of religion, but no one who

dared to call it by its right name and openly to denounce and

resist it. But the alliance between the monk of Wittenberg and

the sovereign of Saxony was formed; no treaty was negotiated;

they had never seen each other; yet they were bound together

by an instinctive mutual understanding. The intrepid monk

attacked the enemy; the prince did not promise him his aid—he

did not even encourage him; he let things take their course. …

Luther's daring assault was the shock which awakened Germany

from her slumber. That a man should arise who had the courage

to undertake the perilous struggle, was a source of universal

satisfaction, and as it were tranquillised the public

conscience. The most powerful interests were involved in

it;—that of sincere and profound piety, against the most

purely external means of obtaining pardon of sins; that of

literature, against fanatical persecutors, of whom Tetzel was

one; the renovated theology against the dogmatic learning of

the schools, which lent itself to all these abuses; the

temporal power against the spiritual, whose usurpations it

sought to curb; lastly, the nation against the rapacity of

Rome."

L. Ranke,

History of the Reformation in Germany,

book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

J. Köstlin,

Life of Luther,

part 3, chapter 1.

C. Beard,

Martin Luther and the Reformation,

chapter 5.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523.

PAPACY: A. D. 1517.

The Ninety-five Theses of Luther.

The following is a translation of the ninety-five theses:

"In the desire and with the purpose of elucidating the truth,

a disputation will be held on the underwritten propositions at

Wittemberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin

Luther, Monk of the Order of St. Augustine, Master of Arts and

of Sacred Theology, and ordinary Reader of the same in that

place. He therefore asks those who cannot be present and

discuss the subject with us orally, to do so by letter in

their absence. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ in saying: 'Repent ye,'

etc., intended that the whole life of believers should be

penitence.

2. This word cannot be understood of sacramental penance, that

is, of the confession and satisfaction which are performed

under the ministry of priests.

3. It does not, however, refer solely to inward penitence; nay

such inward penitence is naught, unless it outwardly produces

various mortifications of the flesh.

4. The penalty thus continues as long as the hatred of

self—that is, true inward penitence—continues; namely, till

our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any

penalties, except those which he has imposed by his own

authority, or by that of the canons.

6. The Pope has no power to remit any guilt, except by

declaring and warranting it to have been remitted by God; or

at most by remitting cases reserved for himself; in which

eases, if his power were despised, guilt would certainly

remain.

7. God never remits any man's guilt, without at the same time

subjecting him, humbled in all things, to the authority of his

representative the priest.

8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and

no burden ought to be imposed on the dying, according to them.

9. Hence the Holy Spirit acting in the Pope does well for us,

in that, in his decrees, he always makes exception of the

article of death and of necessity.

10. Those priests act wrongly and unlearnedly, who, in the

case of the dying, reserve the canonical penances for

purgatory.

11. Those tares about changing of the canonical penalty into

the penalty of purgatory seem surely to have been sown while

the bishops were asleep.

12. Formerly the canonical penalties were imposed not after,

but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

{2447}

13. The dying pay all penalties by death, and are already dead

to the canon laws, and are by right relieved from them.

14. The imperfect soundness or charity of a dying person

necessarily brings with it great fear, and the less it is, the

greater the fear it brings.

15. This fear and horror is sufficient by itself, to say

nothing of other things, to constitute the pains of purgatory,

since it is very near to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven appear to differ as despair,

almost despair, and peace of mind differ.

17. With souls in purgatory it seems that it must needs be

that, as horror diminishes, so charity increases.

18. Nor does it seem to be proved by any reasoning or any

scriptures, that they are outside of the state of merit or of

the increase of charity.

19. Nor does this appear to be proved, that they are sure and

confident of their own blessedness, at least all of them,

though we may be very sure of it.

20. Therefore the Pope, when he speaks of the plenary

remission of all penalties, does not mean simply of all, but

only of those imposed by himself.

21. Thus those preachers of indulgences are in error who say

that, by the indulgences of the Pope, a man is loosed and

saved from all punishment.

22. For in fact he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty

which they would have had to pay in this life according to the

canons.

23. If any entire remission of all penalties can be granted to

anyone, it is certain that it is granted to none but the most

perfect, that is, to very few.

24. Hence the greater part of the people must needs be

deceived by this indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of

release from penalties.

25. Such power as the Pope has over purgatory in general, such

has every bishop in his own diocese, and every curate in his

own parish, in particular.

26. The Pope acts most rightly in granting remission to souls,

not by the power of the keys (which is of no avail in this

case) but by the way of suffrage.

27. They preach man, who say that the soul flies out of

purgatory as soon as the money thrown into the chest rattles.

28. It is certain that, when the money rattles in the chest,

avarice and gain may be increased, but the suffrage of the

Church depends on the will of God alone.

29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory desire to be

redeemed from it, according to the story told of Saints

Severinus and Paschal.

30. No man is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much

less of the attainment of plenary remission.

31. Rare as is a true penitent, so rare is one who truly buys

indulgences—that is to say, most rare.

32. Those who believe that, through letters of pardon, they

are made sure of their own salvation, will be eternally damned

along with their teachers.

33. We must especially beware of those who say that these

pardons from the Pope are that inestimable gift of God by

which man is reconciled to God.

34. For the grace conveyed by these pardons has respect only

to the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, which are of

human appointment.

35. They preach no Christian doctrine, who teach that

contrition is not necessary for those who buy souls out of

purgatory or buy confessional licences.

36. Every Christian who feels true compunction has of right

plenary remission of pain and guilt, even without letters of

pardon.

37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has a share

in all the benefits of Christ and of the Church, given him by

God, even without letters of pardon.

38. The remission, however, imparted by the Pope is by no

means to be despised, since it is, as I have said, a

declaration of the Divine remission.

39. It is a most difficult thing, even for the most learned

theologians, to exalt at the same time in the eyes of the

people the ample effect of pardons and the necessity of true

contrition.

40. True contrition seeks and loves punishment; while the

ampleness of pardons relaxes it, and causes men to hate it, or

at least gives occasion for them to do so.

41. Apostolic pardons ought to be proclaimed with caution,

lest the people should falsely suppose that they are placed

before other good works of charity.

42. Christians should be taught that it is not the mind of the

Pope that the buying of pardons is to be in any way compared

to works of mercy.

43. Christians should be taught that he who gives to a poor

man, or lends to a needy man, does better than if he bought

pardons.

44. Because, by a work of charity, charity increases, and the

man becomes better; while, by means of pardons, he does not

become better, but only freer from punishment.

45. Christians should be taught that he who sees anyone in

need, and, passing him by, gives money for pardons, is not

purchasing for himself the indulgences of the Pope, but the

anger of God.

46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have

superfluous wealth, they are bound to keep what is necessary

for the use of their own households, and by no means to lavish

it on pardons.

47. Christians should be taught that, while they are free to

buy pardons, they are not commanded to do so.

48. Christians should be taught that the Pope, in granting

pardons, has both more need and more desire that devout prayer

should be made for him, than that money should be readily

paid.

49. Christians should be taught that the Pope's pardons are

useful, if they do not put their trust in them, but most

hurtful, if through them they lose the fear of God.

50. Christians should be taught that, if the Pope were

acquainted with the exactions of the preachers of pardons, he

would prefer that the Basilica of St. Peter should be burnt to

ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh,

and bones of his sheep.

51. Christians should be taught that, as it would be the duty,

so it would be the wish of the Pope, even to sell, if

necessary, the Basilica of St. Peter, and to give of his own

money to very many of those from whom the preachers of pardons

extract money.

52. Vain is the hope of salvation through letters of pardon,

even if a commissary—nay the Pope himself—were to pledge his

own soul for them.

53. They are enemies of Christ and of the Pope, who, in order

that pardons may be preached, condemn the word of God to utter

silence in other churches.

54. Wrong is done to the word of God when, in the same sermon,

an equal or longer time is spent on pardons that [than] on it.

55. The mind of the Pope necessarily is that, if pardons,

which are a very small matter, are celebrated with single

bells, single processions, and single ceremonies, the Gospel,

which is a very great matter, should be preached with a

hundred bells, a hundred processions, and a hundred

ceremonies.

56. The treasures of the Church, whence the Pope grants

indulgences, are neither sufficiently named nor known among

the people of Christ.

{2448}

57. It is clear that they are at least not temporal treasures,

for these are not so readily lavished, but only accumulated,

by many of the preachers.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and of the saints, for

these, independently of the Pope, are always working grace to

the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell to the outer

man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church are the

poor of the Church, but he spoke according to the use of the

word in his time.

60. We are not speaking rashly when we say that the keys of

the Church, bestowed through the merits of Christ, are that

treasure.

61. For it is clear that the power of the Pope is alone

sufficient for the remission of penalties and of reserved

cases.

62. The true treasure of the Church is the Holy Gospel of the

glory and grace of God.

63. This treasure, however, is deservedly most hateful,

because it makes the first to be last.

64. While the treasure of indulgences is deservedly most

acceptable, because it makes the last to be first.

65. Hence the treasures of the Gospel are nets, wherewith of

old they fished for the men of riches.

66. The treasures of indulgences are nets, wherewith they now

fish for the riches of men.

67. Those indulgences, which the preachers loudly proclaim to

be the greatest graces, are seen to be truly such as regards

the promotion of gain.

68. Yet they are in reality in no degree to be compared to the

grace of God and the piety of the cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to receive the commissaries

of apostolic pardons with all reverence.

70. But they are still more bound to see to it with all their

eyes, and take heed with all their ears, that these men do not

preach their own dreams in place of the Pope's commission.

71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let

him be anathema and accursed.

72. But he, on the other hand, who exerts himself against the

wantonness and licence of speech of the preachers of pardons,

let him be blessed.

73. As the Pope justly thunders against those who use any kind

of contrivance to the injury of the traffic in pardons.

74. Much more is it his intention to thunder against those

who, under the pretext of pardons, use contrivances to the

injury of holy charity and of truth.

75. To think that Papal pardons have such power that they

could absolve a man even if—by an impossibility—he had

violated the Mother of God, is madness.

76. We affirm on the contrary that Papal] pardons cannot take

away even the least of venial sins, as regards its guilt.

77. The saying that, even if St. Peter were now Pope, he could

grant no greater graces, is blasphemy against St. Peter and

the Pope.

78. We affirm on the contrary that both he and any other Pope

has greater graces to grant, namely, the Gospel, powers, gifts

of healing, etc. (1 Corinthians xii. 9).

79. To say that the cross set up among the insignia of the

Papal arms is of equal power with the cross of Christ, is

blasphemy.

80. Those bishops, curates, and theologians who allow such

discourses to have currency among the people, will have to

render an account.

81. This licence in the preaching of pardons makes it no easy

thing, even for learned men, to protect the reverence due to

the Pope against the calumnies, or, at all events, the keen

questionings of the laity.

82. As for instance:—Why does not the Pope empty purgatory for

the sake of most holy charity and of the supreme necessity of

souls—this being the most just of all reasons—if he redeems

an infinite number of souls for the sake of that most fatal

thing money, to be spent on building a basilica—this being a

very slight reason?

83. Again; why do funeral masses and anniversary masses for

the deceased continue, and why does not the Pope return, or

permit the withdrawal of the funds bequeathed for this

purpose, since it is a wrong to pay for those who are already

redeemed?

84. Again; what is this new kindness of God and the Pope, in

that for money's sake, they permit an impious man and an enemy

of God to redeem a pious soul which loves God, and yet do not

redeem that same pious and beloved soul, out of free charity,

on account of its own need?

85. Again; why is it that the penitential canons, long since

abrogated and dead in themselves in very fact and not only by

usage, are yet still redeemed with money, through the granting

of indulgences, as if they were full of life?

86. Again; why does not the Pope, whose riches are at this day

more ample than those of the wealthiest of the wealthy, build

the one basilica of St. Peter with his own money, rather than

with that of poor believers?

87. Again; what does the Pope remit or impart to those who,

through perfect contrition, have a right to plenary remission

and participation?

88. Again; what greater good would the Church receive if the

Pope, instead of once, as he does now, were to bestow these

remissions and participations a hundred times a day on any one

of the faithful?

89. Since it is the salvation of souls, rather than money,

that the Pope seeks by his pardons, why does he suspend the

letters and pardons granted long ago, since they are equally

efficacious.

90. To repress these scruples and arguments of the laity by

force alone, and not to solve them by giving reasons, is to

expose the Church and the Pope to the ridicule of their

enemies, and to make Christian men unhappy.

91. If then pardons were preached according to the spirit and

mind of the Pope, all these questions would be resolved with

ease; nay, would not exist.

92. Away then with all those prophets who say to the people of

Christ: 'Peace, peace,' and there is no peace.

93. Blessed be all those prophets, who say to the people of

Christ: 'The cross, the cross,' and there is no cross.

94. Christians should be exhorted to strive to follow Christ

their head through pains, deaths, and hells.

95. And thus trust to enter heaven through many tribulations,

rather than in the security of peace."

H. Wace and C. A. Buchheim,

First Principles of the Reformation,

page 6-13.

PAPACY: A. D. 1517-1521.

Favoring circumstances under which the Reformation in Germany

gained ground.

The Bull "Exurge Domine."

Excommunication of Luther.

The imperial summons from Worms.

"It was fortunate for Luther's cause that he lived under a

prince like the Elector of Saxony. Frederick, indeed, was a

devout catholic; he had made a pilgrimage to Palestine, and

had filled All Saints' Church at Wittenberg with relics for

which he had given large sums of money. His attention,

however, was now entirely engrossed by his new university, and

he was unwilling to offer up to men like Tetzel so great an

ornament of it as Dr. Martin Luther, since whose appointment

at Wittenberg the number of students had so wonderfully

increased as to throw the universities of Erfurt and Leipsic

quite into the shade. …

{2449}

As one of the principal Electors he was completely master in

his own dominions, and indeed throughout Germany he was as

much respected as the Emperor; and Maximilian, besides his

limited power, was deterred by his political views from taking

any notice of the quarrel. Luther had thus full liberty to

prepare the great movement that was to ensue. … The contempt

entertained by Pope Leo X. for the whole affair was also

favourable to Luther; for Frederick might not at first have

been inclined to defend him against the Court of Rome. … The

Court of Rome at length became more sensible of the importance

of Luther's innovations and in August 1518, he was commanded

either to recant, or to appear and answer for his opinions at

Rome, where Silvester Prierias and the bishop Ghenucci di

Arcoli had been appointed his judges. Luther had not as yet

dreamt of throwing off his allegiance to the Roman See. In the

preceding May he had addressed a letter to the Pope himself,

stating his views in a firm but modest and respectful tone,

and declaring that he could not retract them. The Elector

Frederick, at the instance of the university of Wittenberg,

which trembled for the life of its bold and distinguished

professor, prohibited Luther's journey to Rome, and expressed

his opinion that the question should be decided in Germany by

impartial judges. Leo consented to send a legate to Augsburg

to determine the cause, and selected for that purpose Cardinal

Thomas di Vio, better known by the name of Cajetanus, derived

from his native city of Gaeta. … Luther set out for Augsburg

on foot provided with several letters of recommendation from

the Elector, and a safe conduct from the Emperor Maximilian. …

Luther appeared before the cardinal for the first time,

October 12th, at whose feet he fell; but it was soon apparent

that no agreement could be expected. … Cajetanus, who had at

first behaved with great moderation and politeness, grew warm,

demanded an unconditional retraction, forbade Luther again to

appear before him till he was prepared to make it, and

threatened him with the censures of the Church. The fate of

Huss stared Luther in the face, and he determined to fly. His

patron Staupitz procured him a horse, and on the 20th of

October, Langemantel, a magistrate of Augsburg, caused a

postern in the walls to be opened for him before day had well

dawned. … Cajetanus now wrote to the Elector Frederick

complaining of Luther's refractory departure from Augsburg,

and requiring either that he should be sent to Rome or at

least be banished from Saxony. … So uncertain were Luther's

prospects that he made preparations for his departure. … At

length, just on the eve of his departure, he received an

intimation from Frederick that he might remain at Wittenberg.

Before the close of the year he gained a fresh accession of

strength by the arrival of Melanchthon, a pupil of Reuchlin,

who had obtained the appointment of Professor of Greek in the

university. Frederick offered a fresh disputation at

Wittenberg; but Leo X. adopted a course more consonant with

the pretensions of an infallible Church by issuing a Bull

dated November 9th 1518, which, without adverting to Luther or

his opinions, explained and enforced the received doctrine of

indulgences. It failed, however, to produce the desired

effect. … Leo now tried the effects of seduction. Carl Von

Miltitz, a Saxon nobleman, canon of Mentz, Treves, and

Meissen, … was despatched to the Elector Frederick with the

present of a golden rose, and with instructions to put an end,

as best he might, to the Lutheran schism. On his way through

Germany, Miltitz soon perceived that three fourths of the

people were in Luther's favour; nor was his reception at the

Saxon Court of a nature to afford much encouragement. …

Miltitz saw the necessity for conciliation. Having obtained an

interview with Luther at Altenburg, Miltitz persuaded him to

promise that he would be silent, provided a like restraint

were placed upon his adversaries. … Luther was even induced to

address a letter to the Pope, dated from Altenburg, March 3rd

1510, in which, in humble terms, he expressed his regret that

his motives should have been misinterpreted, and solemnly

declared that he did not mean to dispute the power and

authority of the Pope and the Church of Rome, which he

considered superior to everything except Jesus Christ alone. …

The truce effected by Miltitz lasted only a few months. It was

broken by a disputation to which Dr. Eck challenged

Bodenstein, a Leipsic professor, better known by the name of

Carlstadt. … The Leipsic disputation was preceded and followed

by a host of controversies. The whole mind of Germany was in

motion, and it was no longer with Luther alone that Rome had

to contend. All the celebrated names in art and literature

sided with the Reformation; Erasmus, Ulrich von Hutten,

Melanchthon, Lucas Cranach, Albert Durer, and others. Hans

Sachs, the Meistersänger of Nuremberg, composed in his honour

the pretty song called 'the Wittenberg Nightingale.' Silvester

von Schaumburg and Franz von Sickingen invited Luther to their

castles, in case he were driven from Saxony; and Schaumburg

declared that 100 more Franconian knights were ready to

protect him. … The Elector Frederick became daily more

convinced that his doctrines were founded in Scripture. …

Meanwhile, Luther had made great strides in his opinions since

the publication of his Theses. … He had begun to impugn many

of the principles of the Romish church; and so far from any

longer recognising the paramount authority of the Pope, or

even of a general council, he was now disposed to submit to no

rule but the Bible. The more timid spirits were alarmed at his

boldness, and even Frederick himself exhorted him to

moderation. It must be acknowledged, indeed, that Luther

sometimes damaged his cause by the intemperance of his

language; an instance of which is afforded by the remarkable

letter he addressed to Leo X., April 6th 1520, as a dedication

to his treatise 'De Libertate Christiana.' … The letter just

alluded to was, perhaps, the immediate cause of the famous

Bull, 'Exurge Domine,' which Leo fulminated against Luther,

June 15th 1520. The Bull, which is conceived in mild terms,

condemned forty-one propositions extracted from Luther's

works, allowed him sixty days to recant, invited him to Rome,

if he pleased to come, under a safe conduct, and required him

to cease from preaching and writing, and to burn his published

treatises. If he did not conform within the above period, he

was condemned as a notorious and irreclaimable heretic; all

princes and magistrates were required to seize him and his

adherents, and to send them to Rome; and all places that gave

them shelter were threatened with an interdict.

{2450}

The Bull was forwarded to Archbishop Albert of Mentz; but in

North Germany great difficulty was found in publishing it. …

On December 10th Luther consummated his rebellion by taking

that final step which rendered it impossible for him to

recede. On the banks of the Elbe before the Elster Gate of

Wittenberg, … Luther, in the presence of a large body of

professors and students, solemnly committed with his own hands

to the flames the Bull by which he had been condemned,

together with the code of the canon law, and the writings of

Eck and Emser, his opponents. … On January 3rd 1521, Luther

and his followers were solemnly excommunicated by Leo with

bell, book, and candle, and an image of him, together with his

writings, was committed to the flames. … At the Diet of Worms

which was held soon after, the Emperor [Charles V., who

succeeded Maximilian in 1519] having ordered that Luther's

books should be delivered up to the magistrates to be burnt,

the States represented to him the uselessness and impolicy of

such a step, pointing out that the doctrines of Luther had

already sunk deep into the hearts of the people; and they

recommended that he should be summoned to Worms and

interrogated whether he would recant without any disputation.

… In compliance with the advice of the States, the Emperor

issued a mandate, dated March 6th 1521, summoning Luther to

appear at Worms within twenty-one days. It was accompanied

with a safe conduct."

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

L. von Ranke,

History of the Reformation in Germany,

book 2 (volume 1).

P. Bayne,

Martin Luther: his Life and Work,

book 5, chapter 3;

book 8, chapter 6 (volumes 1-2).

J. E. Darras,

History of the Church,

7th period, chapter 1 (volume 4).

P. Schaff,

History of the Christian Church,

volume 6, chapter 4.

PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524.

The sale of Indulgences in Switzerland.

Beginning of the Reformation under Zwingli.

Near the close of the year 1518, Ulric Zwingle, or Zwingli, or

Zuinglius, already much respected for his zealous piety and

his learning, "was appointed preacher in the collegiate church

at Zurich. The crisis of his appearance on this scene was so

extraordinary as to indicate to every devout mind a

providential dispensation, designed to raise up a second

instrument in the work of reformation, and that, almost by the

same means which had been employed to produce the first. One

Bernhard Samson, or Sanson, a native of Milan, and a

Franciscan monk, selected this moment to open a sale of

indulgences at Zurich. He was the Tetzel of Switzerland. He

preached through many of its provinces, exercising the same

trade, with the same blasphemous pretensions and the same

clamorous effrontery; and in a land of greater political

freedom his impostures excited even a deeper and more general

disgust. … He encountered no opposition till he arrived at

Zurich. But here appears a circumstance which throws a shade

of distinction between the almost parallel histories of Samson

and Tetzel. The latter observed in his ministration all the

necessary ecclesiastical forms; the former omitted to present

his credentials to the bishop of the diocese, and acted solely

on the authority of the pontifical bulls: Hugo, Bishop of

Constance, was offended at this disrespectful temerity, and

immediately directed Zwingle and the other pastors to exclude

the stranger from their churches. The first who had occasion

to show obedience to this mandate was John Frey, minister of

Staufberg. Bullinger, Dean of Bremgarten, was the second. From

Bremgarten, after a severe altercation which ended by the

excommunication of that dignitary, Samson proceeded to Zurich.

Meanwhile Zwingle had been engaged for about two months in

rousing the indignation of the people against the same object;

and so successfully did he support the instruction of the

Bishop, and such efficacy was added to his eloquence by the

personal unpopularity of Samson, that the senate determined

not so much as to admit him within the gates of the city. A

deputation of honour was appointed to welcome the pontifical

legate without the walls. He was then commanded to absolve the

Dean from the sentence launched against him, and to depart

from the canton. He obeyed, and presently turned his steps

towards Italy and repassed the mountains. This took place at

the end of February, 1519. The Zurichers immediately addressed

a strong remonstrance to the Pope, in which they denounced the

misconduct of his agent. Leo replied, on the last of April,

with characteristic mildness; for though he maintained, as

might be expected, the Pope's authority to grant those

indulgences, … yet he accorded the prayer of the petition so

far as to recall the preacher, and to promise his punishment,

should he be convicted of having exceeded his commission. …

But Zwingle's views were not such as long to be approved by an

episcopal reformer in that [the Roman] church. … He began to

invite the Bishop, both by public and private solicitations,

with perfect respect but great earnestness, to give his

adhesion to the evangelical truth … and to permit the free

preaching of the gospel throughout his diocese. … From the

beginning of his preaching at Zurich it was his twofold object

to instruct the people in the meaning, design, and character

of the scriptural writings; and at the same time to teach them

to seek their religion only there. His very first proceeding

was to substitute the gospel of St. Matthew, as the text-book

of his discourses, for the scraps of Scripture exclusively

treated by the papal preachers; and he pursued this purpose by

next illustrating the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistles

of Paul and Peter. He considered the doctrine of justification

by faith as the corner-stone of Christianity, and he strove to

draw away his hearers from the gross observances of a

pharasaical church to a more spiritual conception of the

covenant of their redemption. … His success was so

considerable, that at the end of 1519 he numbered as many as

2,000 disciples; and his influence so powerful among the

chiefs of the commonwealth, that he procured, in the following

year, an official decree to the effect: That all pastors and

ministers should thenceforward reject the unfaithful devices

and ordinances of men, and teach with freedom such doctrines

only as rested on the authority of the prophecies, gospels,

and apostolical epistles."

G. Waddington,

History of the Reformation,

chapter 27 (volume 2).

{2451}

"With unflagging zeal and courage Zwingli followed his ideal

in politics, viz., to rear a republic on the type of the Greek

free states of old, with perfect national independence. Thanks

to his influence Zurich in 1521 abolished 'Reislaufen,' and

the system of foreign pay [mercenary military service]. This

step, however, brought down on the head of Zurich the wrath of

the twelve sister republics, which had just signed a military

contract with Francis I. … It was only in 1522 that he began

to launch pamphlets against the abuses in the Church-fasting,

celibacy of the clergy and the like. On the 29th of January,

1523, Zwingli obtained from the Council of Zurich the opening

of a public religious discussion in presence of the whole of

the clergy of the canton, and representatives of the Bishop of

Constance, whose assistance in the debate the Council had

invited. In 67 theses, remarkable for their penetration and

clearness, he sketched out his confession of faith and plan of

reform. … On the 25th of October, 1523, a second discussion

initiated the practical consequences of the reformed

doctrine—the abrogation of the mass and image worship.

Zwingli's system was virtually that of Calvin, but was

conceived in a broader spirit, and carried out later on in a

far milder manner by Bullinger. … The Council gave the fullest

approval to the Reformation. In 1524 Zwingli married Anne

Reinhard, the widow of a Zurich nobleman (Meyer von Knonau),

and so discarded the practice of celibacy obtaining amongst

priests. … In 1524 Zwingli began to effect the most sweeping

changes with the view of overthrowing the whole fabric of

mediæval superstition. In the direction of reform he went far

beyond Luther, who had retained oral confession, altar

pictures, &c. The introduction of his reforms in Zurich called

forth but little opposition. True, there were the risings of

the Anabaptists, but these were the same everywhere. …

Pictures and images were removed from the churches, under

government direction. … At the Landgemeinden [parish

gatherings] called for the purpose, the people gave an

enthusiastic assent to his doctrines, and declared themselves

ready 'to die for the gospel truth.' Thus a national Church

was established, severed from the diocese of Constance, and

placed under the control of the Council of Zurich and a

clerical synod. The convents were turned into schools,

hospitals, and poorhouses."

Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,

Switzerland,

chapter 22.

ALSO IN:

H. Stebbing,

History of the Reformation,

chapter 7 (volume l).

C. Beard,

The Reformation

(Hibbert Lectures, 1883).

lecture 7.

J. H. Merle D'Aubigné.

History of the Reformation,

books 8 and 11 (volumes 2-3).

M. J. Spalding.

History of the Protestant Reformation,

part 2, chapter 5.

P. Schaff,

History of the Christian Church,

volume 7, chapters 1-3.

PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1522.

Luther before the Diet at Worms.

His friendly abduction and concealment at Wartburg.

His translation of the Bible.

"On the 2nd of April [1521], the Tuesday after Easter, Luther

set out on his momentous journey. He travelled in a cart with

three of his friends, the herald riding in front in his coat

of arms. … The Emperor had not waited for his appearance to

order his books to be burnt. When he reached Erfurt on the way

the sentence had just been proclaimed. The herald asked him if

he still meant to go on. 'I will go,' he said, 'if there are

as many devils in Worms as there are tiles upon the

house-tops. Though they burnt Huss, they could not burn the

truth.' The Erfurt students, in retaliation, had thrown the

Bull into the water. The Rector and the heads of the

university gave Luther a formal reception as an old and

honoured member; he preached at his old convent, and he

preached again at Gotha and at Eisenach. Caietan had

protested against the appearance in the Diet of an

excommunicated heretic. The Pope himself had desired that the

safe–conduct should not be respected, and the bishops had said

that it was unnecessary. Manœvres were used to delay him on

the road till the time allowed had expired. But there was a

fierce sense of fairness in the lay members of the Diet, which

it was dangerous to outrage. Franz von Sickingen hinted that

if there was foul play it might go hard with Cardinal

Caietan—and Von Sickingen was a man of his word in such

matters. On the 16th of April, at ten in the morning, the cart

entered Worms, bringing Luther in his monk's dress, followed

and attended by a crowd of cavaliers. The town's people were

all out to see the person with whose name Germany was ringing.

As the cart passed through the gales the warder on the walls

blew a blast upon his trumpet. … Luther needed God to stand by

him, for in all that great gathering he could count on few

assured friends. The princes of the empire were resolved that

he should have fair play, but they were little inclined to

favour further a disturber of the public peace. The Diet sate

in the Bishop's palace, and the next evening Luther appeared.

The presence in which he found himself would have tried the

nerves of the bravest of men: the Emperor, sternly hostile,

with his retinue of Spanish priests and nobles; the

archbishops and bishops, all of opinion that the stake was the

only fitting place for so insolent a heretic; the dukes and

barons, whose stern eyes were little likely to reveal their

sympathy, if sympathy any of them felt. One of them only,

George of Frundsberg, had touched Luther on the shoulder as he

passed through the ante–room. 'Little monk, little monk,' he

said, 'thou hast work before thee, that I, and many a man

whose trade is war, never faced the like of. If thy heart is

right, and thy cause good, go on in God's name. He will not

forsake thee. A pile of books stood on a table when he was

brought forward. An officer of the court read the titles,

asked if he acknowledged them, and whether he was ready to

retract them. Luther was nervous, not without cause. He

answered in a low voice that the books were his. To the other

question he could not reply at once. He demanded time. His

first appearance had not left a favourable impression; he was

allowed a night to consider. The next morning, April 18, he

had recovered himself; he came in fresh, courageous, and

collected. His old enemy, Eck, was this time the spokesman

against him, and asked what he was prepared to do. He said

firmly that his writings were of three kinds: some on simple

Gospel truth, which all admitted, and which of course he could

not retract; some against Papal laws and customs, which had

tried the consciences of Christians and had been used as

excuses to oppress and spoil the German people. If he

retracted these he would cover himself with shame. In a third

sort he had attacked particular persons, and perhaps had been

too violent. Even here he declined to retract simply, but

would admit his fault if fault could be proved. He gave his

answers in a clear strong voice, in Latin first, and then in

German.

{2452}

There was a pause, and then Eck said that he had spoken

disrespectfully; his heresies had been already condemned at

the Council at Constance; let him retract on these special

points, and he should have consideration for the rest. He

required a plain Yes or No from him, 'without horns.' The

taunt roused Luther's blood. His full brave self was in his

reply. 'I will give you an answer,' he said, 'which has

neither horns nor teeth. Popes have erred and councils have

erred. Prove to me out of Scripture that I am wrong, and I

submit. Till then my conscience binds me. Here I stand. I can

do no more. God help me. Amen.' All day long the storm raged.

Night had fallen, and torches were lighted in the hall before

the sitting closed. Luther was dismissed at last; it was

supposed, and perhaps intended, that he was to be taken to a

dungeon. But the hearts of the lay members of the Diet had

been touched by the courage which he had shown. They would not

permit a hand to be laid on him. … When he had reached his

lodging again, he flung up his hands. 'I am through!' he

cried. 'I am through! If I had a thousand heads they should be

struck off one by one before I would retract.' The same

evening the Elector Frederick sent for him, and told him he

had done well and bravely. But though he had escaped so far,

he was not acquitted. Charles conceived that he could be now

dealt with as an obstinate heretic. At the next session (the

day following), he informed the Diet that he would send Luther

home to Wittenberg, there to be punished as the Church

required. The utmost that his friends could obtain was that

further efforts should be made. The Archbishop of Treves was

allowed to tell him that if he would acknowledge the

infallibility of councils, he might be permitted to doubt the

infallibility of the Pope. But Luther stood simply upon

Scripture. There, and there only, was infallibility. The

Elector ordered him home at once, till the Diet should decide

upon his fate. … A majority in the Diet, it was now clear,

would pronounce for his death. If he was sentenced by the

Great Council of the Empire, the Elector would be no longer

able openly to protect him. It was decided that he should

disappear, and disappear so completely that no trace of him

should be discernible. On his way back through the Thuringian

Forest, three or four miles from Altenstein, a party of armed

men started out of the wood, set upon his carriage, seized and

carried him off to Wartburg Castle. There he remained, passing

by the name of the Ritter George, and supposed to be some

captive knight. The secret was so well kept, that even the

Elector's brother was ignorant of his hiding place. Luther was

as completely lost as if the earth had swallowed him. … On the

8th of May the Edict of Worms was issued, placing him under

the ban of the empire; but he had become 'as the air

invulnerable,' and the face of the world had changed before he

came back to it: … Luther's abduction and residence at

Wartburg is the most picturesque incident in his life. He

dropped his monk's gown, and was dressed like a gentleman; he

let his beard grow and wore a sword. … The revolution,

deprived of its leader, ran wild meanwhile. An account of the

scene at Worms, with Luther's speeches, and wood cut

illustrations, was printed on broadsheets and circulated in

hundreds of thousands of copies. The people were like

schoolboys left without a master. Convents and monasteries

dissolved by themselves; monks and nuns began to marry; there

was nothing else for the nuns to do, turned as they were

adrift without provision. The Mass in most of the churches in

Saxony was changed into a Communion. But without Luther it was

all chaos, and no order could be taken. So great was the need

of him, that in December he went to Wittenberg in disguise;

but it was not yet safe for him to remain there. He had to

retreat to his castle again, and in that compelled retreat he

bestowed on Germany the greatest of all the gifts which he was

able to offer. He began to translate the Bible into clear

vernacular German. … He had probably commenced the work at the

beginning of his stay at the castle. In the spring of 1522 the

New Testament was completed. In the middle of March, the

Emperor's hands now being fully occupied, the Elector sent him

word that he need not conceal himself any longer; and he

returned finally to his home and his friends. The New

Testament was printed in November of that year, and became at

once a household book in Germany. … The Old Testament was

taken in hand at once, and in two years half of it was roughly

finished."

J. A. Froude,

Luther: a Short Biography,

pages 28-35.

ALSO IN:

G. Waddington,

History of the Reformation,

chapters 13-14 (volume 1).

W. Robertson,

History of the Reign of Charles V.,

book 2 (volume 1).

C. Beard,

Martin Luther and the Reformation,

chapter 9.

J. Köstlin,

Life of Luther,

part 3, chapter 9.

PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.

Beginning of the Protestant Reform movement in France.

Hesitation of Francis I.

His final persecution of the Reformers.

"The long contest for Gallican rights had lowered the prestige

of the popes in France, but it had not weakened the Catholic

Church, which was older than the monarchy itself, and, in the

feeling of the people, was indissolubly associated with it.

The College of the Sorbonne, or the Theological Faculty at

Paris, and the Parliament, which had together maintained

Gallican liberty, were united in stern hostility to all

doctrinal innovations. … In Southern France a remnant of the

Waldenses had survived, and the recollection of the

Catharists was still preserved in popular songs and legends.

But the first movements towards reform emanated from the

Humanist culture. A literary and scientific spirit was

awakened in France through the lively intercourse with Italy

which subsisted under Louis XII. and Francis I. By Francis

especially, Italian scholars and artists were induced in large

numbers to take up their abode in France. Frenchmen likewise

visited Italy and brought home the classical culture which

they acquired there. Among the scholars who cultivated Greek

was Budæus, the foremost of them, whom Erasmus styled the

'wonder of France.' After the 'Peace of the Dames' was

concluded at Cambray, in 1529, when Francis surrendered Italy

to Charles V., a throng of patriotic Italians who feared or

hated the Spanish rule, streamed over the Alps and gave a new

impulse to literature and art. Poets, artists, and scholars

found in the king a liberal and enthusiastic patron. The new

studies, especially Hebrew and Greek, were opposed by all the

might of the Sorbonne, the leader of which was the Syndic,

Beda. He and his associates were on the watch for heresy, and

every author who was suspected of overstepping the bounds of

orthodoxy was immediately accused and subjected to

persecution.

{2453}

Thus two parties were formed, the one favorable to the new

learning, and the other inimical to it and rigidly wedded to

the traditional theology. The Father of the French

Reformation, or the one more entitled to this distinction than

any other, is Jacques Lefèvre. … Lefèvre was honored among the

Humanists as the restorer of philosophy and science in the

University. Deeply imbued with a religious spirit, in 1509 he

put forth a commentary on the Psalms, and in 1512 a commentary

on the Epistles of Paul. As early as about 1512, he said to

his pupil Farel: 'God will renovate the world, and you will be

a witness of it'; and in the last named work; he says that the

signs of the times betoken that a renovation of the Church is

near at hand. He teaches the doctrine of gratuitous

justification, and deals with the Scriptures as the supreme

and sufficient authority. But a mystical, rather than a

polemical vein characterizes him; and while this prevented him

from breaking with the Church, it also blunted the sharpness

of the opposition which his opinions were adapted to produce.

One of his pupils was Briçonnet, Bishop of Meaux, who held the

same view of justification with Lefèvre, and fostered the

evangelical doctrine in his diocese. The enmity of the

Sorbonne to Lefèvre and his school took a more aggressive form

when the writings of Luther began to be read in the University

and elsewhere. … The Sorbonne [1521] formally condemned a

dissertation of Lefèvre on a point of evangelical history, in

which he had controverted the traditional opinion. He, with

Farel, Gérard Roussel, and other preachers, found an asylum

with Briçonnet. Lefèvre translated the New Testament from the

Vulgate, and, in a commentary on the Gospels, explicitly

pronounced the Bible the sole rule of faith, which the

individual might interpret for himself, and declared

justification to be through faith alone, without human works

or merit. It seemed as if Meaux aspired to become another

Wittenberg. At length a commission of parliament was appointed

to take cognizance of heretics in that district. Briçonnet,

either intimidated, as Beza asserts, or recoiling at the sight

of an actual secession from the Church, joined in the

condemnation of Luther and of his opinions, and even

acquiesced in the persecution which fell upon Protestantism

within his diocese. Lefèvre fled to Strasburg, was afterwards

recalled by Francis I., but ultimately took up his abode in

the court of the King's sister, Margaret, the Queen of

Navarre. Margaret, from the first, was favorably inclined to

the new doctrines. There were two parties at the court. The

mother of the King, Louisa of Savoy, and the Chancellor

Duprat, were allies of the Sorbonne. … Margaret, on the

contrary, a versatile and accomplished princess, cherished a

mystical devotion which carried her beyond Briçonnet in her

acceptance of the teaching of the Reformers. … Before the

death of her first husband, the Duke of Alençon, and while she

was a widow, she exerted her influence to the full extent in

behalf of the persecuted Protestants, and in opposition to the

Sorbonne. After her marriage to Henry d'Albret, the King of

Navarre, she continued, in her own little court and

principality, to favor the reformed doctrine and its

professors. …

See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563].

The drift of her influence appears in the character of her

daughter, the heroic Jeanne d'Albret, the mother of Henry IV.,

and in the readiness of the people over whom Margaret

immediately ruled to receive the Protestant faith. … Francis

I., whose generous patronage of artists and men of letters

gave him the title of 'Father of Science,' had no love for the

Sorbonne, for the Parliament, or for the monks. He entertained

the plan of bringing Erasmus to Paris, and placing him at the

head of an institution of learning. He read the Bible with his

mother and sister, and felt no superstitious aversion to the

leaders of reform. … The revolt of the Constable Bourbon [see

FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523] made it necessary for Francis to

conciliate the clergy; and the battle of Pavia, followed by

the captivity of the King, and the regency of his mother, gave

a free rein to the persecutors. An inquisitorial court,

composed partly of laymen, was ordained by Parliament.

Heretics were burned at Paris and in the provinces. Louis de

Berquin, who combined a culture which won the admiration of

Erasmus, with the religious earnestness of Luther, was thrown

into prison." Three times the King interposed and rescued him

from the persecutors; but at last, in November, 1529, Berquin

was hanged and burned.

G. P. Fisher,

The Reformation,

chapter 8.

"Such scenes [as the execution of Berquin], added to the

preaching and dissemination of the Scriptures and religious

tracts, caused the desire for reform to spread far and wide.

In the autumn of 1534, a violent placard against the mass was

posted about Paris, and one was even fixed on the king's own

chamber. The cry was soon raised, 'Death! death to the

heretics!' Francis had long dallied with the Reformation. …

Now … he develops into what was quite contrary to his

disposition, a cruel persecutor. A certain bourgeois of Paris,

unaffected by any heretical notions, kept in those days a

diary of what was going on in Paris, and from this precious

document … we learn that between the 13th of November, 1534,

and the 13th of March, 1535, twenty so-called Lutherans were

put to death in Paris. … The panic caused by the Anabaptist

outbreak at Munster may perhaps account for the extreme

cruelty, … as the siege was in actual progress at the time. It

was to defend the memories of the martyrs of the 29th of

January, 1535, and of others who had suffered elsewhere, and

to save, if possible, those menaced with a similar fate, that

Calvin wrote his 'Institution of the Christian Religion.' A

timid, feeble-bodied young student, he had fled from France

[1535], in the hope of finding some retreat where he might

lose himself in the studies he loved. Passing through Geneva

[1536] with the intention of staying there only for a night,

he met the indefatigable, ubiquitous, enterprising, courageous

Farel, who, taking him by the hand, adjured him to stop and

carry on the work in that city. Calvin shrank instinctively,

but … was forced to yield. … Calvin once settled at Geneva had

no more doubt about his calling than if he had been Moses

himself."

R. Heath,

The Reformation in France,

book 1, chapters 2-3.

ALSO IN:

H. M. Baird,

History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France,

chapters 2-4 (volume 1).

R. T. Smith,

The Church in France,

chapter 12.

PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1555.

Beginnings of the Reformation in the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555.

{2454}

PAPACY: A. D. 1522.

Election of Adrian VI.

PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

The deepening and strengthening of the Lutheran Reformation

and its systematic organization.

The two diets of Nuremberg.

The Catholic League of Ratisbon.

The formal adoption of the Reformed Religion in Northern Germany.

"Fortunately for the reformation, the emperor was prevented

from executing the edict of Worms by his absence from Germany,

by the civil commotions in Spain, and still more by the war

with Francis I., which extended into Spain, the Low Countries,

and Italy, and for above eight years involved him in a

continued series of contests and negotiations at a distance

from Germany. His brother, Ferdinand, on whom, as joint

president of the council of regency, the administration of

affairs devolved, was occupied in quelling the discontents in

the Austrian territories, and defending his right to the

crowns of Hungary and Bohemia; and thus the government of the

empire was left to the council of regency, of which several

members were inclined to favour innovation, In consequence of

these circumstances, the Lutherans were enabled to overcome

the difficulties to which innovators of every kind are

exposed; and they were no less favoured by the changes at the

court of Rome. Leo dying in 1521, Adrian, his successor, who,

by the influence of Charles, was raised to the pontifical

chair, on the 9th of January, 1522, saw and lamented the

corruptions of the church, and his ingenuous, but impolitic

confessions, that the whole church, both in its head and

members, required a thorough reformation, strengthened the

arguments of his opponents. … Nothing, perhaps, proved more

the surprising change of opinion in Germany, the rapid

increase of those whom we shall now distinguish by the name of

Lutherans, and the commencement of a systematic opposition to

the church of Rome, than the transactions of the two diets of

Nuremberg, which were summoned by the archduke Ferdinand,

principally for the purpose of enforcing the execution of the

edict of Worms. In a brief dated in November, 1522, and

addressed to the first diet, pope Adrian, after severely

censuring the princes of the empire for not carrying into

execution the edict of Worms, exhorted them, if mild and

moderate measures failed, to cut off Luther from the body of

the church, as a gangrened and incurable member. … At the same

time, with singular inconsistency, he acknowledged the

corruptions of the Roman court as the source of the evils

which overspread the church, [and] promised as speedy a

reformation as the nature of the abuses would admit. … The

members of the diet, availing themselves of his avowal,

advised him to assemble a council in Germany for the

reformation of abuses, and drew up a list of a hundred

grievances which they declared they would no longer tolerate,

and, if not speedily delivered from such burdens, would

procure relief by the authority with which God had intrusted

them. … The recess of the diet, published in March, 1523, was

framed with the same spirit; instead of threats of

persecution, it only enjoined all persons to wait with

patience the determination of a free council, forbade the

diffusion of doctrines likely to create disturbances, and

subjected all publications to the approbation of men of

learning and probity appointed by the magistrate. Finally, it

declared, that as priests who had married, or monks who had

quitted their convents, were not guilty of a civil crime, they

were only amenable to an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and

liable at the discretion of the ordinary to be deprived of

their ecclesiastical privileges and benefices. The Lutherans

derived their greatest advantages from these proceedings, as

the gross corruptions of the church of Rome were now proved by

the acknowledgment of the pontiff himself. … From this period

they confidently appealed to the confession of the pontiff,

and as frequently quoted the hundred grievances which were

enumerated in a public and authentic act of the Germanic body.

They not only regarded the recess as a suspension of the edict

of Worms, but construed the articles in their own favour. …

Hitherto the innovators had only preached against the

doctrines and ceremonies of the Roman church, without

exhibiting a regular system of their own." But now "Luther was

persuaded, at the instances of the Saxon clergy, to form a

regular system of faith and discipline; he translated the

service into the German tongue, modified the form of the mass,

and omitted many superstitious ceremonies; but he made as few

innovations as possible, consistently with his own principles.

To prevent also the total alienation or misuse of the

ecclesiastical revenues, he digested a project for their

administration, by means of an annual committee, and by his

writings and influence effected its introduction. Under this

judicious system the revenues of the church, after a provision

for the clergy, were appropriated for the support of schools;

for the relief of the poor, sick, and aged, of orphans and

widows; for the reparation of churches and sacred buildings;

and for the erection of magazines and the purchase of corn

against periods of scarcity. These regulations and ordinances,

though not established with the public approbation of the

elector, were yet made with his tacit acquiescence, and may be

considered as the first institution of a reformed system of

worship and ecclesiastical polity; and in this institution the

example of the churches of Saxony was followed by all the

Lutheran communities in Germany. The effects of these changes

were soon visible, and particularly at the meeting of the

second diet of Nuremberg, on the 10th of January, 1524. Faber,

canon of Strasburgh, who had been enjoined to make a progress

through Germany for the purpose of preaching against the

Lutheran doctrines, durst not execute his commission, although

under the sanction of a safe conduct from the council of

regency. Even the legate Campegio could not venture to make

his public entry into Nuremberg with the insignia of his

dignity, … for fear of being insulted by the populace. …

Instead, therefore, of annulling the acts of the preceding

diet, the new assembly pursued the same line of conduct. … The

recess was, if possible, still more galling to the court of

Rome, and more hostile to its prerogatives than that of the

former diet. … The Catholics, thus failing in their efforts to

obtain the support of the diet, on the 6th of July, 1524,

entered into an association at Ratisbon, under the auspices of

Campegio, in which the archduke Ferdinand, the duke of

Bavaria, and most of the German bishops concurred, for

enforcing the edict of Worms.

{2455}

At the same time, to conciliate the Germans, the legate

published 29 articles for, the amendment of some abuses; but

these being confined to points of minor importance, and

regarding only the inferior clergy, produced no satisfaction,

and were attended with no effect. Notwithstanding this

formidable union of the Catholic princes, the proceedings of

the diet of Nuremberg were but the prelude to more decisive

innovations, which followed each other with wonderful

rapidity. Frederic the Wise, elector of Saxony, dying in 1525,

was succeeded by his brother, John the Constant, who publicly

espoused and professed the Lutheran doctrines. The system

recently digested by Luther, with many additional alterations,

was introduced by his authority, and declared the established

religion; and by his order the celebrated Melanchthon drew up

an apology in defence of the reformed tenets for the princes

who adopted them. Luther himself, who had in the preceding

year thrown off the monastic habit, soon after the accession

of the new sovereign ventured to give the last proof of his

emancipation from the fetters of the church of Rome, by

espousing, on the 13th of July, 1525, Catherine Bora, a noble

lady, who had escaped from the nunnery at Nimptschen, and

taken up her residence at Wittemberg. The example of the

elector of Saxony was followed by Philip, landgrave of Hesse

Cassel, a prince of great influence and distinguished civil

and military talents; by the dukes of Mecklenburgh, Pomerania,

and Zell; and by the imperial cities of Nuremberg, Strasburgh,

Frankfort, Nordhausen, Magdeburgh, Brunswick, Bremen, and

others of less importance. … Albert, margrave of Brandenburgh,

grand-master of the Teutonic order, … in 1525, renounced his

vow of celibacy, made a public profession of the Lutheran

tenets, and, with the consent of Sigismond, king of Poland,

secularised Eastern Prussia."

W. Coxe,

History of the House of Austria,

chapter 28 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

L. von Ranke,

History of the Reformation in Germany,

book 3, chapters 2-5 (volume 2).

P. Bayne,

Martin Luther: his Life and Work,

books 10-13 (volume 2).

L. Häusser,

The Period of the Reformation,

chapters 5-6.

PAPACY: A. D. 1523.

Election of Clement VII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1523-1527.

The double-dealings of Pope Clement VII. with the emperor

and the king of France.

Imperial revenge.

The sack of Rome.

See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, and 1527.

PAPACY: A. D. 1524.

Institution of the Order of the Theatines.

See THEATINES.

PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

The League of Torgau.

Contradictory action of the Diets at Spires.

The Protest of Lutheran princes which gave

rise to the name "Protestants."

"At the Diet of Nuremberg it had been determined to hold an

assembly shortly after at Spires for the regulation of

ecclesiastical affairs. The princes were to procure beforehand

from their councillors and scholars a statement of the points

in dispute. The grievances of the nation were to be set forth,

and remedies were to be sought for them. The nation was to

deliberate and act on the great matter of religious reform.

The prospect was that the evangelical party would be in the

majority. The papal court saw the danger that was involved in

an assembly gathered for such a purpose, and determined to

prevent the meeting. At this moment war was breaking out

between Charles and Francis. Charles had no inclination to

offend the Pope. He forbade the assembly at Spires, and, by

letters addressed to the princes individually, endeavored to

drive them into the execution of the edict of Worms. In

consequence of these threatening movements, the Elector of

Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse entered into the defensive

league of Torgau, in which they were joined by several

Protestant communities. The battle of Pavia and the capture of

Francis I. [see FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525] were events that

appeared to be fraught with peril to the Protestant cause. In

the Peace of Madrid (January 14, 1526) both sovereigns avowed

the determination to suppress heresy. But the dangerous

preponderance obtained by the Emperor created an alarm

throughout Europe; and the release of Francis was followed by

the organization of a confederacy against Charles, of which

Clement was the leading promoter.

See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

This changed the imperial policy in reference to the

Lutherans. The Diet of Spires in 1526 unanimously resolved

that, until the meeting of a general council, every state

should act in regard to the edict of Worms as it might answer

to God and his imperial majesty. Once more Germany refused to

stifle the Reformation, and adopted the principle that each of

the component parts of the Empire should be left free to act

according to its own will. It was a measure of the highest

importance to the cause of Protestantism. It is a great

landmark in the history of the German Reformation. The war of

the Emperor and the Pope involved the necessity of tolerating

the Lutherans. In 1527, an imperial army, composed largely of

Lutheran infantry, captured and sacked the city of Rome. For

several months the Pope was held a prisoner. For a number of

years the position of Charles with respect to France and the

Pope, and the fear of Turkish invasion, had operated to

embolden and greatly strengthen the cause of Luther. But now

that the Emperor had gained a complete victory in Italy, the

Catholic party revived its policy of repression."

G. P. Fisher,

The Reformation,

chapter 4.

"While Charles and Clement were arranging matters in 1529, a

new Diet was held at Spires, and the reactionists exerted

themselves to obtain a reversal of that ordinance of the Diet

of 1526 which had given to the reformed doctrines a legal

position in Germany. Had it heen possible, the Papist leaders

would have forced back the Diet on the old Edict of Worms, but

in this they were baffled. Then they took up another line of

defence and aggression. Where the Worms Edict had been

enforced, it was, they urged, to be maintained; but all

further propagation of the reformed doctrines, all religious

innovation whatever, was to be forbidden, pending the

assemblage of a General Council. … This doom of arrest and

paralysis —this imperious mandate, 'Hitherto shall ye come,

but no further,'—could not be brooked by the followers of

Luther. They possessed the advantage of being admirably led.

Philip of Hesse supplied some elements of sound counsel that

were wanting in Luther himself. … Luther regarded with favour

… the doctrine of passive obedience. It was too much his

notion that devout Germans, if their Emperor commanded them to

renounce the truth, should simply die at the stake without a

murmur. …

{2456}

The most ripe and recent inquiries seem to prove that it was

about this very time, when the Evangelical Princes and Free

Cities of Germany were beginning to put shoulder to shoulder

and organise resistance, in arms if necessary, to the Emperor

and the Pope, that Luther composed 'Ein' feste Burg ist unser

Gott,' a psalm of trust in God, and in God only, as the

protector of Christians. He took no fervent interest, however,

in the Diet; and Philip and his intrepid associates derived

little active support from him. These were inflexibly

determined that the decree of the majority should not be

assented to. Philip of Hesse, John of Saxony, Markgraf George

the Pious of Brandenburg-Anspach, the Dukes of Lunenburg and

Brunswick, the Prince of Anhalt, and the representatives of

Strasburg, Nürnberg, and twelve other free cities [Ulm,

Constance, Reutlingen, Windsheim, Memmingen, Lindau, Kempten,

Heilbron, Isna, Weissemburgh, Nordlingen, and St. Gallen],

entered a solemn protest against the Popish resolution. They

were called Protestants. The name, as is customary with names

that felicitously express and embody facts, was caught up in

Germany and passed into every country in Europe and the

world."

P. Bayne,

Martin Luther, his Life and Work,

book 14, chapter 4 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

L. von Ranke,

History of the Reformation in Germany,

books 4-5 (volumes 2-3).

J. H. Merle D'Aubigne,

History of the Reformation,

book 10, chapter 14,

and book 13, chapter 1-6 (volumes 3-4).

J. Alzog,

Manual of Universal Church History,

section 311 (volume 3).

PAPACY: A. D. 1527-1533.

The rupture with England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534.

PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

The Diet at Augsburg.

Presentation and condemnation of the

Protestant Confession of Faith.

The breach with the Reformation complete.

"In the year 1530, Charles V., seeing France prostrate, Italy

quelled, and Solyman driven within his own boundaries,

determined upon undertaking the decision of the great question

of the Reformation. The two conflicting parties were summoned,

and met at Augsburg. The sectaries of Luther, known by the

general name of protestants, were desirous to be distinguished

from the other enemies of Rome, the excesses committed by whom

would have thrown odium upon their cause; to be distinguished

from the Zwinglian republicans of Switzerland, odious to the

princes and to the nobles; above all, they desired not to be

confounded with the anabaptists, proscribed by all as the

enemies of society and of social order. Luther, over whom

there was still suspended the sentence pronounced against him

at Worms, whereby he was declared a heretic, could not appear

at Augsburg; his place was supplied by the learned and pacific

Melancthon, a man timid and gentle as Erasmus, whose friend he

continued to be, despite of Luther. The elector, however,

conveyed the great reformer as near to the place of

convocation as regard to his friend's personal safety rendered

advisable. He had him stationed in the strong fortress of

Coburg. From this place, Luther was enabled to maintain with

ease and expedition a constant intercourse with the protestant

ministers. … Melancthon believed in the possibility of

effecting a reconciliation between the two parties. Luther, at

a very early period of the schism, saw that they were utterly

irreconcilable. In the commencement of the Reformation, he had

frequently had recourse to conferences and to public

disputations. It was then of moment to him to resort to every

effort, to try, by all the means in his power, to preserve the

bond of Christianity, before he abandoned all hope of so

doing. But towards the close of his life, dating from the

period of the Diet of Augsburg, he openly discouraged and

disclaimed these wordy contests, in which the vanquished would

never avow his defeat. On the 26th of August, 1530, he writes:

'I am utterly opposed to any effort being made to reconcile

the two doctrines; for it is an impossibility, unless, indeed,

the pope will consent to abjure papacy. Let it suffice us that

we have established our belief upon the basis of reason, and

that we have asked for peace. Why hope to convert them to the

truth?' And on the same day (26th August), he tells Spalatin:

'I understand you have undertaken a notable mission—that of

reconciling Luther and the pope. But the pope will not be

reconciled and Luther refuses. Be mindful how you sacrifice

both time and trouble.' … These prophecies were, however,

unheeded: the conferences took place, and the protestants were

required to furnish their profession of faith. This was drawn

up by Melancthon." The Confession, as drawn up by Melancthon,

was adopted and signed by five electors, 30 ecclesiastical

princes, 23 secular princes, 22 abbots, 32 counts and barons,

and 39 free and imperial cities, and has since been known as

the Augsburg Confession.

J. Michelet,

Life of Luther,

(translated by W. Hazlitt),

book 3, chapter 1.

"A difficulty now arose as to the public reading of the

Confession in the Diet. The Protestant princes, who had

severally signed it, contended against the Catholic princes,

that, in fairness, it should be read; and, against the

emperor, that, if read at all, it should be read in German,

and not in Latin. They were successful in both instances, and

the Confession was publicly read in German by Bayer, one of

the two chancellors of the Elector of Saxony, during the

afternoon session of June 25, held in the chapel of the

imperial palace. Campeggio, the Papal Legate, was absent. The

reading occupied two hours, and the powerful effect it

produced was, in a large measure, due to the rich, sonorous

voice of Bayer, and to his distinct articulation and the

musical cadence of his periods. Having finished, he handed the

Confession to the Emperor, who submitted it for examination to

Eck, Conrad Wimpina, Cochlæus, John Faber, and others of the

Catholic theologians present in the Diet." These prepared a

"Confutation" which was "finally agreed upon and read in a

public session of the Diet, held August 3rd, and with which

the Emperor and the Catholic princes expressed themselves

fully satisfied. The Protestant princes were commanded to

disclaim their errors, and return to the allegiance of the

ancient faith, and 'should you refuse,' the Emperor added, 'we

shall regard it a conscientious duty to proceed as our

coronation oath and our office of protector of Holy Church

require.' This declaration roused the indignant displeasure of

the Protestant princes. Philip of Hesse … excited general

alarm by abruptly breaking off the transactions, lately

entered upon between the princes and the bishops, and suddenly

quitting Augsburg. Charles V. now ordered the controverted

points to be discussed in his presence, and appointed seven

Protestants and an equal number of Catholics to put forward

and defend the views of their respective parties."

{2457}

Subsequently Melancthon "prepared and published his 'Apology

for the Augsburg Confession,' which was intended to be an

answer to the 'Confutation' of the Catholic theologians. The

Protestant princes laid a copy of the 'Apology' before the

emperor, who rejected both it and the Confession. … After many

more fruitless attempts to bring about a reconciliation, the

emperor, on the 22nd of September, the day previous to that

fixed for the departure of the Elector of Saxony, published an

edict, in which he stated, among other things, that 'the

Protestants have been refuted by sound and irrefragable

arguments drawn from Holy Scripture.' 'To deny free-will,' he

went on to say, 'and to affirm that faith without works avails

for man's salvation, is to assert what is absurdly erroneous;

for, as we very well know from past experience, were such

doctrines to prevail, all true morality would perish from the

earth. But that the Protestants may have sufficient time to

consider their future course of action, we grant them from

this to the 15th of April of next year for consideration.' On

the following day, Joachim, Elector of Brandenburg, speaking

in the emperor's name, addressed the evangelic princes and

deputies of the Protestant cities as follows: 'His majesty is

extremely amazed at your persisting in the assertion that your

doctrines are based on Holy Scripture. Were your assertion

true, then would it follow that his Majesty's ancestors,

including so many kings and emperors, as well as the ancestors

of the Elector of Saxony, were heretics!' … The Protestant

princes forthwith took their leave of the emperor. On the 13th

of October, the 'Recess,' or decree of the Diet, was read to

the Catholic States, which on the same day entered into a

Catholic League. On the 17th of the same month, sixteen of the

more important German cities refused to aid the emperor in

repelling the Turks, on the ground that peace had not yet been

secured to Germany. The Zwinglian and Lutheran cities were

daily becoming more sympathetic and cordial in their relations

to each other. Charles V. informed the Holy See, October 23,

of his intention of drawing the sword in defence of the faith.

The 'Recess' was read to the Protestant princes November 11,

and rejected by them on the day following, and the deputies of

Hesse and Saxony took their departure immediately after. … The

decree was rather more severe than the Protestants had

anticipated, inasmuch as the emperor declared that he felt it

to be his conscientious duty to defend the ancient faith, and

that 'the Catholic princes had promised to aid him to the full

extent of their power.' … The appointment of the emperor's

brother, Ferdinand, as King of the Romans (1531), gave deep

offence to the Protestant princes, who now expressed their

determination of withholding all assistance from the emperor

until the 'Recess' of Augsburg should have been revoked.

Assembling at Smalkald, … they entered into an alliance

offensive and defensive, known as the League of Smalkald, on

March 29, 1531, to which they severally bound themselves to

remain faithful for a period of six years."

J. Alzog,

Manual of Universal Church History,

section 312 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

H. Worsley,

Life of Luther,

chapter 7 (volume 2).

F. A. Cox,

Life of Melancthon,

chapter 8 (giving the text of the "Augsburg Confession").

See, also,

GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1532.

Protestant League of Smalkalde and

alliance with the king of France.

The Pacification of Nuremberg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

PAPACY: A. D. 1533.

Treaty of Pope Clement VII. with Francis I. of France,

for the marriage of Catherine d'Medici.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

PAPACY: A. D. 1533-1546.

Mercenary aspects of the Reformation in Germany.

The Catholic Holy League.

Preparations for war.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

PAPACY: A. D. 1534.

Election of Paul III.

PAPACY: A. D. 1534-1540.

Beginnings of the Counter-Reformation.

"A well-known sentence in Macaulay's Essay on Ranke's 'History

of the Popes' asserts, correctly enough, that in a particular

epoch of history 'the Church of Rome, having lost a large part

of Europe, not only ceased to lose, but actually regained

nearly half of what she had lost.' Any fairly correct use of

the familiar phrase 'the Counter-Reformation' must imply that

this remarkable result was due to a movement pursuing two

objects, originally distinct, though afterwards largely

blended, viz., the regeneration of the Church of Rome, and the

recovery of the losses inflicted upon her by the early

successes of Protestantism. … The earliest continuous

endeavour to regenerate the Church of Rome without impairing

her cohesion dates from the Papacy of Paul III. [1534-1549],

within which also falls the outbreak of the first religious

war of the century.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

Thus the two impulses which it was the special task of the

Counter-Reformation to fuse were brought into immediate

contact. The onset of the combat is marked by the formal

establishment of the Jesuit Order [1540] as a militant agency

devoted alike to both the purposes of the Counter-Reformation,

and by the meeting of the Council of Trent [1545] under

conditions excluding from its programme the task of

conciliation."

A. W. Ward,

The Counter Reformation,

pages vii-viii.

"I intend to use this term Counter-Reformation to denote the

reform of the Catholic Church, which was stimulated by the

German Reformation, and which, when the Council of Trent had

fixed the dogmas and discipline of Latin Christianity, enabled

the Papacy to assume a militant policy in Europe, whereby it

regained a large portion of the provinces that had previously

lapsed to Lutheran and Calvinistic dissent. … The centre of

the world-wide movement which is termed the

Counter-Reformation was naturally Rome. Events had brought the

Holy See once more into a position of prominence. It was more

powerful as an Italian State now, through the support of Spain

and the extinction of national independence, than at any

previous period of history. In Catholic Christendom its

prestige was immensely augmented by the Council of Trent. At

the same epoch, the foreigners who dominated Italy, threw

themselves with the enthusiasm of fanaticism into this

Revival. Spain furnished Rome with the militia of the Jesuits

and with the engines of the Inquisition. The Papacy was thus

able to secure successes in Italy which were elsewhere only

partially achieved. … In order to understand the transition of

Italy from the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation manner,

it will be well to concentrate attention on the history of the

Papacy during the eight reigns [1534-1605] of Paul III., Julius

III., Paul IV., Pius IV., Pius V., Gregory XIII., Sixtus V.,

and Clement VIII. In the first of these reigns we hardly

notice that the Renaissance has passed away. In the last we

are aware of a completely altered Italy."

J. A. Symonds,

Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,

chapter 2, with foot-note (volume 1).

{2458}

PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

Popular weakness of the Reformation movement in Italy.

Momentary inclination towards the Reform at Rome.

Beginning of the Catholic Reaction.

The Council of Trent and its consolidating work.

"The conflict with the hierarchy did not take the same form in

Italy as elsewhere. … There is no doubt that the masses saw no

cause for discontent under it. We have proof that the

hierarchy was popular—that among the people, down to the

lowest grades, the undiminished splendour of the Papacy was

looked upon as a pledge of the power of Italy. But this did

not prevent reform movements from taking place. The Humanistic

school had its home here; its opposition tendencies had not

spared the Church any more than Scholasticism; it had

everywhere been the precursor and ally of the intellectual

revolt, and not the least in Italy. There were from the first

eminent individuals at Venice, Modena, Ferrara, Florence, even

in the States of the Church themselves, who were more or less

followers of Luther. The cardinals Contarini and Morone, Bembo

and Sadolet, distinguished preachers like Peter Martyr, Johann

Valdez, and Bernardino Occhino, and from among the princely

families an intellectual lady, Renata of Ferrara, were

inclined to the new doctrines. But they were leaders without

followers; the number of their adherents among the masses was

surprisingly small. The Roman Curia, under the Pontificate of

Paul III., 1534-49, vacillated in its policy for a time;

between 1537-41, the prevailing sentiments were friendly and

conciliatory towards Reform. … They were, in fact, gravely

entertaining the question at Rome, whether it would not be

better to come to terms with Reform, to adopt the practicable

part of its programme, and so put an end to the schism which

was spreading so fast in the Church. … An honest desire then

still prevailed to effect a reconciliation. Contarini was in

favour of it with his whole soul. But it proceeded no further

than the attempt; for once the differences seemed likely to be

adjusted, so far as this was possible; but in 1542, the

revulsion took place, which was never again reversed. Only one

result remained. The Pope could no longer refuse to summon a

council. The Emperor had been urging it year after year; the

Pope had acceded to it further than any of his predecessors

had done; and, considering the retreat which now took place,

this concession was the least that could be demanded. At

length, therefore, three years after it was convened, in May,

1542, the council assembled at Trent in December, 1545. It was

the Emperor's great desire that a council should be held in

Germany, that thus the confidence of the Germans in the

supreme tribunal in the great controversy might be gained; but

the selection of Trent, which nominally belonged to Germany,

was the utmost concession that could be obtained. The

intentions of the Emperor and the Pope with regard to the

council were entirely opposed to each other. The Pope was

determined to stifle all opposition in the bud, while the

Emperor was very desirous of having a counterpoise to the

Pope's supremacy in council, provided always that it concurred

in the imperial programme. … The assembly consisted of Spanish

and Italian monks in overwhelming majority, and this was

decisive as to its character. When consulted as to the course

of business, the Emperor had expressed a wish that those

questions on which agreement between the parties was possible

should first be discussed. There were a number of questions on

which they were agreed, as, for example, Greek Christianity.

Even now there are a number of points on which Protestants and

Catholics are agreed, and differ from the Eastern Church. If

these questions were considered first, the attendance of the

Protestants would be rendered very much easier; it would open

the door as widely as possible, they would probably come in

considerable numbers, and might in time take a part which at

least might not be distasteful to the Emperor, and might

influence his ideas on Church reform. The thought that they

were heretics was half concealed. But Rome was determined to

pursue the opposite course, and at once to agitate those

questions on which there was the most essential disagreement,

and to declare all who would not submit to be incorrigible

heretics. … The first subjects of discussion were, the

authority of the Scriptures in the text of the Vulgate,

ecclesiastical tradition, the right of interpretation, the

doctrine of justification. These were the questions on which

the old and new doctrines were irreconcilably at variance; all

other differences were insignificant in comparison. And these

questions were decided in the old Roman Catholic sense; not

precisely as they had been officially treated in 1517—for the

stream of time had produced some little effect—but in the main

the old statutes were adhered to, and everything rejected

which departed from them. This conduct was decisive. …

Nevertheless some reforms were carried out. Between the time

of meeting and adjournment, December, 1545, to the spring of

1547, the following were the main points decided on:

1. The bishops were to provide better teachers and better

schools.

2. The bishops should themselves expound the word of God.

3. Penalties were to be enforced for the neglect of their

duties, and various rules were laid down as to the necessary

qualifications for the office of a bishop.

Dispensations, licenses, and privileges were abolished. The

Church was therefore to be subjected to a reform which

abolished sundry abuses, without conceding any change in her

teaching. The course the council was taking excited the

Emperor's extreme displeasure. … He organized a sort of

opposition to Rome; his commissaries kept up a good

understanding with the Protestants, and it was evident that he

meant to make use of them for an attack on the Pope. This made

Rome eager to withdraw the assembly from the influence of

German bishops and imperial agents as soon as possible. A

fever which had broken out at Trent, but had soon disappeared,

was made a pretext for transferring the council to Bologna, in

the spring of 1547. The imperial commissioners protested that

the decrees of such a hole-and-corner council would be null

and void. The contest remained undecided for years. Paul III.

died in the midst of it, in November, 1549, and was succeeded

by Cardinal del Monte, one of the papal legates at the

council, as Pope Julius III.

{2459}

The Emperor at length came to an understanding with him, and

in May, 1551, the council was again opened at Trent. … The

assembly remained Catholic; the Protestant elements, which

were represented at first, all disappeared after the turn of

affairs in 1552.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552; and 1552-1561.

After that there was no further thought of an understanding

with the heretics. The results for reform were very small

indeed. The proceedings were dragging wearily on when a fresh

adjournment was announced in 1552. Pope Julius III. died in

March, 1555. His successor, the noble Cardinal Cervin, elected

as Marcellus II., died after only twenty-two days, and was

succeeded by Cardinal Caraffa as Paul IV., 1555-9. … He was

the Pope of the restoration. The warm Neapolitan blood flowed

in his veins, and he was a fiery, energetic character. He was

not in favour of any concessions or abatement, but for a

complete breach with the new doctrines, and a thorough

exclusiveness for the ancient Church. He was one of the ablest

men of the time. As early as in 1542, he had advised that no

further concessions should be made, but that the Inquisition,

of which indeed he was the creator, should be restored. It was

he who decidedly initiated the great Catholic reaction. He

established the Spanish Inquisition in Italy, instituted the

first Index, and gave the Jesuits his powerful support in the

interests of the restoration. This turn of affairs was the

answer to the German religious Peace. Since the Protestants no

longer concerned themselves about Rome, Rome was about to set

her house in order without them, and as a matter of course the

council stood still." But in answer to demands from several

Catholic princes, "the council was convened afresh by the next

Pope, Pius IV. (1559-65), in November, 1560, and so the

Council of Trent was opened for the third time in January,

1562. Then began the important period of the council, during

which the legislation to which it has given a name was

enacted. … The Curia reigned supreme, and, in spite of the

remonstrances of the Emperor and of France, decided that the

council should be considered a continuation of the previous

ones, which meant—'All the decrees aimed against the

Protestants are in full force; we have no further idea of

coming to terms with them.' The next proceeding was to

interdict books and arrange an Index. …

See PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.

The restoration of the indisputable authority of the Pope was

the ruling principle of all the decrees. … The great

achievement of the council for the unity of the Catholic

Church was this: it formed into a code of laws, on one

consistent principle, that which in ancient times had been

variable and uncertain, and which had been almost lost sight

of in the last great revolution. Controverted questions were

replaced by dogmas, doubtful traditions by definite doctrines;

a uniformity was established in matters of faith and

discipline which had never existed before, and an impregnable

bulwark was thus erected against the sectarian spirit and the

tendency to innovation. Still when this unity was established

upon a solid basis, the universal Church of former times was

torn asunder." The Council of Trent was closed December 4,

1563, 18 years after its opening.

L. Häusser,

Period of the Reformation,

chapters 19 and 16.

ALSO IN:

J. A. Symonds,

Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,

chapters 2-3 (volume l).

L. von Ranke,

History of the Popes,

books 2-3 (volume l).

L. F. Bungener,

History of the Council of Trent.

T. R. Evans,

The Council of Trent.

A. de Reumont,

The Carafas of Maddaloni,

book 1, chapter 3.

MAP OF CENTRAL EUROPE

AT THE ABDICATION OF CHARLES V (1556).

AUSTRIAN HAPSBURGS.

SPANISH HAPSBURGS.

VENETIAN POSSESSIONS.

GENOESE POSSESSIONS.

ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE.

STATES OF THE CHURCH.

CENTRAL EUROPE

SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIONS ABOUT 1618.

LUTHERAN.

ZWINGLIAN.

CALVINIST.

UNITED BRETHREN.

CATHOLIC.

LANDS RECLAIMED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

DURING THE COUNTER REFORMATION SHOWN THUS.

GREEK.

MOHAMMEDAN.

PAPACY: A. D. 1540.

The founding of the Order of the Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.

PAPACY: A. D. 1545-1550.

Separation of Parma and Placentia from the States

of the Church to form a duchy for the Pope's family.

The Farnese.

See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

PAPACY: A. D. 1550.

Election of Julius III.

PAPACY: A. D. 1555 (April).

Election of Marcellus II.

PAPACY: A. D. 1555 (May).

Election of Paul IV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1555-1603.

The aggressive age of the reinvigorated Church.

Attachment and subserviency to Spain.

Giovanni Piero Caraffa, founder of the Order of the Theatines,

was raised to the papal chair in 1555, assuming the title of

Paul IV. He "entered on his station with the haughty notions

of its prerogatives which were natural to his austere and

impetuous spirit. Hence his efforts in concert with France,

unsuccessful as they proved, to overthrow the Spanish

greatness, that he might extricate the popedom from the

galling state of dependence to which the absolute ascendancy

of that power in Italy had reduced it. Paul IV. is remarkable

as the last pontiff who embarked in a contest which had now

become hopeless, and as the first who, giving a new direction

to the policy of the holy see, employed all the influence, the

arts, and the resources of the Roman church against the

protestant cause. He had, during the pontificate of Paul III.

[1534-1549], already made himself conspicuous for his

persecuting zeal. He had been the principal agent in the

establishment of the inquisition at Rome, and had himself

filled the office of grand inquisitor. He seated himself in

the chair of St. Peter with the detestable spirit of that

vocation; and the character of his pontificate responded to

the violence of his temper. His mantle descended upon a long

series of his successors. Pius IV., who replaced him on his

death in 1559; Pius V., who received the tiara in the

following year; Gregory XIII., who was elected in 1572, and

died in 1585; Sixtus V., who next reigned until 1590; Urban

VII., Gregory XIV., and Innocent IX., who each filled the

papal chair only a few months; and Clement VIII., whose

pontificate commenced in 1592 and extended beyond the close of

the century [1603]: all pursued the same political and

religious system. Resigning the hope, and perhaps the desire,

of re-establishing the independence of their see, they

maintained an intimate and obsequious alliance with the royal

bigot of Spain; they seconded his furious persecution of the

protestant faith; they fed the civil wars of the Low

Countries, of France, and of Germany."

G. Procter,

History of Italy,

chapter 9.

"The Papacy and Catholicism had long maintained themselves

against these advances of their enemy [the Protestant

Reformation], in an attitude of defence it is true, but

passive only; upon the whole they were compelled to endure

them. Affairs now assumed a different aspect. … It may be

affirmed generally that a vital and active force was again

manifested, that the church had regenerated her creed in the

spirit of the age, and had established reforms in accordance

with the demands of the times.

{2460}

The religious tendencies which had appeared in southern Europe

were not suffered to become hostile to herself, she adopted

them, and gained the mastery of their movements; thus she

renewed her powers, and infused fresh vigour into her system.

… The influence of the restored Catholic system was first

established in the two southern peninsulas, but this was not

accomplished without extreme severities. The Spanish

Inquisition received the aid of that lately revived in Rome;

every movement of Protestantism was violently suppressed. But

at the same time those tendencies of the inward life which

renovated Catholicism claimed and enchained as her own, were

peculiarly powerful in those countries. "The sovereigns also

attached themselves to the interests of the church. It was of

the highest importance that Philip II., the most powerful of

all, adhered so decidedly to the popedom; with the pride of a

Spaniard, by whom unimpeachable Catholicism was regarded as a

sign of a purer blood and more noble descent, he rejected

every adverse opinion: the character of his policy was however

not wholly governed by mere personal feeling. From remote

times, and more especially since the regulations established

by Isabella, the kingly dignity of Spain had assumed an

ecclesiastical character; in every province the royal

authority was strengthened by the addition of spiritual power;

deprived of the Inquisition, it would not have sufficed to

govern the kingdom. Even in his American possessions, the king

appeared above all in the light of a disseminator of the

Christian and Catholic faith. This was the bond by which all

his territories were united in obedience to his rule; he could

not have abandoned it, without incurring real danger. The

extension of Huguenot opinions in the south of France caused

the utmost alarm in Spain; the Inquisition believed itself

bound to redoubled vigilance. … The power possessed by Philip

in the Netherlands secured to the southern system an immediate

influence over the whole of Europe; but besides this, all was

far from being lost in other countries. The emperor, the kings

of France and Poland, with the duke of Bavaria, still adhered

to the Catholic church. On all sides there were spiritual

princes whose expiring zeal might be reanimated; there were

also many places where Protestant opinions had not yet made

their way among the mass of the people. The majority of the

peasantry throughout France, Poland, and even Hungary, still

remained Catholic. Paris, which even in those days exercised a

powerful influence over the other French towns, had not yet

been affected by the new doctrines. In England a great part of

the nobility and commons were still Catholic; and in Ireland

the whole of the ancient native population remained in the old

faith. Protestantism had gained no admission into the Tyrolese

or Swiss Alps, nor had it made any great progress among the

peasantry of Bavaria. Canisius compared the Tyrolese and

Bavarians with the two tribes of Israel, 'who alone remained

faithful to the Lord.' The internal causes on which this

pertinacity, this immovable attachment to tradition, among

nations so dissimilar, was founded, might well repay a more

minute examination. A similar constancy was exhibited in the

Walloon provinces of the Netherlands. And now the papacy

resumed a position in which it could once more gain the

mastery of all these inclinations, and bind them indissolubly

to itself. Although it had experienced great changes, it still

possessed the inestimable advantage of having all the

externals of the past and the habit of obedience on its side.

In the council so prosperously concluded, the popes had even

gained an accession of that authority which it had been the

purpose of the temporal powers to restrict; and had

strengthened their influence over the national churches; they

had moreover abandoned that temporal policy by which they had

formerly involved Italy and all Europe in confusion. They

attached themselves to Spain with perfect confidence and

without any reservations, fully returning the devotion evinced

by that kingdom to the Roman church. The Italian principality,

the enlarged dominions of the pontiff, contributed eminently

to the success of his ecclesiastical enterprises; while the

interests of the universal Catholic church were for some time

essentially promoted by the overplus of its revenues. Thus

strengthened internally, thus supported by powerful adherents,

and by the idea of which they were the representatives, the

popes exchanged the defensive position, with which they had

hitherto been forced to content themselves, for that of

assailants."

L. von Ranke,

History of the Popes,

book 5, section 2 (volume 1).

PAPACY: A. D. 1559.

Election of Pius IV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.

The institution of the Index.

"The first 'Index' of prohibited books published by Papal

authority, and therefore, unlike the 'catalogi' previously

issued by royal, princely, or ecclesiastical authorities,

valid for the whole Church, was that authorised by a bull of

Paul IV. in 1559. In 1564 followed the Index published by Pius

IV., as drawn up in harmony with the decrees of the Council of

Trent, which, after all, appears to be a merely superficial

revision of its predecessor. Other Indices followed, for which

various authorities were responsible, the most important among

them being the Index Expurgatorius, sanctioned by a bull of

Clement VIII. in 1595, which proved so disastrous to the great

printing trade of Venice."

A. W. Ward,

The Counter-Reformation,

chapter 2.

PAPACY: A. D. 1566.

Election of Pius V.

PAPACY: A. D. 1570-1571.

Holy League with Venice and Spain against the Turks.

Great battle and victory of Lepanto.

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

PAPACY: A. D. 1572 (May).

Election of Gregory XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1572.

Reception of the news of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

PAPACY: A. D. 1585.

Election of Sixtus V.

PAPACY: A. D. 1585.

The Bull against Henry of Navarre, called "Brutum Fulmen."

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

PAPACY: A. D. 1590 (September).

Election of Urban VII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1590 (December).

Election of Gregory XIV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1591.

Election of Innocent IX.

PAPACY: A. D. 1591.

Election of Clement VIII.

{2461}

PAPACY: A. D. 1597.

Annexation of Ferrara to the States of the Church.

"The loss which the papal states sustained by the alienation

of Parma and Placentia was repaired, before the end of the

16th century, by the acquisition of a duchy little inferior in

extent to those territories:—that of Ferrara." With the death,

in 1597, of Alfonso II., the persecutor of Tasso, "terminated

the legitimate Italian branch of the ancient and illustrious

line of Este. But there remained an illegitimate

representative of his house, whom he designed for his

successor; don Cesare da Este, the grandson of Alfonso I. by a

natural son of that duke. The inheritance of Ferrara and

Modena had passed in the preceding century to bastards,

without opposition from the popes, the feudal superiors of the

former duchy. But the imbecile character of don Cesare now

encouraged the reigning pontiff, Clement VIII., to declare

that all the ecclesiastical fiefs of the house of Este

reverted, of right, to the holy see on the extinction of the

legitimate line. The papal troops, on the death of Alfonso

II., invaded the Ferrarese state; and Cesare suffered himself

to be terrified by their approach into an ignominious and

formal surrender of that duchy to the holy see. By the

indifference of the Emperor Rodolph II., he was permitted to

retain the investiture of the remaining possessions of his

ancestors: the duchies of Modena and Reggio, over which, as

imperial and not papal fiefs, the pope could not decently

assert any right. In passing beneath the papal yoke, the duchy

of Ferrara, which, under the government of the house of Este,

had been one of the most fertile provinces of Italy, soon

became a desert and marshy waste. The capital itself lost its

industrious population and commercial riches; its

architectural magnificence crumbled into ruins, and its modern

aspect retains no trace of that splendid court in which

literature and art repaid the fostering protection of its

sovereigns, by reflecting lustre on their heads."

G. Procter,

History of Italy,

chapter 9.

PAPACY: A. D. 1605 (April).

Election of Leo XI.

PAPACY: A. D. 1605 (May).

Election of Paul V.

PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

The conflict with Venice.

Opposition of Urban VIII. to the Emperor.

Annexation of Urbino to the States of the Church.

Half a century of unimportant history.

"Paul V. (1605-1621) was imbued with mediæval ideas as to the

papal authority and the validity of the canon-law. These

speedily brought him into collision with the secular power,

especially in Venice, which had always maintained an attitude

of independence towards the papacy. Ecclesiastical disputes

[growing out of a Venetian decree forbidding alienations of

secular property in favor of the churches] were aggravated by

the fact that the acquisition of Ferrara had extended the

papal states to the frontiers of Venice, and that frequent

differences arose as to the boundary line between them. The

defence of the republic and of the secular authority in church

affairs was undertaken with great zeal and ability by Fra

Paoli Sarpi, the famous historian of the Council of Trent.

Paul V. did not hesitate to excommunicate the Venetians

[1606], but the government compelled the clergy to disregard

the pope's edict. The Jesuits, Theatines, and Capuchins were

the only orders that adhered to the papacy, and they had to

leave the city. If Spain had not been under the rule of the

pacific Lerma, it would probably have seized the opportunity

to punish Venice for its French alliance. But France and Spain

were both averse to war, and Paul V. had to learn that the

papacy was powerless without secular support. By the mediation

of the two great powers, a compromise was arranged in 1607.

The Jesuits, however, remained excluded from Venetian

territory for another half-century. This was the first serious

reverse encountered by the Catholic reaction. …

See VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607.

The attention of the Catholic world was now absorbed in the

Austrian schemes for the repression of Protestantism in

Germany, which received the unhesitating support both of Paul

and of his successor, Gregory XV. [1621-1623]. The latter was

a great patron of the Jesuits. Under him the Propaganda was

first set on foot. … The pontificate of Urban VIII.

(1623-1644) was a period of great importance. He regarded

himself rather as a temporal prince than as head of the

Church. He fortified Rome and filled his states with troops.

The example of Julius II. seemed to find an imitator. Urban

was imbued with the old Italian jealousy of the imperial

power, and allied himself closely with France. … At the moment

when Ferdinand II. had gained his greatest success in Germany

he was confronted with the hostility of the pope. Gustavus

Adolphus landed in Germany, and by a strange coincidence

Protestantism found support in the temporal interests of the

papacy. The Catholics were astounded and dismayed by Urban's

attitude. … Urban VIII. succeeded in making an important

addition to the papal states by the annexation of Urbino, in

1631, on the death of Francesco Maria, the last duke of the

Della Rovere family. But in the government of the states he

met with great difficulties. … Urban VIII.'s relatives, the

Barberini, quarreled with the Farnesi, who had held Parma and

Piacenza since the pontificate of Paul III. The pope was

induced to claim the district of Castro, and this claim

aroused a civil war (1641-1644) in which the papacy was

completely worsted. Urban was forced to conclude a humiliating

treaty and directly afterwards died. His successors [Innocent

X., 1644-1655; Alexander VII., 1655-1667; Clement IX.,

1667-1669; Clement X., 1670-1676; Innocent XI., 1676-1689;

Alexander VIII., 1689-1691; Innocent XII., 1691-1700] are of

very slight importance to the history of Europe. … The only

important questions in which the papacy was involved in the

latter half of the century were the schism of the Jansenists

and the relations with Louis XIV."

R. Lodge,

History of Modern Europe,

chapter 12.

ALSO IN:

J. E. Darras,

General History of the Catholic Church,

period 7, chapter 7;

period 8, chapters 1-3 (volume 4).

T. A. Trollope,

Paul the Pope and Paul the Friar.

A. Robertson,

Fra Paolo Sarpi.

PAPACY: A. D. 1621.

Election of Gregory XV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1622.

Founding of the College of the Propaganda.

[Transcriber's note:

2022: "Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples."]

Cardinal Alexander Ludovisio, elected pope on the 9th of

February, 1621, taking the name of Gregory XV., "had always

shown the greatest zeal for the conversion of infidels and

heretics; this zeal inspired the design of founding the

College of the Propaganda (1622). The origin of the Propaganda

is properly to be traced to an edict of Gregory XIII., in

virtue of which a certain number of cardinals were charged

with the direction of missions to the East, and catechisms

were ordered to be printed in the less-known languages. But

the institution was neither firmly established nor provided

with the requisite funds. Gregory XV. gave it a constitution,

contributed the necessary funds from his private purse, and as

it met a want the existence of which was really felt and

acknowledged, its success was daily more and more brilliant.

{2462}

Who does not know what the Propaganda has done for

philological learning? But it chiefly labored, with admirable

grandeur of conception and energy, to fulfil its great

mission—the propagation of the Catholic faith—with the most

splendid results. Urban VIII., the immediate successor of

Gregory XV., completed the work by the addition of the

'Collegium de Propaganda Fide,' where youth are trained in the

study of all the foreign languages, to bear the name of Christ

to every nation on the globe."

J. E. Darras,

General History of the Catholic Church,

period 7, chapter 7, section. 10 (volume 4).

PAPACY: A. D. 1623.

Election of Urban VIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1623-1626.

The Valtelline War.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

PAPACY: A. D. 1644-1667.

Pontificates of Innocent X. and Alexander VII.

Growth of Nepotism.

Sixtus V. had "invented a system of nepotism which was so

actively followed up by his successors, that even a short

reign provided the means of accumulating a brilliant fortune.

That pontiff raised one nephew to the rank of cardinal, with a

share of the public business and an ecclesiastical income of a

hundred thousand crowns. Another he created a marquess, with

large estates in the Neapolitan territory. The house of

Ferretti thus founded, long maintained a high position, and

was frequently represented in the College of Cardinals. The

Aldobrandini, founded in like manner by Clement VIII., the

Borghesi by Paul V., the Ludovisi by Gregory XV., and the

Barberini by Urban VIII., now vied in rank and opulence with

the ancient Roman houses of Colonna and Orsini, who boasted

that for centuries no peace had been concluded in Christendom

in which they were not expressly included. On the death of

Urban VIII. (29th July 1644) the Barberini commanded the votes

of eight-and-forty cardinals, the most powerful faction ever

seen in the conclave. Still, the other papal families were

able to resist their dictation, and the struggle terminated in

the election of Cardinal Pamfili, who took the name of

Innocent X. During the interval of three months, the city was

abandoned to complete lawlessness; assassinations in the

streets were frequent; no private house was safe without a

military guard, and a whole army of soldiers found occupation

in protecting the property of their employers. This was then

the usual state of things during an interregnum. Innocent X.,

though seventy-two years of age at his election, was full of

energy. He restrained the disorders in the city. … Innocent

brought the Barberini to strict account for malpractices under

his predecessor, and wrested from them large portions of their

ill-gotten gain. So far, however, from reforming the system

out of which these abuses sprung, his nepotism exhibited

itself in a form which scandalised even the Roman courtiers.

The pope brought his sister-in-law, Donna Olimpia Maidalchina,

from Viterbo to Rome, and established her in a palace, where

she received the first visits of foreign ambassadors on their

arrival, gave magnificent entertainments, and dispensed for

her own benefit the public offices of the government. … Her

daughters were married into the noblest families. Her son,

having first been appointed the cardinal-nephew, soon after

renounced his orders, married, and became the secular-nephew.

The struggle for power between his mother and his wife divided

Rome into new factions, and the feud was enlarged by the

ambition of a more distant kinsman, whom Innocent appointed to

the vacant post of cardinal-nephew. The pontiff sank under a

deep cloud from the disorders in his family and the palace,

and when he died (5th January, 1655) the corpse laid three

days uncared for, till an old canon, who had been long

dismissed from his household, expended half-a-crown on its

interment. … Fabio Chigi, who came next as Alexander VIII.

[VII.] brought to the tottering chair a spotless reputation,

and abilities long proved in the service of the church. His

first act was to banish the scandalous widow; her son was

allowed to retain her palace and fortune. Beginning with the

loudest protestations against nepotism, now the best

established institution at Rome, in the phrase of the time,

the pope soon 'became a man.' The courtiers remonstrated on

his leaving his family to live a plain citizen's life at

Siena: it might involve the Holy See in a misunderstanding

with Tuscany. … The question was gravely proposed in

consistory, and the flood-gates being there authoritatively

unclosed, the waters of preferment flowed abundantly on all

who had the merit to be allied with Fabio Chigi. After

discharging this arduous duty, the pope relieved himself of

further attention to business, and spent his days in literary

leisure. His nephews, however, had less power than formerly,

from the growth of the constitutional principle. The

cardinals, in their different congregations, with the official

secretaries, aspired to the functions of responsible

advisers."

G. Trevor,

Rome, from the Fall of the Western Empire,

pages 416-418.

PAPACY: A. D. 1646.

The Hostility of Mazarin and France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

PAPACY: A. D. 1653.

The first condemnation of Jansenism.

See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.

PAPACY: A. D. 1667.

Election of Clement IX.

PAPACY: A. D. 1670.

Election of Clement X.

PAPACY: A. D. 1676.

Election of Innocent XI.

PAPACY: A. D. 1682-1693.

Successful contest with Louis XIV. and the Gallican Church.

"It has always been the maxim of the French court, that the

papal power is to be restricted by means of the French clergy,

and that the clergy, on the other hand, are to be kept in due

limits by means of the papal power. But never did a prince

hold his clergy in more absolute command than Louis XIV. … The

prince of Condé declared it to be his opinion, that if it

pleased the king to go over to the Protestant church, the

clergy would be the first to follow him. And certainly the

clergy of France did support their king without scruple

against the pope. The declarations they published were from

year to year increasingly decisive in favour of the royal

authority. At length there assembled the convocation of 1682.

'It was summoned and dissolved,' remarks a Venetian

ambassador, 'at the convenience of the king's ministers, and

was guided by their suggestions.' The four articles drawn up

by this assembly have from that time been regarded as the

manifesto of the Gallican immunities. The first three repeat

assertions of principles laid down in earlier times; as, for

example, the independence of the secular power, as regarded

the spiritual authority; the superiority of councils over the

pope; and the inviolable character of the Gallican usages.

{2463}

But the fourth is more particularly remarkable, since it

imposes new limits even to the spiritual authority of the

pontiff. 'Even in questions of faith, the decision of the pope

is not incapable of amendment, so long as it is without the

assent of the church.' We see that the temporal power of the

kingdom received support from the spiritual authority, which

was in its turn upheld by the secular arm. The king is

declared free from the interference of the pope's temporal

authority; the clergy are exempted from submission to the

unlimited exercise of his spiritual power. It was the opinion

of contemporaries, that although France might remain within

the pale of the Catholic church, it yet stood on the

threshold, in readiness for stepping beyond it. The king

exalted the propositions above named into a kind of 'Articles

of Faith,' a symbolical book. All schools were to be regulated

in conformity with these precepts; and no man could attain to

a degree, either in the juridical or theological faculties,

who did not swear to maintain them. But the pope also was

still possessed of a weapon. The authors of this

declaration—the members of this assembly—were promoted and

preferred by the king before all other candidates for

episcopal offices; but Innocent refused to grant them

spiritual institution. They might enjoy the revenues of those

sees, but ordination they did not receive; nor could they

venture to exercise one spiritual act of the episcopate. These

complications were still further perplexed by the fact that

Louis XIV. at that moment resolved on that relentless

extirpation of the Huguenots, but too well known, and to which

he proceeded chiefly for the purpose of proving his own

perfect orthodoxy. He believed himself to be rendering a great

service to the church. It has indeed been also affirmed that

Innocent XI. was aware of his purpose and had approved it, but

this was not the fact. The Roman court would not now hear of

conversions effected by armed apostles. 'It was not of such

methods that Christ availed himself: men must be led to the

temple, not dragged into it.' New dissensions continually

arose. In the year 1687, the French ambassador entered Rome

with so imposing a retinue, certain squadrons of cavalry

forming part of it, that the right of asylum, which the

ambassadors claimed at that time, not only for their palace,

but also for the adjacent streets, could by no means have been

easily disputed with him, although the popes had solemnly

abolished the usage. With an armed force the ambassador braved

the pontiff in his own capital. 'They come with horses and

chariots,' said Innocent, 'but we will walk in the name of the

Lord.' He pronounced the censures of the church on the

ambassador; and the church of St. Louis, in which the latter

had attended a solemn high mass, was laid under interdict. The

king also then proceeded to extreme measures. He appealed to a

general council, took possession of Avignon, and caused the

nuncio to be shut up in St. Olon: it was even believed that he

had formed the design of creating for Harlai, archbishop of

Paris, who, if he had not suggested these proceedings, had

approved them, the appointment of patriarch of France. So far

had matters proceeded: the French ambassador in Rome

excommunicated; the papal nuncio in France detained by force;

thirty-five French bishops deprived of canonical institution;

a territory of the Holy See occupied by the king: it was, in

fact, the actual breaking out of schism; yet did Pope Innocent

refuse to yield a single step. If we ask to what he trusted

for support on this occasion, we perceive that it was not to

the effect of the ecclesiastical censures in France, nor to

the influence of his apostolic dignity, but rather, and above

all, to that universal resistance which had been aroused in

Europe against those enterprises of Louis XIV. that were

menacing the existence of its liberties. To this general

opposition the pope now also attached himself. … If the pope

had promoted the interests of Protestantism by his policy, the

Protestants on their side, by maintaining the balance of

Europe against the 'exorbitant Power,' also contributed to

compel the latter into compliance with the spiritual claims of

the papacy. It is true that when this result ensued, Innocent

XI. was no longer in existence; but the first French

ambassador who appeared in Rome after his death (10th of

August, 1689) renounced the right of asylum: the deportment of

the king was altered; he restored Avignon, and entered into

negotiations. … After the early death of Alexander VIII., the

French made all possible efforts to secure the choice of a

pontiff disposed to measures of peace and conciliation; a

purpose that was indeed effected by the elevation of Antonio

Pignatelli, who assumed the tiara with the name of Innocent

XII., on the 12th of July, 1691. … The negotiations continued

for two years. Innocent more than once rejected the formulas

proposed to him by the clergy of France, and they were, in

fact, compelled at length to declare that all measures

discussed and resolved on in the assembly of 1682 should be

considered as not having been discussed or resolved on:

'casting ourselves at the feet of your holiness, we profess

our unspeakable grief for what has been done.' It was not

until they had made this unreserved recantation that Innocent

accorded them canonical institution. Under these conditions

only was peace restored. Louis XIV. wrote to the pope that he

retracted his edict relating to the four articles. Thus we

perceive that the Roman see once more maintained its

prerogatives, even though opposed by the most powerful of

monarchs."

L. Ranke,

History of the Popes,

book 8, section 16 (volume 2).

PAPACY:A. D. 1689.

Election of Alexander VIII.

PAPACY:A. D. 1691.

Election of Innocent XII.

PAPACY:A. D. 1700.

Election of Clement XI.

PAPACY:A. D. 1700-1790.

Effects of the War of the Spanish Succession.

Declining Powers.

The issue of the War of the Spanish Succession "will serve to

show us that when the Pope was not, as in his contest with

Louis XIV., favoured by political events, he could no longer

laugh to scorn the edicts of European potentates. Charles II.

of Spain, that wretched specimen of humanity, weak in body,

and still weaker in mind, haunted by superstitious terrors

which almost unsettled his reason, was now, in the year 1700,

about to descend to a premature grave. He was without male

issue, and was uncertain to whom he should bequeath the

splendid inheritance transmitted to him by his ancestors. The

Pope, Innocent XII., who was wholly in the interests of

France, urged him to bequeath Spain, with its dependencies, to

Philip, Duke of Anjou, the grandson of Louis XIV., who claimed

through his grandmother, the eldest sister of Charles.

{2464}

He would thus prevent the execution of the partition treaty

concluded between France, England, and Holland, according to

which the Archduke Charles … was to have Spain, the Indies,

and the Netherlands, while France took the Milanese, or the

Province of Lorraine. The Archbishop of Toledo seconded the

exhortation of the Pope, and so worked on the superstitious

terrors of the dying monarch that he signed a will in favour

of the Duke of Anjou, which was the cause of lamentation, and

mourning, and woe, for twelve years, throughout Europe, from

the Vistula to the Atlantic Ocean. …

See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702;

and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

The Duke of Marlborough's splendid victories of Blenheim and

Ramillies … placed the Emperor Joseph (1705-11), the brother

of the Archduke Charles, in possession of Germany and the

Spanish Netherlands and the victory of Prince Eugene before

Turin made him supreme in the north of Italy and the kingdom

of Naples

See

GERMANY: A. D. 1704;

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707;

ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.

The Pope, Clement XI., was now reduced to a most humiliating

position. Political events had occurred … which served to show

very plainly that the Pope, without a protector, could not, as

in former days, bid defiance to the monarchs of Europe. His

undutiful son, the Emperor, compelled him to resign part of

his territories as a security for his peaceful demeanour, and

to acknowledge the Archduke Charles, the Austrian claimant to

the Spanish throne. The peace of Utrecht, concluded in 1713

[see UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714], which produced the

dismemberment of the monarchy, but left Philip in the peaceful

occupation of the throne of Spain, did indeed release him from

that obligation; but it did not restore him to the 'high and

palmy state' which he occupied before he was obliged to submit

to the Imperial arms. It inflicted a degradation upon him, for

it transferred to other sovereigns, without his consent, his

fiefs of Sicily and Sardinia. Now, also, it became manifest

that the Pope could no longer assert an indirect sovereignty

over the Italian States; for, notwithstanding his opposition,

it conferred a large extent of territory on the Duke of Savoy,

which has, in our day, been expanded into a kingdom under the

sceptre of Victor Emmanuel and his successor. We have a

further evidence of the decline of the Papacy in the change in

the relative position of the States of Europe as Papal and

anti-Papal during the eighteenth century, after the death of

Louis XIV. The Papal powers of Spain in the sixteenth century,

and of France, Spain, and Austria, in the latter half of the

seventeenth century, determined the policy of Europe. … On the

other hand, England, Prussia, and Russia became, in the

eighteenth century, the great leading powers in the world. …

The Pope, then, no longer stood at the head of those powers

which swayed the destinies of Europe. … The Papacy, from the

death of Louis XIV. till the time of the French Revolution,

led a very quiet and obscure life. It had no part in any of

the great events which during the eighteenth century were

agitating Europe, and gained no spiritual or political

victories."

A. R. Pennington,

Epochs of the Papacy,

chapter 10.

PAPACY: A. D. 1713.

The Bull Unigenitus and the Christian doctrines it condemned.

See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

PAPACY: A. D. 1721.

Election of Innocent XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1724.

Election of Benedict XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1730.

Election of Clement XII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1740.

Election of Benedict XIV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1758.

Election of Clement XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1765-1769.

Defense of the Jesuits, on their expulsion from France,

Spain, Parma, Venice, Modena and Bavaria.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

PAPACY: A. D. 1769.

Election of Clement XIV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1773.

Suppression of the Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

PAPACY: A. D. 1775.

Election of Pius VI.

PAPACY: A. D. 1789-1810.

Founding of the Roman Episcopate

in the United States of America.

In 1789, the first episcopal see of the Roman Catholic Church

in the United States was founded, at Baltimore, by a bull of

Pope Pius VI., which appointed Father John Carroll to be its

bishop. In 1810, Bishop Carroll "was raised to the dignity of

Archbishop, and four suffragan dioceses were created, with

their respective sees at Philadelphia, Boston, New York, and

Bardstown, in Kentucky."

J. A. Russell,

The Catholic Church in the United States

(History of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore,

pages 16-18).

PAPACY: A. D. 1790-1791.

Revolution at Avignon.

Reunion of the Province with France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.

PAPACY: A. D. 1796.

First extortions of Bonaparte from the Pope.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

PAPACY: A. D. 1797.

Treaty of Tolentino.

Papal territory taken by Bonaparte to add to the

Cispadane and Cisalpine Republics.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

PAPACY: A. D. 1797-1798.

French occupation of Rome.

Formation of the Roman Republic.

Removal of the Pope.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (DECEMBER-MAY).

PAPACY: A. D. 1800.

Election of Pius VII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1802.

The Concordat with Napoleon.

Its Ultramontane influence.

See FRANCE A. D. 1801-1804.

PAPACY: A. D. 1804.

Journey of the Pope to Paris for the coronation of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

Conflict of Pius VII. with Napoleon.

French seizure of Rome and the Papal States.

Captivity of the Pope at Savona and Fontainebleau.

The Concordat of 1813 and its retraction.

Napoleon "had long been quarrelling with Pius VII., to make a

tool of whom he had imposed the concordat on France. The Pope

resisted, as the Emperor might have expected, and, not

obtaining the price of his compliance, hindered the latter's

plans in every way that he could. He resisted as head of the

Church and as temporal sovereign of Rome, refusing to close

his dominions either to the English or to Neapolitan refugees

of the Bourbon party. Napoleon would not allow the Pope to act

as a monarch independent of the Empire, but insisted that he

was amenable to the Emperor, as temporal prince, just as his

predecessors were amenable to Charlemagne. They could not

agree, and Napoleon, losing patience, took military possession

of Rome and the Roman State."

H. Martin,

Popular History of France, since 1789,

volume 2, chapter 12.

{2465}

In February, 1808, "the French troops, who had already taken

possession of the whole of Tuscany, in virtue of the

resignation forced upon the Queen of Etruria, invaded the

Roman territories, and made themselves masters of the ancient

capital of the world. They immediately occupied the castle of

St. Angelo, and the gates of the city, and entirely

dispossessed the papal troops. Two months afterwards, an

imperial decree of Napoleon severed the provinces of Ancona,

Urbino, Macerata, and Camerino, which had formed part of the

ecclesiastical estates, under the gift of Charlemagne, for

nearly a thousand years, and annexed them to the kingdom of

Italy. The reason assigned for this spoliation was, 'That the

actual sovereign of Rome has constantly declined to declare

war against the English, and to coalesce with the Kings of

Italy and Naples for the defence of the Italian peninsula. The

interests of these two kingdoms, as well as of the armies of

Naples and Italy, require that their communications should not

be interrupted by a hostile power.'"

Sir A. Alison,

History of Europe, 1789-1815,

chapter 51 (volume 11).

"The pope protested in vain against such violence. Napoleon

paid no attention. … He confiscated the wealth of the

cardinals who did not return to the place of their birth. He

disarmed nearly all the guards of the Holy Father—the nobles

of this guard were imprisoned. Finally, Miollis [the French

commander] had Cardinal Gabrielle, pro-Secretary of State,

carried off, and put seals upon his papers. On May 17, 1809, a

decree was issued by Napoleon, dated from Vienna, proclaiming

the union (in his quality of successor to Charlemagne) of the

States of the pope with the French Empire, ordaining that the

city of Rome should be a free and imperial city; that the pope

should continue to have his seat there, and that he should

enjoy a revenue of 2,000,000 francs. On June 10, he had this

decree promulgated at Rome. On this same June 10, the pope

protested against all these spoliations, refused all pensions,

and recapitulating all the outrages of which he had cause to

complain, issued the famous and imprudent bull of

excommunication against the authors, favourers, and executors

of the acts of violence against him and the Holy See, but

without naming anyone. Napoleon was incensed at it, and on the

first impulse he wrote to the bishops of France a letter in

which he spoke in almost revolutionary terms 'of him who

wished,' said he, 'to make dependent upon a perishable

temporal power the eternal interest of consciences, and that

of all spiritual affairs.' On the 6th of July, 1809, Pius

VII., taken from Rome, after he had been asked if he would

renounce the temporal sovereignty of Rome and of the States of

the Church, was conducted by General Radet as far as Savone,

where he arrived alone, August 10, the cardinals having all

been previously transported to Paris. And to complete the

spoliation of the pope, Napoleon issued on the 17th of

February, 1810, a senatus-consultum which bestowed upon the

eldest son of the emperor the title of King of Rome, and even

ordained that the emperor should be consecrated a second time

at Rome, in the first ten years of his reign. It was while

oppressed, captive and deprived of all council, that the pope

refused the bulls to all the bishops named by the emperor, and

then it was that all the discussions relative to the proper

measures to put an end to the viduity of the churches were

commenced. … The year 1810, far from bringing any alleviation

to the situation of the pope and giving him, according to the

wishes and prayers of the ecclesiastic commission, a little

more liberty, aggravated, on the contrary, this situation, and

rendered his captivity harder. In effect, on February 17, 1810,

appeared the senatus-consultum pronouncing the union of the

Roman States with the French Empire; the independence of the

imperial throne of all authority on earth, and annulling the

temporal existence of the popes. This senatus-consultum

assured a pension to the pope, but it ordained also that the

pope should take oath to do nothing in opposition to the four

articles of 1682. … The pope must have consoled himself, …

even to rejoicing, that they made the insulting pension they

offered him depend upon the taking of such an oath, and it is

that which furnished him with a reply so nobly apostolic: that

he had no need of this pension, and that he would live on the

charity of the faithful. … The rigorous treatment to which the

Holy Father was subjected at Savona was continued during the

winter of 1811-1812, and in the following spring. At this

time, it seems there was some fear, on the appearance of an

English squadron, that it might carry off the pope; and the

emperor gave the order to transfer him to Fontainebleau. This

unhappy old man left Savona, June 10, and was forced to travel

day and night. He fell quite ill at the hospice of Mont Cenis;

but they forced him none the less to continue his journey.

They had compelled him to wear such clothes … as not to betray

who he was on the way they had to follow. They took great care

also to conceal his journey from the public, and the secret

was so profoundly kept, that on arriving at Fontainebleau,

June 19, the concierge, who had not been, advised of his

arrival, and who had made no preparation, was obliged to

receive him in his own lodgings. The Holy Father was a long

time before recovering from the fatigue of this painful

journey, and from the needlessly rigorous treatment to which

they had subjected him. The cardinals not disgraced by

Napoleon, who were in Paris, as well as the Archbishop of

Tours, the Bishop of Nantes, the Bishop of Evreux, and the

Bishop of Treves, were ordered to go and see the pope. … The

Russian campaign, marked by so many disasters, was getting to

a close. The emperor on his return to Paris, December 18,

1812, still cherished chimerical hopes, and was meditating

without doubt, more gigantic projects. Before carrying them

out, he wished to take up again the affairs of the Church,

either because he repented not having finished with them at

Savona, or because he had the fancy to prove that he could do

more in a two hours' tête-à–tête with the pope, than had been

done by the council, its commissions, and its most able

negotiators. He had beforehand, however, taken measures which

were to facilitate his personal negotiation. The Holy Father

had been surrounded for several months by cardinals and

prelates, who, either from conviction or from submission to

the emperor, depicted the Church as having arrived at a state

of anarchy which put its existence in peril. They repeated

incessantly to the pope, that if he did not get reconciled

with the emperor and secure the aid of his power to arrest the

evil, schism would be inevitable. Finally, the Sovereign

pontiff overwhelmed by age, by infirmities, by the anxiety and

cares with which his mind was worried, found himself well

prepared for the scene Napoleon had planned to play, and which

was to assure him what he believed to be a success.

{2466}

On January 19, 1813, the emperor, accompanied by the Empress

Marie Louise, entered the apartment of the Holy Father

unexpectedly, rushed to him and embraced him with effusion.

Pius VII., surprised and affected, allowed himself to be

induced, after a few explanations, to give his approbation to

the propositions that were imposed, rather than submitted to

him. They were drawn up in eleven articles, which were not yet

a compact, but which were to serve as the basis of a new act.

On January 24, the emperor and the pope affixed their

signatures to this strange paper, which was lacking in the

usual diplomatic forms, since they were two sovereigns who had

treated directly together. It was said in these articles, that

the pope would exercise the pontificate in France, and in

Italy;—that his ambassadors and those in authority near him,

should enjoy all diplomatic privileges;—that such of his

domains which were not disposed of should be free from taxes,

and that those which were transferred should be replaced by an

income of 2,000,000 francs;—that the pope should nominate,

whether in France or in Italy, to episcopal sees which should

be subsequently fixed; that the suburban sees should be

re-established, and depend on the nomination of the pope, and

that the unsold lands of these sees should be restored; that

the pope should give bishoprics 'in partibus' to the Roman

bishops absent from their diocese by force of circumstances,

and that he should serve them a pension equal to their former

revenue, until such time as they should be appointed to vacant

sees; that the emperor and the pope should agree in opportune

time as to the reduction to be made if it took place, in the

bishoprics of Tuscany and of the country about Geneva, as well

as to the institution of bishoprics in Holland, and in the

Hanseatic departments; that the propaganda, the confessional,

and the archives should be established in the place of sojourn

of the Holy Father; finally, that His Imperial Majesty

bestowed his good graces upon the cardinals, bishops, priests,

and laymen, who had incurred his displeasure in connection

with actual events. … The news of the signing of the treaty

occasioned great joy among the people, but it appears that

that of the pope was of short duration. The sacrifices he had

been led to make were hardly consummated, than he experienced

bitter grief; this could but be increased in proportion as the

exiled and imprisoned cardinals, Consalvi, Pacca, di Pietro,

on obtaining their liberty, received also the authorization to

repair to Fontainebleau. What passed then between the Holy

Father and these cardinals I do not pretend to know; but it

must be that Napoleon had been warned by some symptoms of what

was about to happen; for, in spite of the agreement he had

made with the pope to consider the eleven articles only as

preliminaries which were not to be published, he decided

nevertheless to make them the object of a message that the

arch-chancellor was charged to submit to the senate. This

premature publicity given to an act which the pope so strongly

regretted having signed must have hastened his retractation

which he addressed to the emperor by a brief, on March 24,

1813. … This time, the emperor, although greatly irritated by

the retractation, believed it was to his interest not to make

any noise about it, and decided to take outwardly no notice of

it. He had two decrees published: one of February 13, and the

other of March 25, 1813. By the first, the new Concordat of

January 25 was declared state law; by the second, he declared

it obligatory upon archbishops, bishops, and chapters, and

ordered, according to Article IV. of this Concordat that the

archbishops should confirm the nominated bishops, and in case

of refusal, ordained that they should be summoned before the

tribunals. He restricted anew the liberty that had been given

momentarily to the Holy Father, and Cardinal di Pietro

returned to exile. Thereupon, Napoleon started, soon after,

for that campaign of 1813 in Germany, the prelude to that

which was to lead to his downfall. The decrees issued 'ab

irato' were not executed, and during the vicissitudes of the

campaign of 1813, the imperial government attempted several

times to renew with the pope negotiations which failed.

Matters dragged along thus, and no one could foresee any issue

when, on January 23, 1814, it was suddenly learned that the

pope had left Fontainebleau that very day, and returned to

Rome. … Murat, who had abandoned the cause of the emperor, and

who … had treated with the coalition, was then occupying the

States of the Church, and it is evident that Napoleon in his

indignation against Murat, preferred to allow the pope to

re-enter his States, to seeing them in the hands of his

brother-in-law. While Pius VII. was en route and the emperor

was fighting in Champagne, a decree of March 10, 1814,

announced that the pope was taking possession again of the

part of his States which formed the departments of Rome and

Trasmania. The lion, although vanquished, would not yet let go

all the prey he hoped surely to retake. … The pope arrived on

April 30, at Cesena, on May 12, at Ancona, and made his solemn

entry into Rome on May 24, 1814."

Talleyrand,

Memoirs,

part 6 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

D. Silvagni,

Rome: its Princes, Priests and People,

chapters 35-39 (volume 2).

C. Botta,

Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,

chapters 5-8.

M. de Bourrienne,

Private Memoirs of Napoleon,

volume 4, chapters 6 and 11-12.

Selections from the Letters and Despatches of Napoleon,

Captain Bingham,

volumes 2-3.

Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,

volume 5 (History Miscellany, volume l).

P. Lanfrey,

History of Napoleon,

volume 3, chapters 13 and 16.

PAPACY: A. D. 1814.

Restoration of the Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761)-1871.

PAPACY: A. D. 1815.

Restoration of the Papal States.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

PAPACY: A. D. 1823.

Election of Leo XII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1829.

Election of Pius VIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1831.

Election of Gregory XVI.

PAPACY: A. D. 1831-1832.

Revolt of the Papal States, suppressed by Austrian troops.

See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

PAPACY: A. D. 1846-1849.

Election of Pius IX.

His liberal reforms.

Revolution at Rome.

The Pope's flight.

His restoration by the French.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

{2467}

PAPACY: A. D. 1850.

Restoration of the Roman Episcopate in England.

"The Reformation had deprived the Church of Rome of an

official home on English soil. … But a few people had remained

faithful to the Church of their forefathers, and a handful of

priests had braved the risks attendant on the discharge of

their duties to it. Rome, moreover, succeeded in maintaining

some sort of organisation in England. In the first instance

her Church was placed under an arch-priest. From 1623 to 1688

it was placed under a Vicar Apostolic, that is a Bishop,

nominally appointed to some foreign see, with a brief enabling

him to discharge episcopal duties in Great Britain. This

policy was not very successful. Smith, the second Vicar

Apostolic, was banished in 1629, and, though he lived till

1655, never returned to England. The Pope did not venture on

appointing a successor to him for thirty years. … On the eve

of the Revolution [in 1688] he divided England into four

Vicariates. This arrangement endured till 1840. In that year

Gregory XVI. doubled the vicariates, and appointed eight

Vicars Apostolic. The Roman Church is a cautious but

persistent suitor. She had made a fresh advance; she was

awaiting a fresh opportunity. The eight Vicars Apostolic asked

the Pope to promote the efficiency of their Church by

restoring the hierarchy. The time seemed ripe for the change.

… The Pope prepared Apostolic letters, distributing the eight

vicariates into eight bishoprics. … The Revolution, occurring

immediately afterwards, gave the Pope other things to think

about than the re-establishment of the English hierarchy. For

two years nothing more was heard of the conversion of

vicariates into bishoprics. But the scheme had not been

abandoned; and, in the autumn of 1850, the Pope, restored to

the Vatican by French bayonets, issued a brief for

re–establishing and extending the Catholic faith in England.'

England and Wales were divided into twelve sees. One of them,

Westminster, was made into an archbishopric; and Wiseman, an

Irishman by extraction, who had been Vicar Apostolic of the

London District, and Bishop of Melipotamus, was promoted to

it. Shortly afterwards a new distinction was conferred upon

him, and the new archbishop was made a cardinal. The

publication of the brief created a ferment in England. The

effect of the Pope's language was increased by a pastoral from

the new archbishop, in which he talked of governing, and

continuing to govern, his see with episcopal jurisdiction; and

by the declaration of an eminent convert that the people of

England, who for so many years have been separated from the

see of Rome, are about of their own free will to be added to

the Holy Church. For the moment, High Churchmen and Low

Churchmen forgot their differences in their eagerness to

punish a usurpation of what was called the Queen's

prerogative. The Prime Minister, instead of attempting to

moderate the tempest, added violence to the storm by

denouncing, in a letter to the Bishop of Durham, the late

aggression of the Pope as 'insolent and insidious, …

inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy, with the rights of

our bishops and clergy, and with the spiritual independence of

the nation.' … Amidst the excitement which was thus

occasioned, Parliament met. The Speech from the Throne alluded

to the strong feelings excited by 'the recent assumption of

ecclesiastical titles conferred by a foreign Power.' … It

declared that a measure would be introduced into Parliament to

maintain 'under God's blessing, the religious liberty which is

so justly prized by the people.' It hardly required such words

as these to fan the spreading flame. In the debate on the

Address, hardly any notice was taken of any subject except the

'triple tyrant's insolent pretension.' On the first Friday in

the session, Russell introduced a measure forbidding the

assumption of territorial titles by the priests and prelates

of the Roman Catholic Church; declaring all gifts made to

them, and all acts done by them, under those titles null and

void; and forfeiting to the Crown all property bequeathed to

them." Action on the Bill was interrupted in the House by a

Ministerial crisis, which ended, however, in the return of

Lord John Russell and his colleagues to the administration;

but the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, when it was again brought

forward, was greatly changed. In its amended shape the bill

merely made it illegal for Roman Catholic prelates to assume

territorial titles. According to the criticism of one of the

Conservatives, "the original bill … was milk and water; by

some chemical process the Government had extracted all the

milk." After much debate the emasculated bill became a law,

but it was never put into execution.

S. Walpole,

History of England from 1815,

chapter 23 (volume 5).

ALSO IN.:

J. McCarthy,

History of Our Own Times,

chapter 20 (volume 2).

J. Stoughton,

Religion in England, 1800-1850,

volume 2, chapter 13.

PAPACY: A. D. 1854.

Promulgation of the Dogma of the

Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.

"The thought of defining dogmatically the belief of all ages

and all Catholic nations in the Immaculate Conception of the

Blessed Virgin dated back to the beginning of his [Pius IX.'s]

pontificate. By an encyclical letter dated from his exile at

Gaeta, he had asked the opinion of all the patriarchs,

primates, archbishops and bishops of the universe as to the

seasonableness of this definition. The holding of a general

council is attended with many embarrassments, and cannot be

freed from the intrigues and intervention of the so-called

Catholic powers. Pius IX. has initiated a new course. All,

even the most Gallican in ideas, acknowledge that a definition

in matters of faith by the pope, sustained by the episcopate,

is infallible. The rapid means of communication and

correspondence in modern times, the more direct intercourse of

the bishops with Rome, makes it easy now for the pope to hear

the well-considered, deliberate opinion of a great majority of

the bishops throughout the world. In this case the replies of

the bishops coming from all parts of the world show that the

universal Church, which has one God, one baptism, has also one

faith. As to the dogma there was no dissension, a few doubted

the expediency of making it an article of faith. These replies

determined the Holy Father to proceed to the great act, so

long demanded by [the] Catholic heart. … A number of bishops

were convoked to Rome for the 8th of December, 1854; a still

greater number hastened to the Eternal City. … That day the

bishops assembled in the Vatican to the number of 170, and

robed in white cape and mitre proceeded to the Sixtine Chapel,

where the Holy Father soon appeared in their midst." There,

after befitting ceremonies, the pontiff made formal

proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of

Mary, in the following words: "By the authority of Jesus

Christ our Lord, of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and

our own, we declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine

which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant

of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the

Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the

Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of

original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should

firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.

{2468}

Wherefore, if any shall dare—which God avert—to think

otherwise than as it has been defined by us, let them know and

understand that they are condemned by their own judgment, that

they have suffered shipwreck of the faith, and have revolted

from the unity of the Church; and besides, by their own act,

they subject themselves to the penalties justly established,

if what they think they should dare to signify by word,

writing, or any other outward means.' … The next day the

sovereign pontiff assembled the sacred college and the bishops

in the great consistorial hall of the Vatican, and pronounced

the allocution which, subsequently published by all the

bishops, announced to the Catholic world the act of December

8th."

A. de Montor,

The Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs,

volume 2, pages 924-926.

PAPACY: A. D. 1860-1861.

First consequences of the Austro-Italian war.

Absorption of Papal States in the new Kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

PAPACY: A. D. 1864.

The Encyclical and the Syllabus.

"On the 8th of December 1864, Pius IX. issued his Encyclical

[a circular letter addressed by the Pope to all the

Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops of the Church

throughout the world] 'Quanta cura', accompanied by the

Syllabus, or systematically arranged collection of errors,

condemned from time to time, by himself and his predecessors.

The Syllabus comprises 80 erroneous propositions. These are

set forth under 10 distinct heads: viz.

1. Pantheism, Naturalism, and Absolute Rationalism;

2. Moderated Rationalism;

3. Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism;

4. Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies,

Biblical Societies, Clerico-Liberal Societies;

5. Errors concerning the Church and her rights;

6. Errors concerning Civil Society, as well in itself

as in its relations with the Church;

7. Errors concerning Natural and Christian Ethics;

8. Errors concerning Christian marriage;

9. Errors concerning the Civil Princedom of the Roman Pontiff;

10. Errors in relation with Modern Liberalism.

Immediately under each, error are given the two initial words,

and the date, of the particular Papal Allocution, Encyclical,

Letter Apostolic, or Epistle, in which it is condemned.

Whilst, on the one hand, the publication of the Encyclical and

Syllabus was hailed by many as the greatest act of the

pontificate of Pius IX., on the other hand, their appearance

excited the angry feelings, and intensified the hostility, of

the enemies of the Church."

J. N. Murphy,

The Chair of Peter,

chapter 33.

The following is a translation of the text of the Encyclical,

followed by that of the Syllabus or Catalogue of Errors:

To our venerable brethren all the Patriarchs, Primates,

Archbishops, and Bishops in communion with the Apostolic See,

we, Pius IX., Pope, send greeting, and our apostolic

blessing:

You know, venerable brethren, with what care and what pastoral

vigilance the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors—fulfilling the

charge intrusted to them by our Lord Jesus Christ himself in

the person of the blessed Peter, chief of the apostles —have

unfailingly observed their duty in providing food for the

sheep and the lambs, in assiduously nourishing the flock of

the Lord with the words of faith, in imbuing them with

salutary doctrine, and in turning them away from poisoned

pastures; all this is known to you, and you have appreciated

it. And certainly our predecessors, in affirming and in

vindicating the august Catholic faith, truth, and justice,

were never animated in their care for the salvation of souls

by a more earnest desire than that of extinguishing and

condemning by their letters and their constitutions all the

heresies and errors which, as enemies of our divine faith, of

the doctrines of the Catholic Church, of the purity of morals,

and of the eternal salvation of man, have frequently excited

serious storms, and precipitated civil and Christian society

into the most deplorable misfortunes. For this reason our

predecessors have opposed themselves with vigorous energy to

the criminal enterprise of those wicked men, who, spreading

their disturbing opinions like the waves of a raging sea, and

promising liberty when they are slaves to corruption, endeavor

by their pernicious writings to overturn the foundations of

the Christian Catholic religion and of civil society; to

destroy all virtue and justice; to deprave all minds and

hearts; to turn away simple minds, and especially those of

inexperienced youth, from the healthy discipline of morals; to

corrupt it miserably, to draw it into the meshes of error, and

finally to draw it from the bosom of the Catholic Church. But

as you are aware, venerable brethren, we had scarcely been

raised to the chair of St. Peter above our merits, by the

mysterious designs of Divine Providence, than seeing with the

most profound grief of our soul the horrible storm excited by

evil doctrines, and the very grave and deplorable injury

caused specially by so many errors to Christian people, in

accordance with the duty of our apostolic ministry, and

following in the glorious footsteps of our predecessors, we

raised our voice, and by the publication of several

encyclicals, consistorial letters, allocutions, and other

apostolic letters, we have condemned the principal errors of

our sad age, re-animated your utmost episcopal vigilance,

warned and exhorted upon various occasions all our dear

children in the Catholic Church to repel and absolutely avoid

the contagion of so horrible a plague. More especially in our

first encyclical of the 9th November, 1846, addressed to you,

and in our two allocutions of the 9th December, 1854, and the

9th June, 1862, to the consistories, we condemned the

monstrous opinions which particularly predominated in the

present day, to the great prejudice of souls and to the

detriment of civil society—doctrines which not only attack the

Catholic Church, her salutary instruction, and her venerable

rights, but also the natural, unalterable law inscribed by God

upon the heart of man—that of sound reason. But although we

have not hitherto omitted to proscribe and reprove the

principal errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic

Church, the safety of the souls which have been confided to

us, and the well-being of human society itself, absolutely

demand that we should again exercise our pastoral solicitude

to destroy new opinions which spring out of these same errors

as from so many sources.

{2469}

These false and perverse opinions are the more detestable as

they especially tend to shackle and turn aside the salutary

force that the Catholic Church, by the example of her Divine

author and his order, ought freely to exercise until the end

of time, not only with regard to each individual man, but with

regard to nations, peoples, and their rulers, and to destroy

that agreement and concord between the priesthood and the

government which have always existed for the happiness and

security of religious and civil society, For as you are well

aware, venerable brethren, there are a great number of men in

the present day who, applying to civil society the impious and

absurd principle of naturalism, as it is called, dare to teach

that the perfect right of public society and civil progress

absolutely require a condition of human society constituted

and governed without regard to all considerations of religion,

as if it had no existence, or, at least, without making any

distinction between true religion and heresy. And, contrary to

the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, of the church, and of the

fathers, they do not hesitate to affirm that the best

condition of society is that in which the power of the laity

is not compelled to inflict the penalties of law upon

violators of the Catholic religion unless required by

considerations of public safety. Actuated by an idea of social

government so absolutely false, they do not hesitate further

to propagate the erroneous opinion, very hurtful to the safety

of the Catholic Church and of souls, and termed "delirium" by

our predecessor, Gregory XVI., of excellent memory, namely:

"Liberty of conscience and of worship is the right of every

man—a right which ought to be proclaimed and established by

law in every well-constituted State, and that citizens are

entitled to make known and declare, with a liberty which

neither the ecclesiastical nor the civil authority can limit,

their convictions of whatever kind, either by word of mouth,

or through the press, or by other means." But in making these

rash assertions they do not reflect, they do not consider,

that they preach the liberty of perdition (St. Augustine,

Epistle 105, Al. 166), and that "if it is always free to human

conviction to discuss, men will never be wanting who dare to

struggle against the truth and to rely upon the loquacity of

human wisdom, when we know by the example of our Lord Jesus

Christ how faith and Christian sagacity ought to avoid this

culpable vanity." (St. Leon, Epistle 164, Al. 133, sec. 2,

Boll. Ed.) Since also religion has been banished from civil

government, since the doctrine and authority of divine

revelation have been repudiated, the idea intimately connected

therewith of justice and human right is obscured by darkness

and lost sight of, and in place of true justice and legitimate

right brute force is substituted, which has permitted some,

entirely oblivious of the plainest principles of sound reason,

to dare to proclaim "that the will of the people, manifested

by what is called public opinion or by other means,

constitutes a supreme law superior to all divine and human

right, and that accomplished facts in political affairs, by

the mere fact of their having been accomplished, have the

force of law." But who does not perfectly see and understand

that human society, released from the ties of religion and

true justice, can have no further object than to amass riches,

and can follow no other law in its actions than the

indomitable wickedness of a heart given up to pleasure and

interest? For this reason, also, these same men persecute with

so relentless a hatred the religious orders, who have deserved

so well of religion, civil society, and letters. They loudly

declare that the orders have no right to exist, and in so

doing make common cause with the falsehoods of the heretics.

For, as taught by our predecessor of illustrious memory, Pius

VI., "the abolition of religious houses injures the state of

public profession, and is contrary to the counsels of the

Gospel, injures a mode of life recommended by the church and

in conformity with the Apostolic doctrine, does wrong to the

celebrated founders whom we venerate upon the altar, and who

constituted these societies under the inspiration of God."

(Epistle to Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, March 10, 1791.) In

their impiety these same persons pretend that citizens and the

church should be deprived of the opportunity of openly

"receiving alms from Christian charity," and that the law

forbidding "servile labor on account of divine worship" upon

certain fixed days should be abrogated, upon the fallacious

pretext that this opportunity and this law are contrary to the

principles of political economy. Not content with eradicating

religion from public society, they desire further to banish it

from families and private life. Teaching and professing these

most fatal errors of Socialism and Communism, they declare

that "domestic society, or the entire family, derives its

right of existence solely from civil law, whence it is to be

concluded that from civil law descend all the rights of

parents over their children, and, above all, the right of

instructing and educating them." By such impious opinions and

machinations do these false spirits endeavor to eliminate the

salutary teaching and influences of the Catholic Church from

the instruction and education of youth, and to infect and

miserably deprave by their pernicious errors and their vices

the pliant minds of youth. All those who endeavor to trouble

sacred and public things, to destroy the good order of

society, and to annihilate all divine and human rights, have

always concentrated their criminal schemes, attention, and

efforts upon the manner in which they might above all deprave

and delude unthinking youth, as we have already shown. It is

upon the corruption of youth that they p]ace all their hopes.

Thus they never cease to attack the clergy, from whom have

descended to us in so authentic manner the most certain

records of history, and by whom such desirable benefit has

been bestowed in abundance upon Christian and civil society

and upon letters. They assail them in every shape, going so

far as to say of the clergy in general—"that being the enemies

of the useful sciences, of progress, and of civilization, they

ought to be deprived of the charge of, instructing and

educating youth." Others, taking up wicked errors many times

condemned, presume with notorious impudence to submit the

authority of the church and of this Apostolic See, conferred

upon it by God himself, to the judgment of civil authority,

and to deny all the rights of this same church and this see

with regard to exterior order.

{2470}

They do not blush to affirm that the laws of the church do not

bind the conscience if they are not promulgated by the civil

power; that the acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs

concerning religion and the church require the sanction and

approbation, or, at least, the assent, of the civil power; and

that the Apostolic constitutions condemning secret societies,

whether these exact, or do not exact, an oath of secrecy, and

branding with anathema their secretaries and promoters, have

no force in those regions of the world where these

associations are tolerated by the civil government. It is

likewise affirmed that the excommunications launched by the

Council of Trent and the Roman Pontiffs against those who

invade the possessions of the church and usurp its rights,

seek, in confounding the spiritual and temporal powers, to

attain solely a terrestrial object; that the church can decide

nothing which may bind the consciences of the faithful in a

temporal order of things; that the law of the church does not

demand that violations of sacred laws should be punished by

temporal penalties; and that it is in accordance with sacred

theology and the principles of public law to claim for the

civil government the property possessed by the churches, the

religious orders, and other pious establishments. And they

have no shame in avowing openly and publicly the thesis, the

principle of heretics from whom emanate so many errors and

perverse opinions. They say: "That the ecclesiastical power is

not of right divine, distinct and independent from the civil

power; and that no distinction, no independence of this kind

can be maintained without the church invading and usurping the

essential rights of the civil power." Neither can we pass over

in silence the audacity of those who, insulting sound

doctrines, assert that "the judgments and decrees of the Holy

See, whose object is declared to concern the general welfare

of the church, its rights, and its discipline, do not claim

the acquaintance and obedience under pain of sin and loss of

the Catholic profession, if they do not treat of the dogmas of

faith and manners." How contrary is this doctrine to the

Catholic dogma of the full power divinely given to the

sovereign Pontiff by our Lord Jesus Christ, to guide, to

supervise, and govern the universal church, no one can fail to

see and understand clearly and evidently. Amid so great a

diversity of depraved opinions, we, remembering our apostolic

duty, and solicitous before all things for our most holy

religion, for sound doctrine, for the salvation of the souls

confided to us, and for the welfare of human society itself,

have considered the moment opportune to raise anew our

apostolic voice. And therefore do we condemn and proscribe

generally and particularly all the evil opinions and doctrines

specially mentioned in this letter, and we wish that they may

be held as rebuked, proscribed, and condemned by all the

children of the Catholic Church. But you know further,

venerable brothers, that in our time insulters of every truth

and of all justice, and violent enemies of our religion, have

spread abroad other impious doctrines by means of pestilent

books, pamphlets, and journals which, distributed over the

surface of the earth, deceive the people and wickedly lie. You

are not ignorant that in our day men are found who, animated

and excited by the spirit of Satan, have arrived at that

excess of impiety as not to fear to deny our Lord and Master

Jesus Christ, and to attack his divinity with scandalous

persistence. We cannot abstain from awarding you well-merited

eulogies, venerable brothers, for all the care and zeal with

which you have raised your episcopal voice against so great an

impiety.

Catalogue of the Principal Errors of Our Time Pointed

Out in the Consistorial Allocutions, Encyclical and other

Apostolical Letters of Pope Pius IX.

I.–PANTHEISM, NATURALISM, AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM.

1. There is no divine power, supreme being, wisdom, and

providence distinct from the universality of things, and God

is none other than the nature of things, and therefore

immutable. In effect, God is in man, and in the world, and all

things are God, and have the very substance of God. God is,

therefore, one and the same thing with the world, and thence

mind is confounded with matter, necessity with liberty of

action, true with false, good with evil, just with unjust.

(See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)

2. All action of God upon man and the world should be denied.

(See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)

3. Human reason, without any regard to God, is the sole

arbiter of true and false, good and evil; it is its own law in

itself, and suffices by its natural force for the care of the

welfare of men and nations.

(See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)

4. All the truths of religion are derived from the native

strength of human reason, whence reason is the principal rule

by which man can and must arrive at the knowledge of all

truths of every kind.

(See Encyclicals, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1840,

and "Singulari quidem," March 17, 1850,

and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to

the continual and indefinite progress corresponding to the

progress of human reason.

(See Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846,

and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

6. Christian faith is in opposition to human reason, and

divine revelation is not only useless but even injurious to

the perfection of man.

(See Encyclical "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846,

and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

7. The prophecies and miracles told and narrated in the sacred

books are the fables of poets, and the mysteries of the

Christian faith the sum of philosophical investigations. The

books of the two Testaments contain fabulous fictions, and

Jesus Christ is himself a myth.

(Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;

Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

II. MODERATE RATIONALISM.

8. As human reason is rendered equal to religion itself,

theological matters must be treated as philosophical matters.

(Allocution, "Singulari quidem perfusi.")

9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indistinctly

the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason,

instructed solely by history, is able by its natural strength

and principles to arrive at a comprehension of even the most

abstract dogmas from the moment when they have been proposed

as objective.

(Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Gravissimus,"

December 4, 1862.

Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Tuas libenter,"

December 21, 1863.)

{2471}

10. As the philosopher is one thing and philosophy is another,

it is the right and duty of the former to submit himself to

the authority of which he shall have recognized the truth; but

philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to authority.

(Letters to Archbishop Frising, "Gravissimus,"

December 11, 1862;

and, "Tuas libenter," December 21, 1863.)

11. The church not only ought in no way to concern herself

with philosophy, but ought further herself to tolerate the

errors of philosophy, leaving to it the care of their

correction.

(Letter to Archbishop Frising, December 11, 1862.)

12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman

congregation fetter the free progress of science.

(Letter to Archbishop Frising, December 11, 1862.)

13. The methods and principles by which the old scholastic

doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the

demands of the age and the progress of science.

(Letter to Archbishop Frising,

"Tuas libenter,"

December 21, 1863.)

14. Philosophy must be studied without taking any account of

supernatural revelation.

(Letter to Archbishop Frising,

"Tuas libenter,"

December 21, 1863.)

N. B.—To the rationalistic system are due in great part the

errors of Antony Gunther, condemned in the letter to the

Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne "Eximiam tuam," June 15, 1847,

and in that to the Bishop of Breslau, "Dolore haud mediocri,"

April 30, 1860.

III.—INDIFFERENTISM, TOLERATION.

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he

shall believe true, guided by the light of reason.

(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851;

Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

16. Men who have embraced any religion may find and obtain

eternal salvation.

(Encyclical, '"Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;

Allocution, "Ubi primum," December 17, 1847;

Encyclical, "Singulari quidem," March 17, 1856.)

17. At least the eternal salvation may be hoped for of all who

have never been in the true church of Christ.

(Allocution, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1865;

Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur mœrore," August 17, 1863.)

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the

same true religion in which it is possible to be equally

pleasing to God, as in the Catholic church.

(Encyclical, "Nescitis et vobiscum," December 8, 1849.)

IV.—SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, CLANDESTINE SOCIETIES,

BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES.

Pests of this description have been frequently

rebuked in the severest terms in the

Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;

Allocution, "Quibus, quantisque," August 20, 1849;

Encyclical, "Nescitis et vobiscum," December 8, 1849;

Allocution, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1854;

Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur mœrore," August 10, 1863.

V.-ERRORS RESPECTING THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHTS.

19. The church is not a true and perfect entirely free

association; she does not rest upon the peculiar and perpetual

rights conferred upon her by her divine founder; but it

appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights

and limits within which the church may exercise authority.

(Allocutions, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1854;

"Multis gravibus," December 17, 1860;

"Maxima quidem," June, 1862.)

20. The ecclesiastical power must not exercise its authority

without the toleration and assent of the civil government.

(Allocution, "Meminit unusquisque," September 30, 1851.)

21. The church has not the power of disputing dogmatically

that the religion of the Catholic church is the only true

religion.

(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

22. The obligation which binds Catholic masters and writers

does not apply to matters proposed for universal belief as

articles of faith by the infallible judgment of the church.

(Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Tuas libenter,"

December 21, 1863.)

23. The church has not the power of availing herself of force,

or any direct or indirect temporal power.

(Apostolic Letter, "Ad apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

24. The Roman pontiffs and œcumenical councils have exceeded

the limits of their power, have usurped the rights of princes,

and have even committed errors in defining matter relating to

dogma and morals.

(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

25. In addition to the authority inherent in the episcopate,

further temporal power is granted to it by the civil power,

either expressly or tacitly, but on that account also

revocable by the civil power whenever it pleases.

(Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

26. The church has not the natural and legitimate right of

acquisition and possession.

("Nunquam," December 18, 1856;

Encyclical, "Incredibili," September 17, 1862.)

27. The ministers of the church and the Roman pontiff ought to

be absolutely excluded from all charge and dominion over

temporal affairs.

(Allocution, "Maximum quidem," June 9, 1862.)

28. Bishops have not the right of promulgating their

apostolical letters without the sanction of the government.

(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

29. Spiritual graces granted by the Roman pontiff must be

considered null unless they have been requested by the civil

government.

(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

30. The immunity of the church and of ecclesiastical persons

derives its origin from civil law.

(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

31. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction for temporal lawsuits, whether

civil or criminal, of the clergy, should be abolished, even

without the consent and against the desire of the Holy See.

(Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852;

Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

32. The personal immunity exonerating the clergy from military

law may be abrogated without violation either of natural right

or of equity. This abrogation is called for by civil progress,

especially in a society modelled upon principles of liberal

government.

(Letter to Bishop Montisregal,

"Singularis nobilisque," September 29, 1864.)

33. It does not appertain to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by

any right, and inherent to its essence, to direct doctrine in

matters of theology.

(Letter to Archbishop Frising,

"Tuas libenter," December 21, 1863.)

34. The doctrine of those who compare the sovereign pontiff to

a free sovereign acting in the universal church is a doctrine

which prevailed in the middle ages.

(Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

{2472}

35. There is no obstacle to the sentence of a general council,

or the act of all the nation transferring the pontifical

sovereign from the bishopric and city of Rome to some other

bishopric in another city.

(Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

36. The definition of a national council does not admit of

subsequent discussion, and the civil power can require that

matters shall remain as they are.

(Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

37. National churches can be established without, and

separated from, the Roman pontiff.

(Allocution, "Multis gravibus," December 17, 1860;

"Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)

38. Many Roman pontiffs have lent themselves to the division

of the church in Eastern and Western churches.

(Apostolic Letter, " Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

VI.—ERRORS OF CIVIL SOCIETY, AS MUCH IN THEMSELVES

AS CONSIDERED IN THEIR RELATIONS TO THE CHURCH.

39. The state of a republic, as being the origin and source of

all rights, imposes itself by its rights, which is not

circumscribed by any limit.

(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

40. The doctrine of the Catholic church is opposed to the laws

and interests of society.

(Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846;

Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)

41. The civil government, even when exercised by a heretic

sovereign, possesses an indirect and negative power over

religious affairs.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

42. In a legal conflict between the two powers, civil law

ought to prevail.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

43. The lay power has the authority to destroy, declare, and

render null solemn conventions or concordats relating to the

use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without

the consent of the priesthood, and even against its will.

(Allocution, "In consistoriali," November 1, 1850;

"Multis gravibusque," December 17, 1860.)

44. The civil authority may interfere in matters regarding

religion, morality, and spiritual government, whence it has

control over the instructions for the guidance of consciences

issued, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the

church. Further, it possesses full power in the matter of

administering the divine sacraments and the necessary

arrangements for their reception.

("In consistoriali," November 1, 1858;

Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

45. The entire direction of public schools in which the youth

of Christian States are educated, save an exception in the

case of Episcopal seminaries, may and must appertain to the

civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority

shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the

discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the

taking of degrees, or the choice and approval of teachers.

(Allocution, "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850;

"Quibus luctuosissimis," September 5, 1861.)

46. Further, even in clerical seminaries the mode of study

must be submitted to the civil authority.

(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

47. The most advantageous conditions of civil society require

that popular schools open without distinction to all children

of the people, and public establishments destined to teach

young people letters and good discipline, and to impart to

them education, should be freed from all ecclesiastical

authority and interference, and should be fully subjected to

the civil and political power for the teaching of masters and

opinions common to the times.

(Letter to Archbishop of Friburg,

"Quum none sine," July 14, 1864.)

48. This manner of instructing youth, which consists in

separating it from the Catholic faith and from the power of

the church, and in teaching it above all a knowledge of

natural things and the objects of social life, may be

perfectly approved by Catholics.

(Letter to Archbishop of Friburg,

"Quum none sine," July 14, 1864.)

49. The civil power is entitled to prevent ministers of

religion and the faithful from communicating freely and

mutually with the Roman Pontiff.

(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

50. The lay authority possesses of itself the right of

presenting bishops, and may require of them that they take

possession of their diocese before having received canonical

institution and the Apostolical letter of the Holy See.

(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

51. Further, the lay authority has the right of deposing

bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not forced to

obey the Roman Pontiff in matters affecting the filling of

sees and the institution of bishops.

(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851;

Allocution, "Acerbissimum.")

52. The government has a right to alter a period fixed by the

church for the accomplishment of the religious duties of both

sexes, and may enjoin upon all religious establishments to

admit nobody to take solemn vows without permission.

(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

53. Laws respecting the protection, rights, and functions of

religious establishments must be abrogated; further, the civil

government may lend its assistance to all who desire to quit a

religious life, and break their vows. The government may also

deprive religious establishments of the right of patronage to

collegiate churches and simple benefices, and submit their

goods to civil competence and administration.

(Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1862;

"Probe memineritis, " January 22, 1885;

and "Quum sæpe, " July 26, 1858.)

54. Kings and princes are not only free from the jurisdiction

of the church, but are superior to the church even in

litigious questions of jurisdiction

(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

55. The church must be separated from the State and the State

from the church.

(Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1862.)

VII.—ERRORS IN NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN MORALS.

56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the Divine sanction,

and there is no necessity that human laws should be

conformable to the laws of nature and receive their sanction

from God.

(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

57. Knowledge of philosophical and moral things and civil laws

may and must be free from Divine and ecclesiastical authority.

(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

58. No other forces are recognized than those which reside in

matter, and which, contrary to all discipline and all decency

of morals, are summed up in the accumulation and increase of

riches by every possible means and in the satisfaction of

every pleasure.

(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur," August 10, 1863.)

{2473}

59. Right consists in material fact. All human duties are vain

words, and all human facts have the force of right.

(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

60. Authority is nothing but the sum of numbers and material

force.

(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

61. The happy injustice of a fact inflicts no injury upon the

sanctity of right.

(Allocution, "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)

62. The principle of non-intervention must be proclaimed and

observed.

(Allocution, "Novos et ante," September 27, 1860.)

63. It is allowable to withdraw from obedience to legitimate

princes and to rise in insurrection against them.

(Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;

Allocution, "Quisque vestrum," October 4, 1847;

Encyclical., "Noscitis et nobiscum," December 8, 1849;

Apostolic Letter, "Cum Catholica," March 25, 1860.)

64. The violation of a solemn oath, even every guilty and

shameful action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only

undeserving rebuke, but is even allowable and worthy of the

highest praise when done for the love of country.

(Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)

VIII.—ERRORS AS TO CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE.

65. It is not admissible, rationally, that Christ has raised

marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)

66. The sacrament of marriage is only an adjunct of the

contract, from which it is separable, and the sacrament itself

only consists in the nuptial benediction.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)

67. By the law of nature the marriage tie is not indissoluble,

and in many cases divorce, properly so called, may be

pronounced by the civil authority.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852;

Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)

68. The church has not the power of pronouncing upon the

impediments to marriage. This belongs to civil society, which

can remove the existing hindrances.

(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

69. It is only more recently that the church has begun to

pronounce upon invalidating obstacles, availing herself, not

of her own right, but of a right borrowed from the civil

power.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which invoke anathema

against those who deny the church the right of pronouncing

upon invalidating obstacles, are not dogmatic, and must be

considered as emanating from borrowed power.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

71. The form of the said council, under the penalty of

nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law has

appointed another form, and desires that this new form is to

be used in marriage.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

72. Boniface VIII. is the first who declared that the vow of

chastity pronounced at ordination annuls nuptials.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

73. A civil contract may very well, among Christians, take the

place of true marriage, and it is false, either that the

marriage contract between Christians must always be a

sacrament, or that the contract is null if the sacrament does

not exist.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.;

Letter to King of Sardinia, September 9, 1852;

Allocutions, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852;

"Multis gravibusque," December 17, 1860.)

74. Matrimonial or nuptial causes belong by their nature to

civil jurisdiction.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851;

Allocution, " Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)

N. B.—Two other errors are still current upon the abolition of

the celibacy of priests and the preference due to the state of

marriage over that of virginity. These have been refuted—the

first in Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846; the

second in Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10,

1851.

IX.—ERRORS REGARDING THE CIVIL POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF.

75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are not

agreed upon the compatibility of the temporal with the

spiritual power.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)

76. The cessation of the temporal power, upon which the

Apostolic See is based, would contribute to the happiness and

liberty of the church.

(Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)

N. B.—Besides these errors explicitly pointed out, still more,

and those numerous, are rebuked by the certain doctrine which

all Catholics are bound to respect touching the civil

government of the Sovereign Pontiff. These doctrines are

abundantly explained in Allocutions,

"Quantis quantumque," April 20, 1859,

and "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850;

Apostolic Letter, "Quum Catholica Ecclesia," March 26, 1860;

Allocutions, "Novos" September 28 1860;

"Jamdudum" March 18, 1861;

and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

X.—ERRORS REFERRING TO MODERN LIBERALISM.

77. In the present day it is no longer necessary that the

Catholic religion shall be held as the only religion of the

State, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship.

(Allocution, "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.)

78. Whence it has been wisely provided by law, in some

countries called Catholic, that emigrants shall enjoy the free

exercise of their own worship.

(Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)

79. But it is false that the civil liberty of every mode of

worship and the full power given to all of overtly and

publicly displaying their opinions and their thoughts conduce

more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people and

to the propagation of the evil of indifference.

(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

80. The Roman pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to

and agree with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.

(Allocution, "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)

----------Syllabus: End--------

PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

The Œcumenical Council of the Vatican.

Adoption and Promulgation of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility.

"More than 300 years after the close of the Council of Trent,

Pope Pius IX., … resolved to convoke a new œcumenical Council.

… He first intimated his intention, June 26, 1867, in an

Allocution to 500 Bishops who were assembled at the 18th

centenary of the martyrdom of St. Peter in Rome. … The call

was issued by an Encyclical, commencing 'Æterni Patris

Unigenitus Filius,' in the 23rd year of his Pontificate, on

the feast of St. Peter and Paul, June 29, 1868. It created at

once a universal commotion in the Christian world, and called

forth a multitude of books and pamphlets even before the

Council convened. …

{2474}

It was even hoped that the Council might become a general

feast of reconciliation of divided Christendom; and hence the

Greek schismatics, and the Protestant heretics and other

non-Catholics, were invited by two special letters of the Pope

(September 8, and September 13, 1868) to return on this

auspicious occasion to 'the only sheepfold of Christ.' … But

the Eastern Patriarchs spurned the invitation. … The

Protestant communions either ignored or respectfully declined

it. Thus the Vatican Council, like that of Trent, turned out

to be simply a general Roman Council, and apparently put the

prospect of a reunion of Christendom farther off than ever

before. While these sanguine expectations of Pius IX., were

doomed to disappointment, the chief object of the Council was

attained in spite of the strong opposition of the minority of

liberal Catholics. This object … was nothing less than the

proclamation of the personal Infallibility of the Pope, as a

binding article of the Roman Catholic faith for all time to

come. Herein lies the whole importance of the Council; all the

rest dwindles into insignificance, and could never have

justified its convocation. After extensive and careful

preparations, the first (and perhaps the last) Vatican Council

was solemnly opened amid the sound of innumerable bells and

the cannon of St. Angelo, but under frowning skies and a

pouring rain, on the festival of the Immaculate Conception of

the Virgin Mary, December 8, 1869, in the Basilica of the

Vatican. It reached its height at the fourth public session,

July 18, 1870, when the decree of Papal Infallibility was

proclaimed. After this it dragged on a sickly existence till

October 20, 1870, when it was adjourned till November 11,

1870, but indefinitely postponed on account of the

extraordinary change in the political situation of Europe. For

on the second of September the French Empire, which had been

the main support of the temporal power of the Pope, collapsed

with the surrender of Napoleon III., at the old Huguenot

stronghold of Sedan, to the Protestant King William of

Prussia, and on the 20th of September the Italian troops, in

the name of King Victor Emmanuel, took possession of Rome, as

the future capital of United Italy. Whether the Council will

ever be convened again to complete its vast labors, like the

twice interrupted Council of Trent, remains to be seen. But,

in proclaiming the personal Infallibility of the Pope, it made

all future œcumenical Councils unnecessary for the definition

of dogmas and the regulation of discipline. … The acts of the

Vatican Council, as far as they go, are irrevocable. The

attendance was larger than at any of its eighteen

predecessors. … The whole number of prelates of the Roman

Catholic Church, who are entitled to a seat in an œcumenical

Council, is 1,037. Of these there were present at the opening

of the Council 719, viz., 49 Cardinals, 9 Patriarchs, 4

Primates, 121 Archbishops, 479 Bishops, 57 Abbots and Generals

of monastic orders. This number afterwards increased to 764,

viz., 49 Cardinals, 10 Patriarchs, 4 Primates, 105 diocesan

Archbishops, 22 Archbishops in partibus infidelium, 424

diocesan Bishops, 98 Bishops in partibus, and 52 Abbots, and

Generals of monastic orders. Distributed according to

continents, 541 of these belonged to Europe, 83 to Asia, 14 to

Africa, 113 to America, 13 to Oceanica. At the proclamation of

the decree of Papal Infallibility, July 18, 1870, the number

was reduced to 535, and afterwards it dwindled down to 200 or

180. Among the many nations represented, the Italians had a

vast majority of 276, of whom 143 belonged to the former Papal

States alone. France with a much larger Catholic population,

had only 84, Austria and Hungary 48, Spain 41, Great Britain

35, Germany 19, the United States 48, Mexico 10, Switzerland

8, Belgium 6, Holland 4, Portugal 2, Russia 1. The

disproportion between the representatives of the different

nations and the number of their constituents was

overwhelmingly in favor of the Papal influence."

P. Schaff,

History of the Vatican Council

(appendix to Gladstone's 'Vatican Decrees'

American edition).

The vote taken in the Council on the affirmation of the dogma

"showed 400 'placet,' 88 'non placet,' and 60 'placet juxta

modum.' Fifty bishops absented themselves from the

congregation, preferring that mode of intimating their

dissent. … After the votes the Archbishop of Paris proposed

that the dissentients should leave Rome in a body, so as not

to be present at the public services of the 18th, when the

dogma was formally to be promulgated. Cardinal Rauscher, on

the other hand, advised that they should all attend, and have

the courage to vote 'non placet' in the presence of the Pope.

This bold counsel, however, was rejected. … The recalcitrant

bishops stayed away to the number of 110. The Pope's partisans

mustered 533. When the dogmatic constitution 'De Ecclesia

Christi' was put in its entirety to the vote, two prelates

alone exclaimed 'non placet.' These were Riccio, Bishop of

Casazzo, and Fitzgerald, Bishop of Peticola, or Little Rock,

in the United States. A violent thunderstorm burst over St.

Peter's at the commencement of the proceedings, and lasted

till the close. The Pope proclaimed himself infallible amidst

its tumult. … The Bishops in opposition, after renewing their

negative vote in writing, quitted Rome almost to a man. …

Several of the German bishops who had taken part in the

opposition thought that at this juncture it behoved them, for

the peace of the Church, and the respect due to the Dogma once

declared, to give way at the end of August. They assembled

again at Fulda, and pronounced the acceptance of the decree. …

Seventeen names were appended to the declaration. Among them

was not that of Hefele [Bishop of Rottenburg] who, it was soon

made known, was determined under no circumstances to submit to

the decision of the Council. His chapter and the theological

faculty of Tübingen, declared that they would unanimously

support him. A meeting of the Catholic professors of theology,

held at Nuremberg, also agreed upon a decided protest against

the absolute power and personal infallibility of the Pope. The

German opposition, evidently, was far from being quelled. And

the Austrian opposition, led by Schwarzenberg, Rauscher and

Strossmayer, remained unbroken. By the end of August the

members of the Council remaining at Rome were reduced to 80.

They continued, however, to sit on through that month and the

month of September, discussing various 'Schemes' relative to

the internal affairs of the Church."

Annual Register, 1870,

part 1, foreign History, chapter 5.

{2475}

But on the 20th of October, after the Italian troops had taken

possession of Rome, the Pope, by a Bull, suspended the sittings

of the Œcumenical Council. Most of the German bishops who had

opposed the dogma of infallibility surrendered to it in the

end; but Dr. Döllinger, the Bavarian theologian, held his

ground. "He had now become the acknowledged leader of all

those who, within the pale of the Romish Church, were

disaffected towards the Holy See; but he was to pay for this

position of eminence. The Old Catholic movement soon drew upon

itself the hostility of the ecclesiastical authorities. On the

19th of April 1871 Dr. Döllinger was formally excommunicated

by the Archbishop of Munich, on account of his refusal to

retract his opposition to the dogma of infallibility. … A

paper war of great magnitude followed the excommunication.

Most of the doctor's colleagues in his own divinity school,

together with not a few canons of his cathedral, a vast number

of the Bavarian lower clergy, and nearly all the laity,

testified their agreement with him. The young King of Bavaria,

moreover, lent the support of his personal sympathies to Dr.

Döllinger's movement. … A Congress of Old Catholics was held

at Munich in September, when an Anti-Infallibility League was

formed; and the cause soon afterwards experienced a triumph in

the election of Dr. Döllinger to the Rectorship of the

University of Munich by a majority of fifty-four votes against

six. At Cologne in the following year an Old Catholic Congress

assembled, and delegates attended from various foreign States.

… Dr. Döllinger … was always glad to give the Old Catholic

body the benefit of his advice, and he presided over the

Congress, mainly of Old Catholics, which was held at Bonn in

1874 to promote the reunion of Christendom; but we believe he

never formally joined the Communion, and, at the outset, at

any rate, he strongly opposed its constitution as a distinct

Church. From the day of his excommunication by the Archbishop

of Munich he abstained from performing any ecclesiastical

function. He always continued a strict observer of the

disciplinary rules and commandments of the Roman Catholic

Church. … The Old Catholic movement did not generally make

that headway upon the Continent which its sanguine promoters

had hoped speedily to witness, though it was helped in Germany

by the passing of a Bill for transferring ecclesiastical

property to a committee of the ratepayers and communicants in

each parish of the empire. When the third synod of the Old

Catholics was held at Bonn in June 1876 it was stated by Dr.

van Schulte that there were then 35 communities in Prussia, 44

in Baden, 5 in Hesse, 2 in Birkenfeld, 31 in Bavaria, and 1 in

Würtemberg. The whole number of persons belonging to the body

of Old Catholics was—in Prussia, 17,203; Bavaria, 10,110;

Hesse, 1,042; Oldenburg, 249; and Würtemberg, 223. The number

of Old Catholic priests in Germany was sixty. Subsequently

some advance was recorded over these numbers."

Eminent Persons: Biographies reprinted from the Times,

volume 4, pages 213-216.

ALSO IN:

Quirinus (Dr. J. I. von Döllinger),

Letters from Rome on the Council.

Janus (Dr. J. I. von Döllinger),

The Pope and the Council.

J. I. von Döllinger,

Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees.

H. E. Manning,

The Vatican Council.

Pomponio Leto (Marchese F. Vitelleschi),

The Vatican Council.

E. de Pressense,

Rome and Italy at the opening of the Œcumenical Council.

W. E. Gladstone,

The Vatican Decrees.

The following is a translation of the text of the Constitution

"Pastor æternus" in which the Dogma of Infallibility was

subsequently promulgated by the Pope:

"Pius Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, with the

approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting

remembrance. The eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls,

in order to continue for all time the life-giving work of His

Redemption, determined to build up the Holy Church, wherein,

as in the House of the living God, all faithful men might be

united in the bond of one faith and one charity. Wherefore,

before he entered into His glory, He prayed unto the Father,

not for the Apostles only, but for those also who through

their preaching should come to believe in Him, that all might

be one even as He the Son and the Father are one. As then the

Apostles whom He had chosen to Himself from the world were

sent by Him, not otherwise than He Himself had been sent by

the Father; so did He will that there should ever be pastors

and teachers in His Church to the end of the world. And in

order that the Episcopate also might be one and undivided, and

that by means of a closely united priesthood the body of the

faithful might be kept secure in the oneness of faith and

communion, He set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles,

and fixed in him the abiding principle of this twofold unity,

and its visible foundation, in the strength of which the

everlasting temple should arise, and the Church in the

firmness of that faith should lift her majestic front to

Heaven. And seeing that the gates of hell with daily increase

of hatred are gathering their strength on every side to

upheave the foundation laid by God's own hand, and so, if that

might be, to overthrow the Church; We, therefore, for the

preservation, safe–keeping, and increase of the Catholic

flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, do judge it to

be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all

the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant

faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the

institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic

Primacy, in which is found the strength and sureness of the

entire Church, and at the same time to inhibit and condemn the

contrary errors, so hurtful to the flock of Christ.

CHAPTER 1. Of the institution of the apostolic primacy in

Blessed Peter.

We, therefore, teach and declare that, according to the

testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction was

immediately and directly promised to Blessed Peter the

Apostle, and on him conferred by Christ the Lord. For it had

been said before to Simon; Thou shalt be called Cephas, and

afterwards on occasion of the confession made by him; Thou art

the Christ, the Son of the living God, it was to Simon alone

that the Lord addressed the words: Blessed art thou, Simon

Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to

thee, but my Father who is in Heaven. And I say to thee that

thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and

the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will

give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever

thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven,

and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth it shall be loosed

also in heaven.

{2476}

And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after His resurrection

bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all

His fold in the words: Feed my lambs: feed my sheep. At open

variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has

been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse

opinions of those who, while they distort the form of

government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny

that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other

Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by

Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of

those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed

immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon

the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her Minister.

If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle

was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the

visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same

directly and immediately received from the same Our Lord Jesus

Christ a Primacy of honour only, and not of true and proper

jurisdiction; let him be anathema.

CHAPTER II. On the perpetuation of the primacy of Peter in

the Roman Pontiffs.

That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the

sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the

Blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and

lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution,

necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being

founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the

world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that

the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the

Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the

Catholic Church, who received the keys of the kingdom from Our

Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the race of

man, continues up to the present time, and ever continues, in

his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was

founded by Him, and consecrated by His blood, to live and

preside and judge. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this

See, does by the institution of Christ Himself obtain the

Primacy of Peter over the whole Church. The disposition made

by Incarnate Truth therefore remains, and Blessed Peter,

abiding through the strength of the Rock in the power that he

received, has not abandoned the direction of the Church.

Wherefore it has at all times been necessary that every

particular Church—that is to say, the faithful throughout the

world—should agree with the Roman Church, on account of the

greater authority of the princedom which this has received;

that all being associated in the unity of that See whence the

rights of communion spread to all, as members in the unity of

the Head, might combine to form one "connected body. If, then,

any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the

Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter should have a

perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the Universal

Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed

Peter in this Primacy; let him be anathema.

CHAPTER III. On the force and character of the Primacy of

the Roman Pontiff.

Wherefore, resting on plain testimonies of the Sacred

Writings, and in agreement with both the plain and express

decrees of our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, and of the

General Councils, We renew the definition of the Œcumenical

Council of Florence, in virtue of which all the faithful of

Christ must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman

Pontiff possesses the Primacy over the whole world, and that

the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of

the Apostles, and is true Vicar of Christ, and Head of the

whole Church, and Father and teacher of all Christians; and

that full power was given to him in Blessed Peter to rule,

feed, and govern the Universal Church by Jesus Christ our

Lord: as is also contained in the acts of the General Councils

and in the Sacred Canons. Further we teach and declare that by

the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses the

chief ordinary jurisdiction over all other Churches, and that

this power of jurisdiction possessed by the Roman Pontiff

being truly episcopal is immediate; which all, both pastors

and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound,

by their duty of hierarchical submission and true obedience,

to obey, not merely in matters which belong to faith and

morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and

government of the Church throughout the world, so that the

Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor

through the preservation of unity both of communion and of

profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is

the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate

without loss of faith and of salvation. But so far is this

power of the Supreme Pontiff from being any prejudice to the

ordinary power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which the Bishops

who have been set by the Holy Spirit to succeed and hold the

place of the Apostles feed and govern, each his own flock, as

true Pastors, that this episcopal authority is really

asserted, strengthened, and protected by the supreme and

universal Pastor; in accordance with the words of S. Gregory

the Great: My honour is the honour of the whole Church. My

honour is the firm strength of my Brethren, I am then truly

honoured, when due honour is not denied to each of their

number. Further, from this supreme power possessed by the

Roman Pontiff of governing the Universal Church, it follows

that he has the right of free communication with the Pastors

of the whole Church, and with their flocks, that these may be

taught and directed by him in the way of salvation. Wherefore

we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that the

communication between this supreme Head and the Pastors and

their flocks can lawfully be impeded; or who represent this

communication as subject to the will of the secular power, so

as to maintain that whatever is done by the Apostolic See, or

by its authority, cannot have force or value, unless it be

confirmed by the assent of the secular power. And since by the

divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed

over the Universal Church, we further teach and declare that

he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all

causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse

may be had to his tribunal: and that none may meddle with the

judgment of the Apostolic See, the authority of which is

greater than all other, nor can any lawfully depart from its

judgment. Wherefore they depart from the right course who

assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the

Roman Pontiffs and an Œcumenical Council, as to an authority

higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.

{2477}

If then any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office

merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme

power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not alone in

things which belong to faith and morals, but in those which

relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread

throughout the world; or who assert that he possesses merely

the principal part, and not all the fulness of this supreme

power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and

immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each

and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema.

CHAPTER IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman

Pontiff:

Moreover that the supreme power of teaching is also included

in the Apostolic Primacy, which the Roman Pontiff, as

successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, enjoys over the

whole Church, this Holy See has always held, the perpetual

practice of the Church attests, and Œcumenical Councils

themselves have declared, especially those in which the East

with the West met in the union of faith and charity. For the

Fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following in

the footsteps of their predecessors, gave forth this solemn

profession: The first condition of salvation is to keep the

rule of the true faith. And because the sentence of our Lord

Jesus Christ cannot be passed by, who said: Thou art Peter,

and upon this Rock I will build my Church, these things which

have been said are approved by events, because in the

Apostolic See the Catholic Religion and her holy solemn

doctrine has always been kept immaculate. Desiring, therefore,

not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and

doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the

one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is

the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion. And,

with the approval of the Second Council of Lyons, the Greeks

professed that the Holy Roman Church enjoy supreme and full

Primacy and preeminence over the whole Catholic Church, which

it truly and humbly acknowledges that it has received with the

plenitude of power from our Lord Himself in the person of

blessed Peter, Prince or Head of the Apostles, whose successor

the Roman Pontiff is; and as the Apostolic See is bound before

all others to defend the truth of faith, so also if any

questions regarding faith shall arise, they must be defined by

its judgment. Finally, the Council of Florence defined: That

the Roman Pontiff is the true Vicar of Christ, and the Head of

the whole Church, and the Father and Teacher of all

Christians; and that to him in blessed Peter was delivered by

our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and

governing the whole Church. To satisfy this pastoral duty our

predecessors ever made unwearied efforts that the salutary

doctrine of Christ might be propagated among all the nations

of the earth, and with equal care watched that it might be

preserved sincere and pure where it had been received.

Therefore the Bishops of the whole world, now singly, now

assembled in synod, following the long-established custom of

Churches, and the form of the ancient rule, sent word to this

Apostolic See of those dangers which sprang up in matters of

faith, that there especially the losses of faith might be

repaired where faith cannot feel any defect. And the Roman

Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and

circumstances, sometimes assembling Œcumenical Councils, or

asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the

world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other

helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to be held

those things which with the help of God they had recognised as

conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic

Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the

successors of Peter that under His revelation they might make

known new doctrine, but that under His assistance they might

scrupulously keep and faithfully expound the revelation or

deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And, indeed,

all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox

Doctors have venerated and followed, their Apostolic doctrine;

knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever

free from all blemish of error, according to the divine

promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His

disciples: I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and

thou, at length converted, confirm thy brethren. This gift,

then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by Heaven

upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might

perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the

whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous

food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly

doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed the whole

Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation,

might stand firm against the gates of hell. But since in this

very age, in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic

office is even most of all required, not a few are found who

take away from its authority, We judge it altogether necessary

solemnly to assert the prerogative which the only-begotten Son

of God vouchsafed to join with the supreme pastoral office.

Therefore We, faithfully adhering to the tradition received

from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of

God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Roman Catholic

Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, with the

approbation of the Sacred Council, teach and define that it is

a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he

speaks ex cathedrâ, that is, when in discharge of the office

of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his

supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding

faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the

divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, enjoys

that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that

His Church be provided for defining doctrine regarding faith

or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman

Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the

consent of the Church. But if anyone—which may God avert

—presume to contradict this Our definition; let him be

anathema."

PAPACY: A. D. 1870.

End of the Temporal Sovereignty.

Rome made the capital of the Kingdom of Italy.

The Law of the Papal Guarantees.

The events which extinguished the temporal sovereignty of the

Pope and made Rome the capital of the Kingdom of Italy will be

found narrated under ITALY: A. D. 1870. "The entry of the

Italian troops into Rome, and its union to Italy … was

acquiesced in by all the powers of Europe, both Protestant and

Roman Catholic.

{2478}

The French Government of National Defence,

which had succeeded to power after the fall of the Second

Empire, expressed through M. Jules Favre, the Minister of

Foreign Affairs, its desire that the Italians should do what

they liked, and avowed its sympathy with them. … The

Austro-Hungarian Cabinet was asked by the Papal Court to

protest against the occupation of Rome. To this the Imperial

and Royal Government gave a direct refusal, alleging among

other reasons that 'its excellent relations' with Italy, upon

which it had 'cause to congratulate itself ever since

reconciliation had been effected' prevented its acceding to

the desire of the Vatican. … The Spanish Government of the

Regency, which succeeded to that of Queen Isabella, adopted

much the same line of conduct; it praised Signor

Visconti-Venosta's circular, and spoke of the 'wise and

prudent' measures it proposed to adopt with regard to the

Pope. … Baron d'Anethan, at that time Prime Minister of

Belgium, who was the leader of the conservative or clerical

party in the country, admitted to the Italian Minister at

Brussels: 'that speaking strictly, the temporal power was not,

in truth, an indispensable necessity to the Holy See for the

fulfilment of its mission in the world.' As to the course

Belgium would take the Baron said —'If Italy has a territorial

difficulty to discuss with the Holy See, that is a matter with

which Belgium has nothing to do, and it would be to disown the

principles on which our existence reposes if we expressed an

opinion one way or the other on the subject.' … The Italian

Chamber elected in March, 1867, was dissolved, and on the 5th

December, 1870, the newly elected Parliament met in Florence

for the last time. Among its members now sat those who

represented Rome and the province, in which it is situated.

The session of 1871 was occupied with the necessary

arrangements for the transfer of the capital to Rome, and by

the discussion of an act defining the position of the Pope in

relation to the kingdom of Italy. The labours of Parliament

resulted in the Law of the Papal Guarantees, which, after long

and full debate in both Houses, received the royal assent on

the 13th of May, 1871. Its provisions ran as follows:

Article I.—The person of the Sovereign Pontiff is sacred and

inviolable.

Article II.—An attack (attentato) directed against the person

of the Sovereign Pontiff, and any instigation to commit such

attack, is punishable by the same penalties as those

established in the case of an attack directed against the

person of the king, or any instigation to commit such an

attack. Offences and public insults committed directly against

the person of the Pontiff by discourses, acts, or by the means

indicated in the 1st article of the law on the press, are

punishable by the penalties established by the 19th article of

the same law. These crimes are liable to public action, and

are within the jurisdiction of the court of assizes. The

discussion of religious subjects is completely free.

Article III.—The Italian Government renders throughout the

territory of the kingdom royal honours to the Sovereign

Pontiff, and maintains that pre-eminence of honour recognised

as belonging to him by Catholic princes. The Sovereign Pontiff

has power to keep up the usual number of guards attached to

his person, and to the custody of the palaces, without

prejudice to the obligations and duties resulting to such

guards from the actual laws of the kingdom.

Article IV.—The endowment of 3,225,000 francs (lire italiane)

of yearly rental is retained in favour of the Holy See. With

this sum, which is equal to that inscribed in the Roman

balance-sheet under the title, 'Sacred Apostolic Palaces,

Sacred College, Ecclesiastical Congregations, Secretary of

State, and Foreign Diplomatic Office,' it is intended to

provide for the maintenance of the Sovereign Pontiff, and for

the various ecclesiastical wants of the Holy See for ordinary

and extraordinary maintenance, and for the keeping of the

apostolic palaces and their dependencies; for the pay,

gratifications, and pensions of the guards of whom mention is

made in the preceding article, and for those attached to the

Pontifical Court, and for eventual expenses; also for the

ordinary maintenance and care of the annexed museums and

library, and for the pay, stipends, and pensions of those

employed for that purpose. The endowment mentioned above shall

be inscribed in the Great Book of the public debt, in form of

perpetual and inalienable revenue, in the name of the Holy

See; and during the time that the See is vacant, it shall

continue to be paid, in order to meet all the needs of the

Roman Church during that interval of time. The endowment shall

remain exempt from any species of government, communal, or

provincial tax; and it cannot be diminished in future, even in

the case of the Italian Government resolving ultimately itself

to assume the expenses of the museums and library.

Article V.—The Sovereign Pontiff, besides the endowment

established in the preceding article, will continue to have

the use of the apostolic palaces of the Vatican and Lateran

with all the edifices, gardens, and grounds annexed to and

dependent on them, as well as the Villa of Castel Gondolfo

with all its belongings and dependencies. The said palaces,

villa, and annexes, like the museums, the library, and the art

and archæological collections there existing, are inalienable,

are exempt from every tax or impost, and from all

expropriation on the ground of public utility.

Article VI.—During the time in which the Holy See is vacant,

no judiciary or political authority shall be able for any

reason whatever to place any impediment or limit to the

personal liberty of the cardinals. The Government provides

that the meetings of the Conclave and of the Œcumenical

Councils shall not be disturbed by any external violence.

Article VII.—No official of the public authority, nor agent of

the public forces, can in the exercise of his peculiar office

enter into the palaces or localities of habitual residence or

temporary stay of the Sovereign Pontiff, or in those in which

are assembled a Conclave or Œcumenical Council, unless

authorised by the Sovereign Pontiff, by the Conclave, or by

the Council.

Article VIII.—It is forbidden to proceed with visits,

perquisitions, or seizures of papers, documents, books, or

registers in the offices and pontifical congregations invested

with purely spiritual functions.

Article IX.—The Sovereign Pontiff is completely free to fulfil

all the functions of his spiritual ministry, and to have

affixed to the doors of the basilicas and churches of Rome all

the acts of the said ministry.

{2479}

Article X.—The ecclesiastics who, by reason of their office,

participate in Rome in the sending forth of the acts of the

spiritual ministry of the Holy See, are not subject on account

of those acts to any molestation, investigation, or act of

magistracy, on the part of the public authorities. Every

stranger invested with ecclesiastical office in Rome enjoys

the personal guarantees belonging to Italian citizens in

virtue of the laws of the kingdom.

Article XI.—The envoys of foreign governments to the Holy See

enjoy in the kingdom all the prerogatives and immunities which

belong to diplomatic agents, according to international right.

To offences against them are extended the penalties inflicted

for offences against the envoys of foreign powers accredited

to the Italian Government. To the envoys of the Holy See to

foreign Governments are assured throughout the territory of

the kingdom the accustomed prerogatives and immunities,

according to the same (international) right, in going to and

from the place of their mission.

Article XII.—The Supreme Pontiff corresponds freely with the

Episcopate and with all the Catholic world without any

interference whatever on the part of the Italian Government.

To such end he has the faculty of establishing in the Vatican,

or any other of his residences, postal and telegraphic offices

worked by clerks of his own appointment. The Pontifical

post-office will be able to correspond directly, by means of

sealed packets, with the post-offices of foreign

administrations, or remit its own correspondence to the

Italian post-offices. In both cases the transport of

despatches or correspondence furnished with the official

Pontifical stamp will be exempt from every tax or expense as

regards Italian territory. The couriers sent out in the name

of the Supreme Pontiff are placed on the same footing in the

kingdom, as the cabinet couriers or those of foreign

government. The Pontifical telegraphic office will be placed

in communication with the network of telegraphic lines of the

kingdom, at the expense of the State. Telegrams transmitted by

the said office with the authorised designation of

'Pontifical' will be received and transmitted with the

privileges established for telegrams of State, and with the

exemption in the kingdom from every tax. The same advantages

will be enjoyed by the telegrams of the Sovereign Pontiff or

those which, signed by his order and furnished with the stamp

of the Holy See, shall be presented to any telegraphic office

in the kingdom. Telegrams directed to the Sovereign Pontiff

shall be exempt from charges upon those who send them.

Article XIII.—In the city of Rome and in the six suburban sees

the seminaries, academies, colleges, and other Catholic

institutions founded for the education and culture of

ecclesiastics, shall continue to depend only on the Holy See,

without any interference of the scholastic authorities of the

kingdom.

Article XIV.—Every special restriction of the exercise of the

right of meeting on the part of the members of the Catholic

clergy is abolished.

Article XV.—The Government renounces its right of apostolic

legateship (legazia apostolica) in Sicily, and also its right,

throughout the kingdom, of nomination or presentation in the

collation of the greater benefices. The bishops shall not be

required to make oath of allegiance to the king. The greater

and lesser benefices cannot be conferred except on citizens of

the kingdom, save in the case of the city of Rome, and of the

suburban sees. No innovation is made touching the presentation

to benefices under royal patronage.

Article XVI.—The royal 'exequatur' and 'placet,' and every

other form of Government assent for the publication and

execution of acts of ecclesiastical authority, are abolished.

However, until such time as may be otherwise provided in the

special law of which Art. XVIII. speaks, the acts of these

(ecclesiastical) authorities which concern the destination of

ecclesiastical property and the provisions of the major and

minor benefices, excepting those of the city of Rome and the

suburban sees, remain subject to the royal 'exequatur' and

'placet.' The enactments of the civil law with regard to the

creation and to the modes of existence of ecclesiastical

institutions and of their property remain unaltered.

Article XVII.—In matters spiritual and of spiritual

discipline, no appeal is admitted against acts of the

ecclesiastical authorities, nor is any aid on the part of the

civil authority recognised as due to such acts, nor is it

accorded to them. The recognising of the judicial effects, in

these as in every other act of these (ecclesiastical)

authorities, rests with the civil jurisdiction. However, such

acts are without effect if contrary to the laws of the State,

or to public order, or if damaging to private rights, and are

subjected to the penal laws if they constitute a crime.

Article XVIII.—An ulterior law will provide for the

reorganisation, the preservation, and the administration of

the ecclesiastical property of the kingdom.

Article XIX.—As regards all matters which form part of the

present law, everything now existing, in so far as it may be

contrary to this law, ceases to have effect.

The object of this law was to carry out still further than had

yet been done the principle of a 'free Church in a free

State,' by giving the Church unfettered power in all spiritual

matters, while placing all temporal power in the hands of the

State. … The Pope and his advisers simply protested against

all that was done. Pius IX. shut himself up in the Vatican and

declared himself a prisoner. In the meanwhile the practical

transfer of the capital from Florence was effected."

J. W. Probyn,

Italy, 1815 to 1878,

chapter 11.

The attitude towards the Italian Government assumed by the

Papal Court in 1870, and since maintained, is indicated by the

following, quoted from a work written in sympathy with it:

"Pius IX. had refused to treat with or in any way recognize

the new masters of Rome. The Law of Guarantees adopted by the

Italian Parliament granted him a revenue in compensation for

the broad territories of which he had been despoiled. He

refused to touch a single lira of it, and preferred to rely

upon the generosity of his children in every land, rather than

to become the pensioner of those who had stripped him of his

civil sovereignty. His last years were spent within the

boundaries of the Vatican palace. He could not have ventured

to appear publicly in the city without exposing himself to the

insults of the mob on the one hand, or on the other calling

forth demonstrations of loyalty, which would have been made

the pretext for stern military repression.

{2480}

Nor could he have accepted in the streets of Rome the

protection of the agents of that very power against whose

presence in the city he had never ceased to protest. Thus it

was that Pius IX. became, practically, a prisoner in his own

palace of the Vatican. He had not long to wait for evidence of

the utter hollowness of the so-called Law of Guarantees. The

extension to Rome of the law suppressing the religious orders,

the seizure of the Roman College, the project for the

expropriation of the property of the Propaganda itself, were

so many proofs of the spirit in which the new rulers of Rome

interpreted their pledges, that the change of government

should not in any way prejudice the Church or the Holy See in

its administration of the Church. … The very misfortunes and

difficulties of the Holy See drew closer the bonds that united

the Catholic world to its centre. The Vatican became a centre

of pilgrimage to an extent that it had never been before in

all its long history, and this movement begun under Pius IX.

has continued and gathered strength under Leo XIII., until at

length it has provoked the actively hostile opposition of the

intruded government. Twice during his last years Pius IX.

found himself the centre of a world-wide demonstration of

loyalty and affection, first on June 16th, 1871, when he

celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of his coronation, the

first of all the Popes who had ever reigned beyond the 'years

of Peter;' and again on June 3rd, 1877, when, surrounded by

the bishops and pilgrims of all nations, he kept the jubilee

of his episcopal consecration. … Pius IX. was destined to

outlive Victor Emmanuel, as he had outlived Napoleon III. …

Victor Emmanuel died on January 9th, Pius IX. on February 6th

[1879]. … It had been the hope of the Revolution that, however

stubbornly Pius IX. might refuse truce or compromise with the

new order of things, his successor would prove to be a man of

more yielding disposition. The death of the Pope had occurred

somewhat unexpectedly. Though he had been ill in the autumn of

1877, at the New Year he seemed to have recovered, and there

was every expectation that his life would be prolonged for at

least some months. The news of his death came at a moment when

the Italian Government was fully occupied with the changes

that followed the accession of a new king, and when the

diplomatists of Europe were more interested in the settlement

of the conditions of peace between France and Germany than in

schemes for influencing the conclave. Before the enemies of

the Church had time to concert any hostile plans of action,

the cardinals had assembled at the Vatican and had chosen as

Supreme Pontiff, Cardinal Pecci, the Archbishop of Perugia. He

assumed the name of Leo XIII., a name now honoured not only

within the Catholic Church, but throughout the whole civilized

world. … The first public utterances of the new Pope shattered

the hopes of the usurpers. He had taken up the standard of the

Church's rights from the hands of his predecessor, and he

showed himself as uncompromising as ever Pius IX. had been on

the question of the independence of the Holy See, and its

effective guarantee in the Civil Sovereignty of the Supreme

Pontiff. The hope that the Roman Question would be solved by a

surrender on the part of Leo XIII. of all that Pius IX. had

contended for, has been long since abandoned by even the most

optimist of the Italian party."

Chevalier O'Clery,

The Making of Italy,

chapter 26.

PAPACY: A. D. 1873-1887.

The Culturkampf in Germany.

The "May Laws" and their repeal.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

PAPACY: A. D. 1878.

Election of Leo XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1891.

Disestablishment of the Church in Brazil.

See BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.

PAPACY: A. D. 1892.

Mission of an Apostolic Delegate to

the United States of America.

In October, 1892, Monsignor Francisco Satolli arrived in the

United States, commissioned by the Pope as "Apostolic

Delegate," with powers described in the following terms: "'We

command all whom it concerns,' says the Head of the Church,

'to recognize in you, as Apostolic Delegate, the supreme power

of the delegating Pontiff; we command that they give you aid,

concurrence and obedience in all things; that they receive

with reverence your salutary admonitions and orders.'"

Forum,

May, 1893 (volume 15, page 278).

----------PAPACY:End--------

PAPAGOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PIMAN FAMILY, and PUEBLOS.

PAPAL GUARANTEES, Law of the.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1870.

PAPAL STATES.

See

STATES OF THE CHURCH;

also PAPACY.

PAPER BLOCKADE.

See BLOCKADE, PAPER.

PAPER MONEY.

See MONEY AND BANKING.

PAPHLAGONIANS, The.

A people who anciently inhabited the southern coast of the

Euxine, from the mouth of the Kizil-Irmak to Cape Baba.

G. Rawlinson,

Five Great Monarchies: Persia,

chapter 1.

Paphlagonia formed part, in succession, of the dominions of

Lydia, Persia, Pontus, Bithynia, and Rome, but was often

governed by local princes.

PAPIN, Inventions of.

See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS.

PAPINEAU REBELLION, The.

See CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.

PAPUANS, The.

"In contrast to the Polynesians, both in color of skin and

shape of skull, are the crispy-haired black dolichocephalic

Papuans, whose centre is in the large and little-known island

of New Guinea, from whence they spread over the neighboring

islands to the southeast, the Louisades, New Caledonia, New

Britain, Solomon Islands, Queen Charlotte Islands, New

Hebrides, Loyalty, and Fiji Islands. Turning now to the

northward, a similar black race is found in the Eta or Ita of

the Philippenes (Negritos of the Spanish), whom Meyer, Semper,

Peschel, and Hellwald believe to be closely allied to the true

Papuan type; and in the interiors of Sumatra, Borneo, Celebes,

and Gilolo, and in the mountains of Malacca, and at last in

the Andaman Islands, we find peoples closely related; and

following Peschel, we may divide the whole of the eastern

blacks (excepting of course the Australians) into Asiatic and

Australasian Papuans; the latter inhabiting New Guinea and the

islands mentioned to the south and east. In other of the

islands of the South Seas traces of a black race are to be

found, but so mingled with Polynesian and Malay as to render

them fit subjects for treatment under the chapters on those

races.

{2481}

The name Papua comes from the Malay word papuwah,

crispy-haired, and is the name which the Malays apply to their

black neighbors. In New Guinea, the centre of the Papuans, the

name is not known, nor have the different tribes any common

name for themselves. In body, conformation of skull, and in

genera] appearance the Papuans present a very close

resemblance to the African negroes, and afford a strong

contrast to the neighboring Polynesians."

J. S. Kingsley, editor,

The Standard [now called The Riverside], Natural History,

volume 6, page 42.

ALSO IN:

A. R. Wallace,

The Malay Archipelago,

chapter 40.

PARABOLANI OF ALEXANDRIA, The.

"The 'parabolani' of Alexandria were a charitable corporation,

instituted during the plague of Gallienus, to visit the sick

and to bury the dead. They gradually enlarged, abused, and

sold the privileges of their order. Their outrageous conduct

under the reign of Cyril [as patriarch of Alexandria] provoked

the emperor to deprive the patriarch of their nomination and

to restrain their number to five or six hundred. But these

restraints were transient and ineffectual."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 47, foot-note.

ALSO IN:

J. Bingham,

Antiquities of the Christian Church,

book 3, chapter 9.

PARACELSUS.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16TH CENTURY.

----------PARAGUAY: Start--------

PARAGUAY:

The name.

"De Azara tells us that the river Paraguay derives its name

from the Payaguas tribe of Indians, who were the earliest

navigators on its waters. Some writers deduce the origin of

its title from an Indian cacique, called Paraguaio, but Azara

says, this latter word has no signification in any known idiom

of the Indians, and moreover there is no record of a cacique

ever having borne that name."

T. J. Hutchinson,

The Parana,

page 44.

PARAGUAY:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES, and TUPI.

PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

Discovery and exploration of La Plata.

Settlement and early years of the peculiar colony.

The Rio de la Plata, or River of Silver, was discovered in

1515 by the Spanish explorer, Juan de Solis, who landed

incautiously and was killed by the natives. In 1519 this

"Sweet Sea," as Solis called it, was visited again by

Magellan, in the course of the voyage which made known the

great strait which bears his name. The first, however, to

ascend the important river for any distance, and to attempt

the establishing of Spanish settlements upon it, was Sebastian

Cabot, in 1526, after he had become chief pilot to the king of

Spain. He sailed up the majestic stream to the junction of the

Paraguay and the Parana, and then explored both channels, in

turn, for long distances beyond. "Cabot passed the following

two years in friendly relations with the Guaranis, in whose

silver ornaments originated the name of La Plata, and thence

of the Argentine Republic, the name having been applied by

Cabot to the stream now called the Paraguay. That able and

sagacious man now sent to Spain two of his most trusted

followers with an account of Paraguay and its resources, and

to seek the authority and reinforcements requisite for their

acquisition. Their request was favourably received, but so

tardily acted on that in despair the distinguished navigator

quitted the region of his discoveries after a delay of five

years." In 1534, the enterprise abandoned by Cabot was taken

up by a wealthy Spanish courtier, Don Pedro de Mendoza, who

received large powers, and who fitted out an expedition of

2,000 men, with 100 horses, taking with him eight priests.

Proceeding but a hundred miles up the Plata, Mendoza founded a

town on its southwestern shore, which, in compliment to the

fine climate of the region, he named Buenos Ayres. As long as

they kept at peace with the natives, these adventurers fared

well; but when war broke out, as it did ere long, they were

reduced to great straits for food. Mendoza, broken down with

disappointments and hardships, resigned his powers to his

lieutenant, Ayolas, and sailed for home, but died on the way.

Ayolas, with part of his followers, ascended to a point on the

Paraguay some distance above its junction with the Parana,

where he founded a new city, calling it Asuncion. This was in

1537; and Ayolas perished that same year in an attempt to make

his way overland to Peru. The survivors of the colony were

left in command of an officer named Irala, who proved to be a

most capable man. The settlement at Buenos Ayres was abandoned

and all concentrated at Asuncion, where they numbered 600

souls. In 1542 they were joined by a new party of 400

adventurers from Spain, who came out with Cabeza de Vaca—a

hero of strange adventures in Florida—now appointed Adelantado

of La Plata. Cabeza de Vaca had landed with part of his forces

on the Brazilian coast, at a point eastward from Asuncion, and

boldly marched across country, making an important exploration

and establishing friendly relations with the Guaranis. But he

was not successful in his government, and the discontented

colonists summarily deposed him, shipping him off to Spain,

with charges against him, and restoring Irala to the command

of their affairs. This irregularity seems to have been winked

at by the home authorities, and Irala was scarcely interfered

with for a number of years. "The favourable reports which had

reached Spain of the climate and capabilities of Paraguay were

such as to divert thither many emigrants who would otherwise

have turned their faces toward Mexico or Peru. It was the

constant endeavour of Irala to level the distinctions which

separated the Spaniards from the natives and to encourage

intermarriages between them. This policy, in the course of

time, led to a marked result,—namely, to that singular

combination of outward civilization and of primitive

simplicity which was to be found in the modern Paraguayan race

until it was annihilated under the younger Lopez. … Irala, in

fact, created a nation. The colony under his administration

became numerous and wealthy. … He was the life and soul of the

colony, and his death, which occurred in 1557 at the village

of Ita, near Asuncion, when he had attained the age of 70

years, was lamented alike by Spaniards and Guaranis. … The

Spaniards brought with them few if any women, and if a certain

proportion of Spanish ladies arrived later they were not in

sufficient numbers to affect the general rule, which was that

the Spanish settlers were allied to Guarani wives. Thus was

formed the modern mixed Paraguayan race. In a very short time,

therefore, by means of the ties of relationship, a strong

sympathy grew up between the Spaniards and the Guaranis, or

those of Guarani blood, and a recognition of this fact formed

the basis of the plan of government founded by the great

Irala.

{2482}

The lot of the natives of Paraguay, as compared with the

natives of the other Spanish dominions in the New World, was

far from being a hard one. There were no mines to work. The

Spaniards came there to settle, rather than to amass fortunes

with which to return to Europe. The country was abundantly

fertile, and such wealth as the Spaniards might amass

consisted in the produce of their fields or the increase of

their herds, which were amply sufficient to support them.

Consequently, all they required of the natives, for the most

part, was a moderate amount of service as labourers or as

herdsmen."

R. G. Watson,

Spanish and Portuguese South America,

volume 1, chapters 5 and 16.

ALSO IN:

R. Southey,

History of Brazil,

volume 1, chapters 2-3, 5-7, and 11.

R. Biddle,

Memoir of Sebastian Cabot,

chapters 16-23.

Father Charlevoix,

History of Paraguay,

books 1-3.

PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

The rule of the Jesuits.

The Dictatorship of Dr. Francia and of Lopez I. and Lopez II.

Disastrous War with Brazil.

"Under Spanish rule, from the early part of the 16th century

as a remote dependency of Peru, and subsequently of Buenos

Ayres, Paraguay had been almost entirely abandoned to the

Jesuits [see JESUITS: A. D, 1542-1649] as a virgin ground on

which to try the experiment of their idea of a theocratic

government. The Loyola Brethren, first brought in in 1608,

baptized the Indian tribes, built towns, founded missions [and

communities of converts called Reductions, meaning that they

had been reduced into the Christian faith], gave the tamed

savages pacific, industrious, and passively obedient habits,

married them by wholesale, bidding the youth of the two sexes

stand up in opposite rows, and saving them the trouble of a

choice by pointing out to every Jack his Jenny; drilled and

marshalled them to their daily tasks in processions and at the

sound of the church bells, headed by holy images; and in their

leisure hours amused them with Church ceremonies and any

amount of music and dancing and merry-making. They allowed

each family a patch of ground and a grove of banana and other

fruit trees for their sustenance, while they claimed the whole

bulk of the land for themselves as 'God's patrimony,' bidding

those well-disciplined devotees save their souls by slaving

with their bodies in behalf of their ghostly masters and

instructors. With the whole labouring population under

control, these holy men soon waxed so strong as to awe into

subjection the few white settlers whose estates dated from the

conquest; and by degrees, extending their sway from the

country into the towns, and even into the capital, Asuncion,

they set themselves above all civil and ecclesiastical

authority, snubbing the intendente of the province and

worrying the bishop of the diocese. Driven away by a fresh

outburst of popular passions in 1731, and brought back four

years later by the strong hand of the Spanish Government, they

made common cause with it, truckled to the lay powers whom

they had set at naught, and shared with them the good things

which they had at first enjoyed undivided. All this till the

time of the general crusade of the European powers against

their order, when they had to depart from Paraguay as well as

from all other Spanish dominions in 1767. In the early part of

the present century, when the domestic calamities of Spain

determined a general collapse of her power in the American

colonies, Paraguay raised its cry for independence, and

constituted itself into a separate Republic in 1811. But,

although the party of emancipation was the strongest and

seized the reins of government, there were still many among

the citizens who clung to their connection with the mother

country, and these were known as Peninsulares; and there were

many more who favoured the scheme of a federal union of

Paraguay with the Republics of the Plate, and these went by

the name of Porteños, owing to the importance they attached to

the dependence of their country on Buenos Ayres (the puerto or

harbour), the only outlet as well as the natural head of the

projected confederation.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

All these dissenters were soon disposed of by the ruthless

energy of one man, Juan Gaspar Rodriguez, known under the name

of Dr. Francia. This man, the son of a Mamaluco, or Brazilian

half-caste, with Indian blood in his veins, a man of stern,

gloomy and truculent character, with a mixture of scepticism

and stoicism, was one of those grim, yet grotesque, heroes

according to Mr. Carlyle's heart whom it is now the fashion to

call 'Saviours of society.' A Doctor of Divinity, issuing from

the Jesuit seminary at Cordova, but practising law at

Asuncion, he made his way from the Municipal Council to the

Consular dignity of the New Republic, and assumed a

Dictatorship, which laid the country at his discretion …

(1814-1840), wielding the most unbounded power till his death,

at the advanced age of 83. With a view, or under pretext of

stifling discontent and baffling conspiracy within and warding

off intrigue or aggression from without, he rid himself of his

colleagues, rivals, and opponents, by wholesale executions,

imprisonments, proscriptions, and confiscations, and raised a

kind of Chinese wall all round the Paraguayan territory,

depriving it of all trade or intercourse, and allowing no man

to enter or quit his dominions without an express permission

from himself. Francia's absolutism was a monomania, though

there was something like method in his madness. There were

faction and civil strife and military rule in Paraguay for

about a twelvemonth after his death. In the end, a new

Constitution, new Consuls—one of whom, Carlos Antonio Lopez, a

lawyer, took upon himself to modify the Charter in a strictly

despotic sense, had himself elected President, first for ten

years, then for three, and again for ten more, managing thus

to reign alone and supreme for 21 years (1841-1862). On his

demise he bequeathed the Vice-Presidency to his son, Francisco

Solano Lopez, whom he had already trusted with the command of

all the forces, and who had no difficulty in having himself

appointed President for life in an Assembly where there was

only one negative vote. The rule of Francia in his later

years, and that of the first Lopez throughout his reign,

though tyrannical and economically improvident, had not been

altogether unfavourable to the development of public

prosperity. The population, which was only 97,480 in 1796 and

400,000 in 1825, had risen to 1,337,431 at the census of 1857.

Paraguay had then a revenue of 12,441,323f., no debt, no paper

money, and the treasury was so full as to enable Lopez II. to

muster an army of 62,000 men, with 200 pieces of artillery, in

the field and in his fortresses.

{2483}

Armed with this two-edged weapon, the new despot, whose

perverse and violent temper bordered on insanity, corrupted by

several years' dissipation in Paris, and swayed by the

influence of a strong and evil-minded woman, flattered also by

the skill he fancied he had shown when he played at soldiers

as his father's general in early youth, had come to look upon

himself as a second Napoleon, and allowed himself no rest till

he had picked a quarrel with all his neighbours and engaged in

a war with Brazil and with the Republics of the Plate, which

lasted five years (1865-1870).

See BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.

At the end of it nearly the whole of the male population had

been led like sheep to the slaughter; and the tyrant himself

died 'in the last ditch,' not indeed fighting like a man, but

killed like a dog when his flight was cut off, and not before

he had sacrificed 100,000 of his combatants, doomed to

starvation, sickness, and unutterable hardship a great many of

the scattered and houseless population (400,000, as it is

calculated), and so ruined the country that the census of 1873

only gave 221,079 souls, of whom the females far more than

doubled the males."

A. Gallenga,

South America,

chapter 16.

ALSO IN:

Father Charlevoix,

History of Paraguay.

J. R. Rengger and Longchamps,

The Reign of Dr. Francia.

T. Carlyle,

Dr. Francia

(Essays, volume 6).

C. A. Washburn,

History of Paraguay.

R. F. Burton,

Letters from the Battlefields of Paraguay.

T. J. Page,

La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and Paraguay,

chapters 27-30.

T. Griesinger,

The Jesuits,

book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

J. E. Darras,

General History of the Catholic Church,

period 7, chapter 7 (volume 4).

PARAGUAY: A. D. 1870-1894.

The Republic under a new Constitution.

Since the death of Lopez, the republic of Paraguay has enjoyed

a peaceful, uneventful history and has made fair progress in

recovery from its prostration. The Brazilian army of

occupation was withdrawn in 1876. Under a new constitution,

the executive authority is entrusted to a president, elected

for four years, and the legislative to a congress of two

houses, senate and deputies. Don Juan G. Gonzales entered, in

1890, upon a presidential term which expires in 1894.

----------PARAGUAY: End--------

PARALI, The.

See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

PARALUS, The.

The official vessel of the ancient Athenian government, for

the conveyance of despatches and other official service.

PARASANG, The.

The parasang was an ancient Persian measure of distance, about

which there is no certain knowledge. Xenophon and Herodotus

represented it as equivalent to 30 Greek stadia; but Strabo

regarded it as being of variable length. Modern opinion seems

to incline toward agreement with Strabo, and to conclude that

the parasang was a merely rough estimate of distance,

averaging, according to computations by Colonel Chesney and

others, something less than three geographical miles. The

modern farsang or farsakh of Persia is likewise an estimated

distance, which generally, however, overruns three

geographical miles.

E. H. Bunbury,

History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 10, note B (volume 1).

PARAWIANAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

PARICANIANS, The.

The name given by Herodotus to a people who anciently occupied

the territory of modern Baluchistan.

G. Rawlinson,

Five Great Monarchies, Persia,

chapter 1.

PARILIA,

PULILIA, The.

The anniversary of the foundation of Rome, originally a

shepherds' festival. It was celebrated on the 21st of April.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 21, with foot-note.

----------PARIS: Start--------

PARIS:

The beginning.

A small island in the Seine, which now forms an almost

insignificant part of the great French capital, was the site

of a rude town called Lutetia, or Luketia, or Lucotecia, when

Cæsar extended the dominion of Rome over that part of Gaul. It

was the chief town or stronghold of the Parisii, one of the

minor tribes of the Gallic people, who were under the

protection of the more powerful Senones and who occupied but a

small territory. They were engaged in river traffic on the

Seine and seem to have been prosperous, then and afterwards.

"Strabo calls this p]ace Lucototia; Ptolemy, Lucotecia;

Julian, Luketia; Ammianus calls it at first Lutetia, and

afterward Parisii, from the name of the people. It is not

known when nor why the designation was changed, but it is

supposed to have been changed during the reign of Julian.

Three laws in the Theodosian Code, referred to Valentinian and

Valens, for the year 365, bear date at Parisii, and since then

this name has been preserved in all the histories and public

records."

P. Godwin,

History of France: Ancient Gaul,

book 2, chapter 7, note.

See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

PARIS:

Julian's residence.

Before Julian ("the Apostate") became emperor, while, as Cæsar

(355-361), he governed Gaul, his favorite residence, when not

in camp or in the field, was at the city of the Parisii, which

he called his "dear Luketia." The change of name to Parisii

(whence resulted the modern name of Paris) is supposed to have

taken place during his subsequent reign. "Commanding the

fruitful valleys of the Seine, the Marne, and the Oise, the

earliest occupants were merchants and boatmen, who conducted

the trade of the rivers, and as early as the reign of Tiberius

had formed a powerful corporation. During the revolts of the

Bagauds in the third century, it acquired an unhappy celebrity

as the stronghold from which they harassed the peace of the

surrounding region. Subsequently, when the advances of the

Germans drove the government from Trèves, the emperors

selected the town of the Parisii as a more secure position.

They built a palace there, and an entrenched camp for the

soldiers; and very soon afterward several of those aqueducts

and amphitheatres which were inseparable accompaniments of

Roman life. It was in that palace, which the traveller still

regards with curiosity in those mouldering remains of it known

as the 'Palais des Thermes,' that Julian found his favorite

residence."

P. Godwin,

History of France: Ancient Gaul,

book 2, chapter 7.

PARIS:

The capital of Clovis.

Clovis, the Frank conqueror—founder of the kingdom of the

united Frank tribes in Gaul—fixed his residence first at

Soissons [486], after he had overthrown Syagrius. "He

afterwards chose Paris for his abode, where he built a church

dedicated to the apostles St. Peter and St. Paul. But the

epoch at which that town passed into his power is uncertain."

J. C. L. de Sismondi,

The French under the Merovingians,

chapter 5.

{2484}

PARIS: A. D. 511-752.

Under the Merovingians.

See FRANCE: A. D. 511-752.

PARIS: A. D. 845.

Sacked by the Normans.

"France was heavily afflicted: a fearfully cold year was

followed by another still colder and more inclement. The North

wind blew incessantly all through the Winter, all through the

pale and leafless Spring. The roots of the vines were perished

by the frost—the wolves starved out of their forests, even in

Aquitaine. … Meanwhile the Danish hosts were in bright

activity. Regner Lodbrok and his fellows fitted out their

fleet, ten times twelve dragons of the sea. Early in the bleak

Spring they sailed, and the stout-built vessels ploughed

cheerily through the crashing ice on the heaving Seine. …

Rouen dared not offer any opposition. The Northmen quietly

occupied the City: we apprehend that some knots or bands of

the Northmen began even now to domicile themselves there, it

being scarcely possible to account for the condition of

Normandy under Rollo otherwise than by the supposition, that

the country had long previously received a considerable Danish

population. Paris, the point to which the Northmen were

advancing by land and water, was the key of France, properly

so–called. Paris taken, the Seine would become a Danish river:

Paris defended, the Danes might be restrained, perhaps

expelled. The Capetian 'Duchy of France,' not yet created by

any act of State, was beginning to be formed through the

increasing influence of the future Capital. … Fierce as the

Northmen generally were, they exceeded their usual ferocity. …

With such panic were the Franks stricken, that they gave

themselves up for lost. Paris island, Paris river, Paris

bridges, Paris towers, were singularly defensible: the

Palaisdes-Thermes, the monasteries, were as so many castles.

Had the inhabitants, for their own sakes, co-operated with

Charles-le-Chauve [who had stationed himself with a small army

at Saint-Denis], the retreat of the Danes would have been

entirely cut off; but they were palsied in mind and body;

neither thought of resistance nor attempted resistance, and

abandoned themselves to despair. On Easter Eve [March 28, 845]

the Danes entered Paris. … The priests and clerks deserted

their churches: the monks fled, bearing with them their

shrines: soldiers, citizens and sailors abandoned their

fortresses, dwellings and vessels: the great gate was left

open, Paris emptied of her inhabitants, the city a solitude.

The Danes hied at once to the untenanted monasteries: all

valuable objects had been removed or concealed, but the

Northmen employed themselves after their fashion. In the

church of Saint-Germain-des-pres, they swarmed up the pillars

and galleries, and pulled the roof to pieces: the larchen

beams being sought as excellent ship-timber. In the city,

generally, they did not commit much devastation. They lodged

themselves in the empty houses, and plundered all the

moveables. … The Franks did not make any attempt to attack or

dislodge the enemy, but a more efficient power compelled the

Danes to retire from the city; disease raged among them,

dysentery—a complaint frequently noticed, probably occasioned

by their inordinate potations of the country-wine." Under

these circumstances, Regner Lodbrok consented to quit Paris on

receiving 7,000 pounds of silver,—a sum reckoned to be

equivalent to 520,000 livres. "This was the first Danegeld

paid by France, an unhappy precedent, and yet unavoidable: the

pusillanimity of his subjects compelled Charles to adopt this

disgraceful compromise."

Sir F. Palgrave,

History of Normandy and England,

book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

C. F. Keary,

The Vikings in Western Christendom,

chapter 9.

PARIS: A. D. 857.-861.

Twice ravaged by the Northmen.

"The Seine as well as the future Duchy of France being laid

open to the Northmen [A. D. 857], Paris, partially recovered

from Regner Lodbrok's invasion, was assailed with more fell

intent. The surrounding districts were ravaged, and the great

monasteries, heretofore sacked, were now destroyed. Only three

churches were found standing—Saint-Denis,

Saint-Germain-des-près, and Saint-Etienne or Notre-Dame —these

having redeemed themselves by contributions to the enemy; but

Saint-Denis made a bad bargain. The Northmen did not hold to

their contract, or another company of pirates did not consider

it as binding: the monastery was burnt to a shell, and a most

heavy ransom paid for the liberation of Abbot Louis,

Charlemagne's grandson by his daughter Rothaida.

Sainte-Genevieve suffered most severely amongst all; and the

pristine beauty of the structure rendered the calamity more

conspicuous and the distress more poignant. During three

centuries the desolated grandeur of the shattered ruins

continued to excite sorrow and dread. … Amongst the calamities

of the times, the destruction of the Parisian monasteries

seems to have worked peculiarly on the imagination." After

this destructive visitation, the city had rest for only three

years. In 861 a fresh horde of Danish pirates, first harrying

the English coast and burning Winchester, swept then across

the channel and swarmed over the country from Scheldt to

Seine. Amiens, Nimeguen, Bayeux and Terouenne were all taken,

on the way, and once more on Easter Day (April 6, 861) the

ruthless savages of the North entered Paris.

Saint-Germain-des-près, spared formerly, was now set on fire,

and the city was stripped of its movable goods. King Charles

the Bald met the enemy on this occasion, as before, with

bribes, gave a fief to Jarl Welland, the Danish leader, and

presently got him settled in the country as a baptized

Christian and a vassal.

Sir F. Palgrave,

History of Normandy and England,

book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

PARIS: A. D. 885-886.

The great siege by the Northmen.

"In November, 885, under the reign of Charles the Fat, after

having, for more than forty years, irregularly ravaged France,

they [the Northmen] resolved to unite their forces in order at

length to obtain possession of Paris, whose outskirts they had

so often pillaged without having been able to enter the heart

of the place, in the Ile de la Cité, which had originally been

and still was the real Paris. Two bodies of troops were set in

motion; one, under the command of Rollo, who was already

famous amongst his comrades, marched on Rouen; the other went

right up the course of the Seine, under the orders of

Siegfried, whom the Northmen called their king. Rollo took

Rouen, and pushed on at once for Paris. …

{2485}

On the 25th of November, 885, all the forces of the Northmen

formed a junction before Paris; 700 huge barks covered two

leagues of the Seine, bringing, it is said, more than 30,000

men. The chieftains were astonished at sight of the new

fortifications of the city, a double wall of circumvallation,

the bridges crowned with towers, and in the environs the

ramparts of the abbeys of St. Denis and St. Germain solidly

rebuilt. … Paris had for defenders two heroes, one of the

Church and the other of the Empire [Bishop Gozlin, and Eudes,

lately made Count of Paris]. … The siege lasted thirteen

months, whiles pushed vigorously forward, with eight several

assaults; whiles maintained by close investment. … The bishop,

Gozlin, died during the siege. Count Eudes quitted Paris for a

time to go and beg aid of the emperor; but the Parisians soon

saw him reappear on the heights of Montmartre with three

battalions of troops, and he re-entered the town, spurring on

his horse and striking right and left with his battle-axe

through the ranks of the dumfounded besiegers. The struggle

was prolonged throughout the summer, and when, in November,

886, Charles the Fat at last appeared before Paris, 'with a

large army of all nations,' it was to purchase the retreat of

the Northmen at the cost of a heavy ransom, and by allowing

them to go and winter in Burgundy, 'whereof the inhabitants

obeyed not the emperor.'"

F. P. Guizot,

Popular History of France,

chapter 12 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

Sir F. Palgrave,

History of Normandy and England,

book 1, chapter 5.

C. F. Keary,

The Vikings in Western Christendom,

chapter 15.

PARIS: A. D. 987.

First becomes the capital of France.

"Nothing is more certain than that Paris never became the

capital of France until after the accession of the third

dynasty. Paris made the Capets, the Capets made Paris."

Sir F. Palgrave,

History of Normandy and England,

volume 1, page 280.

PARIS: A. D. 1180-1199.

Improvement of the city by Philip Augustus.

"During the few short intervals of peace which had occurred in

the hitherto troubled reign of Philip [A. D. 1180-1199], he

had not been unmindful of the civil improvement of his people;

and the inhabitants of his capital are indebted to his

activity for the first attempts to rescue its foul, narrow,

and mud-embedded streets from the reproach which its Latin

name 'Lutetia' very justly implied. Philip expended much of

the treasure, hitherto devoted solely to the revels of the

court, in works of public utility, in the construction of

paved causeways and aqueducts, in founding colleges and

hospitals, in commencing a new city wall, and in the erection

of the Cathedral of Nôtre-Dame."

E. Smedley,

History of France,

part 1, chapter 4.

PARIS: A. D. 1328.

The splendor and gaiety of the Court.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1328.

PARIS: A. D. 1356-1383.

The building of the Bastille.

See BASTILLE.

PARIS: A. D. 1357-1358.

The popular movement under Stephen Marcel.

See STATES GENERAL OF FRANCE IN THE 14TH CENTURY.

PARIS: A. D. 1381.

The Insurrection of the Maillotins.

At the beginning of the reign of Charles VI. a tumult broke

out in Paris, caused by the imposition of a general tax on

merchandise of all kinds. "The Parisians ran to the arsenal,

where they found mallets of lead intended for the defence of

the town, and under the blows from which the greater part of

the collectors of the new tax perished. From the weapons used

the insurgents took the name of Maillotins. Reims, Châlons,

Orleans, Blois, and Rouen rose at the example of the capital.

The States-General of the Langue d' Oil were then convoked at

Compiegne, and separated without having granted anything. The

Parisians were always in arms, and the dukes [regents during

the minority of the young king], powerless to make them

submit, treated with them, and contented themselves with the

offer of 100,000 livres. The chastisement was put off for a

time." The chastisement of Paris and of the other rebellious

towns was inflicted in 1382 (see FLANDERS: A. D. 1382) after

the king and his uncles had subdued the Flemings at

Rosebecque.

E. de Bonnechose,

History of France,

epoch 2, book 2, chapter 5.

PARIS: A. D. 1410-1415.

The reign of the Cabochiens.

The civil war of Armagnacs and Burgundians.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.

PARIS: A. D. 1418.

The massacre of Armagnacs.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.

PARIS: A. D. 1420-1422.

King Henry V. of England and his court in the city.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

PARIS: A. D. 1429.

The repulse of the Maid of Orleans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

PARIS: A. D. 1436.

Recovery from the English.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

PARIS: A. D. 1465.

Siege by the League of the Public Weal.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.

PARIS: A. D. 1496.

Founding of the press of Henry Estienne.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1496-1598.

PARIS: A. D. 1567.

The Battle of St. Denis.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

PARIS: A. D. 1572.

The massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST).

PARIS: A. D. 1588-1589.

Insurrection of the Catholic League.

The Day of Barricades.

Siege of the city by the king and Henry of Navarre.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

PARIS: A. D. 1590.

The siege by Henry IV.

Horrors of famine and disease.

Relief by the Duke of Parma.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1590.

PARIS: A. D. 1594.

Henry IV.'s entry.

Expulsion of Jesuits.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

PARIS: A. D. 1636.

Threatening invasion of Spaniards from the Netherlands.

The capital in peril.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

PARIS: A. D. 1648-1652.

In the wars of the Fronde.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648; 1649; 1650-1651;

and 1651-1653.

PARIS: A. D. 1652.

The Battle of Porte St. Antoine

and the massacre of the Hotel de Ville.

See FRANCE: .A. D. 1651-1653.

PARIS: A. D. 1789-1799.

Scenes of the Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE), and after.

PARIS: A. D. 1814.

Surrender to the Allied armies.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and MARCH-APRIL).

PARIS: A. D. 1815.

The English and Prussian armies in the city.

Restoration of the art-spoils of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

PARIS: A. D. 1848 (February).

Revolution.

Abdication and flight of Louis Philippe.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

PARIS: A. D. 1848 (March-June).

Creation of the Ateliers Nationaux.

Insurrection consequent on closing them.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY), and (APRIL-DECEMBER).

PARIS: A. D. 1851.

The Coup d'Etat.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1851; and 1851-1852.

{2486}

PARIS: A. D. 1870-1871.

Siege by the Germans.

Capitulation.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER),

to 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

PARIS: A. D. 1871 (March-May).

The insurgent Commune.

Its Reign of Terror.

Second Siege of the city.

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

----------PARIS: End--------

PARIS, Congress of (1856).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856;

and DECLARATION OF PARIS.

PARIS, Declaration of.

See DECLARATION OF PARIS.

PARIS, The Parliament of.

See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

PARIS, Treaty of (1763).

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

PARIS, Treaty of (1783).

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

PARIS, Treaty of (1814).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

PARIS, Treaty of (1815).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

PARIS, University of.

See EDUCATION: MEDIÆVAL.

PARISII, The.

See PARIS: THE BEGINNING;

and BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

----------Subject: Start--------

PARLIAMENT, The English:

Early stages of its evolution.

"There is no doubt that in the earliest Teutonic assemblies

every freeman had his place. … But how as to the great

assembly of all, the Assembly of the Wise, the Witenagemót of

the whole realm [of early England]? No ancient record gives us

any clear or formal account of the constitution of that body.

It is commonly spoken of in a vague way as a gathering of the

wise, the noble, the great men. But alongside of passages like

these, we find other passages which speak of it in a way which

implies a far more popular constitution. … It was in fact a

body, democratic in ancient theory, aristocratic in ordinary

practice, but to which any strong popular impulse could at any

time restore its ancient democratic character. … Out of this

body, whose constitution, by the time of the Norman Conquest,

had become not a little anomalous, and not a little

fluctuating, our Parliament directly grew. Of one House of

that Parliament we may say more; we may say, not that it grew

out of the ancient Assembly, but that it is absolutely the

same by personal identity. The House of Lords not only springs

out of, it actually is, the ancient Witenagemót. I can see no

break between the two. … An assembly in which at first every

freeman had a right to appear has, by the force of

circumstances, step by step, without any one moment of sudden

change, shrunk up into an Assembly wholly hereditary and

official, an Assembly to which the Crown may summon any man,

but to which, it is now strangely held, the Crown cannot

refuse to summon the representatives of any man whom it has

once summoned. As in most other things, the tendency to shrink

up into a body of this kind began to show itself before the

Norman Conquest, and was finally confirmed and established

through the results of the Norman Conquest. But the special

function of the body into which the old national Assembly has

changed, the function of 'another House,' an Upper House, a

House of Lords as opposed to a House of Commons, could not

show itself till a second House of a more popular constitution

had arisen by its side. Like everything else in our English

polity, both Houses in some sort came of themselves. Neither

of them was the creation of any ingenious theorist. … Our

Constitution has no founder; but there is one man to whom we

may give all but honours of a founder, one man to whose wisdom

and self-devotion we owe that English history has taken the

course which it has taken for the last 600 years. … That man,

the man who finally gave to English freedom its second and

more lasting shape, the hero and martyr of England in the

greatest of her constitutional struggles, was Simon of

Montfort, Earl of Leicester. If we may not call him the

founder of the English Constitution, we may at least call him

the founder of the House of Commons. … When we reach the 13th

century, we may look on the old Teutonic constitution as

having utterly passed away. Some faint traces of it indeed we

may find here and there in the course of the 12th century; …

but the regular Great Council, the lineal representatives of

the ancient Mycel Gemót or Witenagemót, was shrinking up into

a body not very unlike our House of Lords. … The Great Charter

secures the rights of the nation and of the national Assembly

as against arbitrary legislation and arbitrary taxation on the

part of the Crown. But it makes no change in the constitution

of the Assembly itself. … The Great Charter in short is a Bill

of Rights; it is not what, in modern phrase, we understand by

a Reform Bill. But, during the reigns of John and Henry III.,

a popular element was fast making its way into the national

Councils in a more practical form. The right of the ordinary

freeman to attend in person had long been a shadow; that of

the ordinary tenant-in-chief was becoming hardly more

practical; it now begins to be exchanged for what had by this

time become the more practical right of choosing

representatives to act in his name. Like all other things in

England, this right has grown up by degrees and as the result

of what we might almost call a series of happy accidents. Both

in the reign of John and in the former part of the reign of

Henry, we find several instances of knights from each county

being summoned. Here we have the beginning of our county

members and of the title which they still bear, of knights of

the Shire. Here is the beginning of popular representation, as

distinct from the gathering of the people in their own

persons; but we need not think that those who first summoned

them had any conscious theories of popular representation. The

earliest object for which they were called together was

probably a fiscal one; it was a safe and convenient way of

getting money. The notion of summoning a small number of men

to act on behalf of the whole was doubtless borrowed from the

practice in judicial proceedings and in inquests and

commissions of various kinds, in which it was usual for

certain select men to swear on behalf of the whole shire or

hundred. We must not forget … that our judicial and our

parliamentary institutions are closely connected. … But now we

come to that great change, that great measure of Parliamentary

Reform, which has left to all later reformers nothing to do

but to improve in detail. We come to that great act of the

patriot Earl which made our popular Chamber really a popular

Chamber. …

{2487}

When, after the fight of Lewes, Earl Simon, then master of the

kingdom with the King in his safe keeping, summoned his famous

Parliament [A. D. 1264-5], he summoned, not only two knights

from every county, but also two citizens from every city and

two burgesses from every borough. … Thus was formed that newly

developed Estate of the Realm which was, step by step, to grow

into the most powerful of all, the Commons' House of

Parliament."

E. A. Freeman,

Growth of the English Constitution,

chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapters 6, 13-14.

R. Gneist,

The English Parliament.

T. P. Taswell-Langmead,

English Constitutional History,

chapter 7.

A. Bissett,

Short History of English Parliament,

chapters 2-3.

See, also,

WITENAGEMOT; ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274;

and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1244.

Earliest use of the name.

In 1244, "as had happened just one hundred years previously in

France, the name 'parliamentum' occurs for the first time [in

England] (Chron. Dunst., 1244; Matth. Paris, 1246), and

curiously enough, Henry III. himself, in a writ addressed to

the Sheriff of Northampton, designates with this term the

assembly which originated the Magna Charta: 'Parliamentum

Runemede, quod fuit inter Dom. Joh., Regem patrem nostrum et

barones suos Angliæ' (Rot. Claus., 28 Hen. III.). The name

'parliament' now occurs more frequently, but does not supplant

the more indefinite terms 'concilium,' 'colloquium,' etc."

H. Gneist,

History of the English Constitution,

chapter 19, and foot-note, 2a (volume 1).

"The name given to these sessions of Council [the national

councils of the 12th century] was often expressed by the Latin

'colloquium': and it is by no means unlikely that the name of

Parliament, which is used as early as 1175 by Jordan Fantosme,

may have been in common use. But of this we have no distinct

instance in the Latin Chroniclers for some years further,

although when the term comes into use it is applied

retrospectively."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 13, section 159.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1258.

The Mad Parliament.

An English Parliament, or Great Council, assembled at Oxford

A. D. 1258, so-called by the party of King Henry III. from

whom it extorted an important reorganization of the

government, with much curtailment of the royal power.

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 14, section 176 (volume 2).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1264.

Simon de Montfort's Parliament.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274;

and PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1275-1295.

Development under Edward I.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1275-1295.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1376.

The Good Parliament.

The English parliament of 1376 was called the Good Parliament;

although most of the good work it undertook to do was undone

by its successor.

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 16 (volume 2).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1388.

The Wonderful Parliament.

In 1387, King Richard II. was compelled by a great armed

demonstration, headed by five powerful nobles, to discard his

obnoxious favorites and advisers, and to summon a Parliament

for dealing with the offenses alleged against them. "The

doings of this Parliament [which came together in February,

1388] are without a parallel in English history,—so much so

that the name 'Wonderful Parliament' came afterwards to be

applied to it. With equal truth it was also called 'the

Merciless Parliament.'" It was occupied for four months in the

impeachment and trial of ministers, judges, officers of the

courts, and other persons, bringing a large number to the

block.

J. Gairdner,

Houses of Lancaster and York,

chapter 2, section 5.

ALSO IN:

C. H. Pearson,

English History in the 14th Century,

chapter 11.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1404.

The Unlearned Parliament.

"This assembly [A. D. 1404, reign of Edward IV.] acquired its

ominous name from the fact that in the writ of summons the

king, acting upon the ordinance issued by Edward III in 1372,

directed that no lawyers should be returned as members. He had

complained more than once that the members of the House of

Commons spent more time on private suits than on public

business."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 18, section 634 (volume 3).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1413-1422.

First acquisition of Privilege.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1413-1422.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1425.

The Parliament of Bats.

The English Parliament of 1425-1426 was so-called because of

the quarrels in it between the parties of Duke Humfrey, of

Gloucester, and of his uncle, Bishop Beaufort.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1471-1485.

Depression under the Yorkist kings.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1471-1485.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1558-1603.

Under Queen Elizabeth.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1614.

The Addled Parliament.

In 1614, James I. called a Parliament which certain obsequious

members promised to manage for him and make docile to his

royal will and pleasure. "They were spoken of at Court as the

Undertakers. Both the fact and the title became known, and the

attempt at indirect influence was not calculated to improve

the temper of the Commons. They at once proceeded to their old

grievances, especially discussing the legality of the

impositions (as the additions to the customs were called) and

of monopolies. In anger at the total failure of his scheme,

James hurriedly dissolved the Parliament before it had

completed a single piece of business. The humour of the time

christened this futile Parliament 'the Addled Parliament.'"

J. F. Bright,

History of England,

period 2, page 599.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1640.

The Short Parliament.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1640.

The Long Parliament.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1648.

The Rump.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1649.

Temporary abolition of the House of Peers.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1653.

The Barebones or Little Parliament.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1659.

The Rump restored.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1660-1740.

Rise and development of the Cabinet

as an organ of Parliamentary government.

See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1693.

The Triennial Bill.

In 1693, a bill which passed both Houses, despite the

opposition of King William, provided that the Parliament then

sitting should cease to exist on the next Lady Day, and that

no future Parliament should last longer than three years. The

king refused his assent to the enactment; but when a similar

bill was passed the next year he suffered it to become a law.

H. Hallam,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 15 (volume 3).

{2488}

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1703.

The Aylesbury election case.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1707.

Becomes the Parliament of Great Britain.

Representation of Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1716.

The Septennial Act.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1716.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1771.

Last struggle against the Press.

Freedom of reporting secured.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1727.

Defeat of the first Reform measure.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1830.

State of the unreformed representation.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1832.

The first Reform of the Representation.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1867.

The second Reform Bill.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1883.

Act to prevent Corrupt and Illegal Practices at Elections.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1883.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1884-1885.

The third Reform Bill (text and comment).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

----------PARLIAMENT: End--------

PARLIAMENT, New Houses of.

See WESTMINSTER PALACE.

PARLIAMENT, The Scottish.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603.

PARLIAMENT, The Drunken.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.

PARLIAMENT OF FLORENCE.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

PARLIAMENT OF ITALIAN FREE CITIES.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

"When the Carlovingian Monarchy had given place, first to

Anarchy and then to Feudalism, the mallums, and the Champs de

Mai, and (except in some southern cities) the municipal curiæ

also disappeared. But in their stead there came into existence

the feudal courts. Each tenant in capite of the crown held

within his fief a Parliament of his own free vassals. … There

was administered the seigneur's 'justice,' whether haute,

moyenne, or basse. There were discussed all questions

immediately affecting the seigneurie or the tenants of it.

There especially were adopted all general regulations which

the exigencies of the lordship were supposed to dictate, and

especially all such as related to the raising tailles or other

imposts. What was thus done on a small scale in a minor fief,

was also done, though on a larger scale, in each of the feudal

provinces, and on a scale yet more extensive in the court or

Parliament holden by the king as a seigneur of the royal

domain. … This royal court or Parliament was, however, not a

Legislature in our modern sense of that word. It was rather a

convention, in which, by a voluntary compact between the king

as supreme suzerain and the greater seigneurs as his

feudatories, an ordonnance or an impost was established,

either throughout the entire kingdom, or in some seigneuries

apart from the rest. From any such compact any seigneur might

dissent on behalf of himself and his immediate vassals or, by

simply absenting himself, might render the extension of it to

his own fief impossible. … Subject to the many corrections

which would be requisite to reduce to perfect accuracy this

slight sketch of the origin of the great council or Parliament

of the kings of France, such was, in substance, the

constitution of it at the time of the accession of Louis IX.

[A. D. 1226]. Before the close of his eventful reign, that

monarch had acquired the character and was in full exercise of

the powers of a law-giver, and was habitually making laws, not

with the advice and consent of his council or Parliament, but

in the exercise of the inherent prerogative which even now

they began to ascribe to the French crown. … With our English

prepossessions, it is impossible to repress the wonder, and

even the incredulity, with which we at first listen to the

statement that the supreme judicial tribunal of the kingdom

could be otherwise than the zealous and effectual antagonist

of so momentous an encroachment." The explanation is found in

a change which had taken place in the character of the

Parliament, through which its function and authority became

distinctly judicial and quite apart from those of a council or

a legislature. When Philip Augustus went to the Holy Land, he

provided for the decision of complaints against officers of

the crown by directing the queen-mother and the archbishop of

Rheims, who acted as regents, to hold an annual assembly of

the greater barons. "This practice had become habitual by the

time of Louis IX. For the confirmation and improvement of it,

that monarch ordered that, before the day of any such

assemblage, citations should be issued, commanding the

attendance, not, as before, of the greater barons exclusively,

but of twenty-four members of the royal council or Parliament.

Of those twenty-four, three only were to be great barons,

three were to be bishops, and the remaining eighteen were to

be knights. But as these members of the royal council did not

appear to St. Louis to possess all the qualifications

requisite for the right discharge of the judicial office, he

directed that thirty-seven other persons should be associated

to them. Of those associates, seventeen were to be clerks in

holy orders, and twenty légistes, that is, men bred to the

study of the law. The function assigned to the légistes was

that of drawing up in proper form the decrees and other

written acts of the collective body. To this body, when thus

constituted, was given the distinctive title of the Parliament

of Paris." By virtue of their superior education and training,

the légistes soon gathered the business of the Parliament into

their own hands; the knights and barons found attendance a

bore and an absurdity. "Ennui and ridicule … proved in the

Parliament of Paris a purge quite as effectual as that which

Colonel Pride administered to the English House of Commons.

The conseiller clercs were soon left to themselves, in due

time to found, and to enjoy, what began to be called 'La

Noblesse de la Robe.' Having thus assumed the government of

the court, the légistes next proceeded to enlarge its

jurisdiction. … By … astute constructions of the law, the

Parliament had, in the beginning of the 14th century, become

the supreme legal tribunal within the whole of that part of

France which was at that time attached to the crown." In the

reign of Philip the Long (1316-1322) the Parliament and the

royal council became practically distinct bodies; the former

became sedentary at Paris, meeting nowhere else, and its

members were required to be constantly resident in Paris.

{2489}

By 1345 the parliamentary counselors, as they were now called,

had acquired life appointments, and in the reign of Charles

VI. (1380-1422) the seats in the Parliament of Paris became

hereditary. "At the period when the Parliament of Paris was

acquiring its peculiar character as a court of justice, the

meetings of the great vassals of the crown, to co-operate with

the king in legislation, were falling into disuse. The king …

had begun to originate laws without their sanction; and the

Parliament, not without some show of reason, assumed that the

right of remonstrance, formerly enjoyed by the great vassals,

had now passed to themselves. … If their remonstrance was

disregarded, their next step was to request that the projected

law might be withdrawn. If that request was unheeded, they at

length formally declined to register it among their records.

Such refusals were sometimes but were not usually successful.

In most instances they provoked from the king a peremptory

order for the immediate registration of his ordinance. To such

orders the Parliament generally submitted."

Sir J. Stephen,

Lectures on the History of France,

lecture 8.

"It appears that the opinion is unfounded which ascribes to

the States [the 'States-General'] and the Parliaments a

different origin. Both arose out of the National Assemblies

held at stated periods in the earliest times of the monarchy

[the 'Champs de Mars' and 'Champs de Mai']. … Certainly in the

earliest part of [the 13th] century there existed no longer

two bodies, but only one, which had then acquired the name of

Parliament. The stated meetings under the First race were

called by the name of Mallum or Mallus, sometimes Placitum

[also Plaid], sometimes Synod. Under the Second race they were

called Colloquium also. The translation of this term (and it

is said also of Mallum) into Parliament occurs not before the

time of Louis VI. (le Gros); but in that of Louis VIII., at

the beginning of the 13th century, it became the usual

appellation. There were then eleven Parliaments, besides that

of Paris, and all those bodies had become merely judicial,

that of Paris exercising a superintending power over the other

tribunals. … After [1334] … the Parliament was only called

upon to register the Ordinances. This gave a considerable

influence to the Parliament of Paris, which had a right of

remonstrance before registry; the Provincial Parliaments only

could remonstrate after registry. … The Parliament of Paris,

besides remonstrating, might refuse to register; and though

compellable by the King holding a Bed of Justice, which was a

more solemn meeting of the Parliament attended by the King's

Court in great state [see BED OF JUSTICE), yet it cannot be

doubted that many Ordinances were prevented and many modified

in consequence of this power of refusal."

Lord Brougham,

History of England and France under the House of Lancaster,

note 66.

For an account of the conflict between the Parliament of Paris

and the crown which immediately preceded the French

Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1787-1789.

ALSO IN: M. de la Rocheterie,

Marie Antoinette,

chapters 6-11.

PARMA, Alexander Farnese, Duke of, in the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, to 1588-1593.

----------PARMA: Start--------

PARMA:

Founding of.

See MUTINA.

PARMA: A. D. 1077-1115.

In the Dominions of the Countess Matilda.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

PARMA: A. D. 1339-1349.

Bought by the Visconti, of Milan.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

PARMA: A. D. 1513.

Conquest by Pope Julius II.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

PARMA: A. D. 1515.

Reannexed to Milanese and acquired by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

PARMA: A. D. 1521.

Retaken by the Pope.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

Alienation from the Holy See and erection, with Placentia,

into a duchy, for the House of Farnese.

"Paul III. was the last of those ambitious popes who rendered

the interests of the holy see subordinate to the

aggrandizement of their families. The designs of Paul, himself

the representative of the noble Roman house of Farnese, were

ultimately successful; since, although partially defeated

during his life, they led to the establishment of his

descendants on the throne of Parma and Placentia for nearly

200 years. … He gained the consent of the sacred college to

alienate those states from the holy see in 1545, that he might

erect them into a duchy for his natural son, Pietro Luigi

Farnese; and the Emperor Charles V. had already, some years

before, to secure the support of the papacy against France,

bestowed the hand of his natural daughter, Margaret, widow of

Alessandro de' Medici, upon Ottavio, son of Pietro Luigi, and

grandson of Paul III. Notwithstanding this measure, Charles V.

was not subsequently, however, the more disposed to confirm to

the house of Farnese the investiture of their new possessions,

which he claimed as part of the Milanese duchy; and he soon

evinced no friendly disposition towards his own son-in-law,

Ottavio. Pietro Luigi, the first duke of Parma, proved

himself, by his extortions, his cruelties, and his

debaucheries, scarcely less detestable than any of the ancient

tyrants of Lombardy. He thus provoked a conspiracy and

insurrection of the nobles of Placentia, where he resided; and

he was assassinated by them at that place in 1547, after a

reign of only two years. The city was immediately seized in

the imperial name by Gonzaga, governor of Milan. … To deter

the emperor from appropriating Parma also to himself, [Paul

III.] could devise no other expedient than altogether to

retract his grant from his family, and to reoccupy that city

for the holy see, whose rights he conceived that the emperor

would not venture to invade." But after the death of Paul

III., the Farnese party, commanding a majority in the

conclave. "by raising Julius III. to the tiara [1550],

obtained the restitution of Parma to Ottavio from the

gratitude of the new pope. The prosperity of the ducal house

of Farnese was not yet securely established. The emperor still

retained Placentia, and Julius III. soon forgot the services

of that family. In 1551, the pope leagued with Charles V. to

deprive the duke Ottavio of the fief which he had restored to

him. Farnese was thus reduced … to place himself under the

protection of the French; and this measure, and the indecisive

war which followed, became his salvation. He still preserved

his throne when Charles V. terminated his reign; and one of

the first acts of Philip II., when Italy was menaced by the

invasion of the duke de Guise [1556], was to win him over from

the French alliance, and to secure his gratitude, by yielding

Placentia again to him.

{2490}

But a Spanish garrison was still left in the citadel of that

place; and it was only the brilliant military career of

Alessandro Faroese, the celebrated prince of Parma, son of

duke Ottavio, which finally consummated the greatness of his

family. Entering the service of Philip II., Alessandro

gradually won the respect and favour of that gloomy monarch;

and at length, in 1585, as a reward for his achievements, the

Spanish troops were withdrawn from his father's territories.

The duke Ottavio closed his life in the following year; but

Alessandro never took possession of his throne. He died at the

head of the Spanish armies in the Low Countries in 1592; and

his son Ranuccio quietly commenced his reign over the duchy of

Parma and Placentia under the double protection of the holy

see and the monarchy of Spain."

G. Procter,

History of Italy,

chapter 9.

PARMA: A. D. 1635.

Alliance with France against Spain.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

PARMA: A. D. 1635-1637.

Desolation of the duchy by the Spaniards.

The French alliance renounced.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

PARMA: A. D. 1725.

Reversion of the duchy pledged to the Infant of Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

PARMA: A. D. 1731.

Possession given to Don Carlos, the Infant of Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731;

and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

PARMA: A. D. 1735.

Restored to Austria.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735;

and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

PARMA: A. D. 1745-1748.

Changes of masters.

In the War of the Austrian Succession, Parma was taken by

Spain in 1745; recovered by Austria in the following year (see

ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747); but surrendered by Maria Theresa to

the infant of Spain in 1748.

PARMA: A. D. 1767.

Expulsion of the Jesuits.

Papal excommunication of the Duke.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

PARMA: A. D. 1801.

The Duke's son made King of Etruria.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

PARMA: A. D. 1802.

The duchy declared a dependency of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

PARMA: A. D. 1814.

Duchy conferred on Marie Louise, the ex-empress of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL).

PARMA: A. D. 1831.

Revolt and expulsion of Marie Louise.

Her restoration by Austria.

See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

PARMA: A. D. 1848-1849.

Abortive revolution.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

PARMA: A. D. 1859-1861.

End of the duchy.

Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

----------PARMA: End--------

PARMA, Battle of (1734).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

PARNASSUS.

See THESSALY; and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

PARNELL MOVEMENT, The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879, to 1889-1891.

PARRIS, Samuel, and Salem Witchcraft.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.

PARSEES, The.

"On the western coast of India, from the Gulf of Cambay to

Bombay, we find from one hundred to one hundred and fifty

thousand families whose ancestors migrated thither from Iran.

The tradition among them is, that at the time when the Arabs,

after conquering Iran and becoming sovereigns there,

persecuted and eradicated the old religion [of the Avesta],

faithful adherents of the creed fled to the mountains of

Kerman. Driven from these by the Arabs (in Kerman and Yezd a

few hundred families are still found who maintain the ancient

faith), they retired to the island of Hormuz (a small island

close by the southern coast, at the entrance to the Persian

Gulf). From hence they migrated to Din (on the coast of

Guzerat), and then passed over to the opposite shore. In the

neighbourhood of Bombay and in the south of India inscriptions

have been found which prove that these settlers reached the

coast in the tenth century of our era. At the present time

their descendants form a considerable part of the population

of Surat, Bombay, and Ahmadabad; they call themselves, after

their ancient home, Parsees, and speak the later Middle

Persian."

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 7, chapter 2 (volume 5).

See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.

PARSONS' CAUSE, The.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763.

PARTHENII, The.

This name was given among the Spartans to a class of young

men, sons of Spartan women who had married outside the

exclusive circle of the Spartiatæ. The latter refused, even

when Sparta was most pressingly in need of soldiers, to admit

these "sons of maidens," as they stigmatized them, to the

military body. The Parthenii, becoming numerous, were finally

driven to emigrate, and found a home at Tarentum, Italy.

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 2, chapter 1.

See TARENTUM.

----------PARTHENON: Start--------

PARTHENON AT ATHENS, The.

"Pericles had occasion to erect on the highest point of the

Acropolis, in place of the ancient Hecatompedon, a new festive

edifice and treasure-house, which, by blending intimately

together the fulfilment of political and religious ends, was

to serve to represent the piety and artistic culture, the

wealth and the festive splendour—in fine, all the glories

which Athens had achieved by her valour and her wisdom. …

See ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.

The architect from whose design, sanctioned by Pericles and

Phidias, the new Hecatompedon was erected, was Ictinus, who

was seconded by Callicrates, the experienced architect of the

double line of walls. It was not intended to build an edifice

which should attract attention by the colossal nature of its

proportions or the novelty of its style. The traditions of the

earlier building were followed, and its dimensions were not

exceeded by more than 50 feet. In a breadth of 100 feet the

edifice extended in the form of a temple, 226 feet from east

to west; and the height, from the lowest stair to the apex of

the pediment, amounted only to 65 feet. … The Hecatompedon, or

Parthenon (for it went by this name also as the house of

Athene Parthenos), was very closely connected with the

festival of the Panathenæa, whose splendour and dignity had

gradually risen by degrees together with those of the state. …

The festival commenced with the performances in the Odeum,

where the masters of song and recitation, and the either and

flute-players, exhibited their skill, the choral songs being

produced in the theatre. Hereupon followed the gymnastic

games, which, besides the usual contests in the stadium,

foot-race, wrestling-matches, &c., also included the

torch-race, which was held in the Ceramicus outside the

Dipylum, when no moon shone in the heavens; and which formed

one of the chief attractions of the whole festival."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 3, chapter 3.

See, also, ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS.

{2491}

PARTHENON: A. D. 1687.

Destructive explosion during the siege of Athens

by the Venetians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

----------PARTHENON: End--------

PARTHENOPÉ.

See NEAPOLIS AND PALÆPOLIS.

PARTHENOPEIAN REPUBLIC, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1708-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

PARTHIA, AND THE PARTHIAN EMPIRE.

"The mountain chain, which running southward of the Caspian,

skirts the great plateau of Iran, or Persia, on the north,

broadens out after it passes the south-eastern corner of the

sea, into a valuable and productive mountain-region. Four or

five' distinct ranges here run parallel to one another, having

between them latitudinal valleys, with glens transverse to

their courses. The sides of the valleys are often well wooded;

the flat ground at the foot of the hills is fertile; water

abounds; and the streams gradually collect into rivers of a

considerable size. The fertile territory in this quarter is

further increased by the extension of cultivation to a

considerable distance from the base of the most southern of

the ranges, in the direction of the Great Iranic desert. … It

was undoubtedly in the region which has been thus briefly

described that the ancient home of the Parthians lay. …

Parthia Proper, however, was at no time coextensive with the

region described. A portion of that region formed the district

called Hyrcania; and it is not altogether easy to determine

what were the limits between the two. The evidence goes, on

the whole, to show that while Hyrcania lay towards the west

and north, the Parthian country was that towards the south and

east, the valleys of the Ettrek and Gurghan constituting the

main portions of the former, while the tracts east and south

of those valleys, as far as the sixty-first degree of E.

longitude, constituted the latter. If the limits of Parthia

Proper be thus defined, it will have nearly corresponded to

the modern Persian province of Khorasan. … The Turanian

character of the Parthians, though not absolutely proved,

appears to be in the highest degree probable. If it be

accepted, we must regard them as in race closely allied to the

vast hordes which from a remote antiquity have roamed over the

steppe region of Upper Asia, from time to time bursting upon

the south and harassing or subjugating the comparatively

unwarlike inhabitants of the warmer countries. We must view

them as the congeners of the Huns, Bulgarians and Comans of

the ancient world; of the Kalmucks, Ouigurs, Usbegs, Eleuts,

&c., of the present day. … The Parthians probably maintained

their independence from the time of their settlement in the

district called after their name until the sudden arrival in

their country of the great Persian conqueror, Cyrus, [about

554 B. C.]. … When the Persian empire was organised by Darius

Hystaspis into satrapies, Parthia was at first united in the

same government with Chorasmia, Sogdiana and Aria.

Subsequently, however, when satrapies were made more numerous,

it was detached from these extensive countries, and made to

form a distinct government, with the mere addition of the

comparatively small district of Hyrcania." The conquests of

Alexander included Parthia within their range, and, under the

new political arrangements which followed Alexander's death,

that country became for a time part of the wide empire of the

Seleucidæ, founded by Seleueus Nicator,—the kingdom of Syria

as it was called. But about 250 B. C. a successful revolt

occurred in Parthia, led by one Arsaces, who founded an

independent kingdom and a dynasty called the Arsacid.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187.

Under succeeding kings, especially under the sixth of the

line, Mithridates I. (not to be confused with the Mithridatic

dynasty in Pontus), the kingdom of Parthia was swollen by

conquest to a great empire, covering almost the whole

territory of the earlier Persian empire, excepting in Asia

Minor and Syria. On the rise of the Roman power, the Parthians

successfully disputed with it the domination of the east, in

several wars (see ROME: B. C. 57-52), none of which were

advantageous to the Romans, until the time of Trajan.

G. Rawlinson,

Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy: Parthia.

Trajan (A. D. 115-117—see ROME: A. D. 96-138) "undertook an

expedition against the nations of the East. … The success of

Trajan, however transient, was rapid and specious. The

degenerate Parthians, broken by intestine discord, fled before

his arms. He descended the river Tigris in triumph, from the

mountains of Armenia to the Persian gulf. He enjoyed the

honour of being the first, as he was the last, of the Roman

generals who ever navigated that remote sea. His fleets

ravaged the coasts of Arabia. … Every day the astonished

senate received the intelligence of new names and new nations

that acknowledged his sway. … But the death of Trajan soon

clouded the splendid prospect. … The resignation of all the

eastern conquests of Trajan was the first measure of his

[successor Hadrian's] reign. He [Hadrian] restored to the

Parthians the election of an independent sovereign, withdrew

the Roman garrisons from the provinces of Armenia, Mesopotamia

and Assyria; and, in compliance with the precept of Augustus,

once more established the Euphrates as the frontier of the

empire."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 1.

In the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus at Rome, the

Parthian king Vologeses III. (or Arsaces XXVII.) provoked the

Roman power anew by invading Armenia and Syria. In the war

which followed, the Parthians were driven from Syria and

Armenia; Mesopotamia was occupied; Seleucia, Ctesiphon and

Babylon taken; and the royal palace at Ctesiphon burned (A. D.

165). Parthia then sued for peace, and obtained it by ceding

Mesopotamia, and allowing Armenia to return to the position of

a Roman dependency. Half a century later the final conflict of

Rome and Parthia occurred. "The battle of Nisibis [A. D. 217],

which terminated the long contest between Rome and Parthia,

was the fiercest and best contested which was ever fought

between the rival powers. It lasted for the space of three

days. … Macrinus [the Roman emperor, who commanded] took to

flight among the first; and his hasty retreat discouraged his

troops, who soon afterwards acknowledged themselves beaten and

retired within the lines of their camp.

{2492}

Both armies had suffered severely. Herodian describes the

heaps of dead as piled to such a height that the manœuvres of

the troops were impeded by them, and at last the two

contending hosts could scarcely see one another. Both armies,

therefore, desired peace." But the peace was purchased by Rome

at a heavy price. After this, the Parthian monarchy was

rapidly undermined by internal dissensions and corruptions,

and in A. D. 226 it was overthrown by a revolt of the

Persians, who claimed and secured again, after five centuries

and a half of subjugation, their ancient leadership among the

races of the East. The new Persian Empire, or Sassanian

monarchy, was founded by Artaxerxes I. on the ruins of the

Parthian throne.

G. Rawlinson,

The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapters 3-21.

ALSO IN:

G. Rawlinson,

Story of Parthia.

PARTHIAN HORSE.

PARTHIAN ARROWS.

"Fleet and active coursers, with scarcely any caparison but a

headstall and a single rein, were mounted by riders clad only

in a tunic and trousers, and armed with nothing but a strong

bow and a quiver full of arrows. A training begun in early

boyhood made the rider almost one with his steed; and he could

use his weapons with equal ease and effect whether his horse

was stationary or at full gallop, and whether he was advancing

towards or hurriedly retreating from his enemy. … It was his

ordinary plan to keep constantly in motion when in the

presence of an enemy, to gallop backwards and forwards, or

round and round his square or column, never charging it, but

at a moderate interval plying it with his keen and barbed

shafts."

G. Rawlinson,

Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 11.

----------PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Start--------

PARTIES AND FACTIONS, POLITICAL AND POLITICO-RELIGIOUS.

Abolitionists.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Adullamites.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Aggraviados.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

American.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Ammoniti.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Anarchists.

See ANARCHISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Anilleros.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Anti-Corn-Law League.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839; and 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Anti-Federalists.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Anti-Masonic.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832;

and MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Anti-Renters.

See LIVINGSTON MANOR.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Anti-Slavery.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1688-1780; 1776-1808;

1828-1832; 1840-1847.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Armagnacs.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415; and 1415-1419.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Arrabiati.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Assideans.

See CHASIDIM.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Barnburners.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Beggars.

See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: GUEUX.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Bianchi.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Bigi, or Greys.

See BIGI.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Blacks, or Black Guelfs.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Blue-Light Federalists.

See BLUE-LIGHT FEDERALISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Blues.

See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN;

and VENEZUELA: 1829-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Border Ruffians.

See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Boys in Blue.

See BOYS IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Bucktails.

See NEW YORK A. D. 1817-1819.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Bundschuh.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Burgundians.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1385-1415;

and 1415-1419.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Burschenschaft.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Butternuts.

See Boys IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Cabochiens.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Calixtines, or Utraquists.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434; and 1434-1457.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Camisards.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Caps and Hats.

See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HATS AND CAPS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Carbonari.

See ITALY: A. D. 1808-1809.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Carlists.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846; and 1873-1885.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Carpet-baggers.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Cavaliers and Roundheads.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER);

also, ROUNDHEADS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Center.

See RIGHT, LEFT, AND CENTER.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Charcoals.

See CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Chartists.

See ENGLAND: A.D. 1838-1842; and 1848.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Chasidim.

See CHASIDIM.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Chouans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Christinos.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846; and 1873-1885.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Claybanks and Charcoals.

See CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Clear Grits.

See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Clichyans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Clintonians.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Cods.

See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HOOKS AND CODS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Communeros.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Communists.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Conservative (English).

See CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Constitutional Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Copperheads.

See COPPERHEADS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Cordeliers.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Country Party.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Covenanters.

See COVENANTERS;

also SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557, 1581, 1638, 1644-1645,

and 1660-1661, to 1681-1689.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Crêtois.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Decamisados.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Democrats.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792;

1825-1828; 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Doughfaces.

See DOUGHFACES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Douglas Democrats.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Equal Rights Party.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1835-1837.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Escocés.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Essex Junto.

See ESSEX JUNTO.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Farmers' Alliance.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Federalists.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; 1812;

and 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Feds.

See BOYS IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Fenians.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867;

and CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

Feuillants. See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Free Soilers.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Free Traders.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

The Fronde.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1651-1653.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Gachupines.

See GACHUPINES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Girondists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),

to 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Gomerists.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Grangers.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Graybacks.

See Boys IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Greenbackers.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Greens.

See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Greys.

See BIGI.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Guadalupes.

See GACHUPINES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Guelfs and Ghibellines.

See GUELFS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Gueux, or Beggars.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Half-breeds.

See STALWARTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Hard-Shell Democrats.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Hats and Caps.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Home Rulers or Nationalists.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879;

also ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886, and 1892-1893.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Hooks and Cods, or Kabeljauws.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;

and 1482-1493.

{2493}

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Huguenots.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561, to 1598-1599;

1620-1622, to 1627-1628;

1661-1680; 1681-1698; 1702-1710.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Hunkers.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Iconoclasts of the 8th century.

See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Iconoclasts of the 16th century.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Importants.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Independent Republicans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Independents, or Separatists.

See INDEPENDENTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Intransigentists.

See INTRANSIGENTISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Irredentists.

See IRREDENTISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Jacobins.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Jacobites.

See JACOBITES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Jacquerie.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1358.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Jingoes.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Kabeljauws.

See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HOOKS AND CODS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Kharejites.

See KHAREJITES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Know Nothing.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Ku Klux Klan.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Land Leaguers.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Left.

Left Center.

See RIGHT, LEFT, AND CENTER.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Legitimists.

See LEGITIMISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Leliaerds.

See LELIAERDS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Levellers.

See LEVELLERS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Liberal Republicans.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Liberal Unionists.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Libertines.

See LIBERTINES OF GENEVA.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Liberty Boys.

See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: SONS OF LIBERTY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Liberty Party.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D.1840-1847.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Locofocos.

See LOCOFOCOS;

and NEW YORK: A.D. 1835-1837.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Lollards.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Malignants.

See MALIGNANTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

The Marais, or Plain.

See FRANCE A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Marians.

See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Martling Men.

See MARTLING MEN.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Melchites.

See MELCHITES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

The Mountain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER);

1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);

and after, to 1794-1705 (JULY-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Mugwumps.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Muscadins.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Nationalists, Irish.

See ENGLAND: A.D. 1885-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Neri.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Nihilists.

See NIHILISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Oak Boys.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1708.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Opportunists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1893.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Orangemen.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1705-1706.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Orleanists.

See LEGITIMISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

The Ormée.

See BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Orphans.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Ottimati.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Palleschi.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Patrons of Husbandry.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1801.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Peep-o'-Day Boys.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798, and 1784.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Pelucones.

See PELUCONES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Petits Maîtres.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Piagnoni.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1408.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

The Plain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Plebs.

See PLEBEIANS;

also, ROME: THE BEGINNING, and after.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Politiques.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Popolani.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Populist or People's.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Prohibitionists.

See PROHIBITIONISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Protectionists.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Puritan.

See PURITANS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Republican (Earlier).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Ribbonmen.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1820-1826.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Right.—Right Center.

See RIGHT, LEFT, AND CENTER.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Roundheads.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER);

also, ROUNDHEADS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Sansculottes.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Secesh.

See BOYS IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Serviles.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Shias.

See ISLAM.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Silver-greys.

Snuff-takers.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Socialists.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Soft-Shell Democrats.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Sons of Liberty.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765

THE ORGANIZATION OF THE SONS OF LIBERTY,

and 1864 (OCTOBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Stalwarts.

See STALWARTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Steel Boys.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Sunni.

See ISLAM.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Taborites.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434;

and 1434-1457.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Tammany Ring.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871;

and TAMMANY SOCIETY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Tories.

See RAPPAREES; ENGLAND: A. D. 1680;

CONSERVATIVE PARTY;

and TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Tugenbund.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Ultramontanists.

See ULTRAMONTANE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

United Irishmen.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1703-1798.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Utraquists.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434; and 1434-1457.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Whigs (American).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1834.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Whigs (English).

See WHIGS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Whiteboys.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

White Hoods.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379,

and 'WHITE HOODS OF FRANCE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Whites.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Wide Awakes.

See WIDE AWAKES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Woolly-heads.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Yellows;

See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Yorkinos.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Young Ireland.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1841-1848.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Young Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1831-1848.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:

Zealots.

See ZEALOTS;

and JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

PARTITION OF THE SPANISH EMPIRE, The Treaties of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

PARTITIONS OF POLAND.

See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773; and 1793-1706.

PARU, The Great.

See EL DORADO.

PASARGADÆ.

One of the tribes of the ancient Persians, from which came the

royal race of the Achæmenids.

See PERSIA: ANCIENT PEOPLE AND COUNTRY.

PASCAGOULAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

PASCAL I.,

Pope, A. D. 817-824.

Pascal II., Pope, 1099-1118.

PASCUA.

See VECTIGAL.

PASSAROWITZ, Peace of (1718).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718;

and TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

PASSAU: Taken by the Bavarians and French.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1703.

PASSAU, Treaty of.

See GERMANY; A. D. 1546-1552.

PASSÉ, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

PASTEUR, Louis, and his work in Bacteriology.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY.

PASTORS, The Crusade of the.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1252.

PASTRENGO, Battle of (1799).

SEE FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

{2494}

PASTRY WAR, The.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1828-1844.

PATAGONIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PATAGONIANS.

PATARA, Oracle of.

See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

PATARENES.

PATERINI.

About the middle of the 11th century, there appeared at Milan

a young priest named Ariald who caused a great commotion by

attacking the corruptions of clergy and people and preaching

repentance and reform. The whole of Milan became "separated

into two hotly contending parties. This controversy divided

families; it was the one object which commanded universal

participation. The popular party, devoted to Ariald and

Landulph [a deacon who supported Ariald], was nicknamed

'Pataria', which in the dialect of Milan signified a popular

faction; and as a heretical tendency might easily grow out of,

or attach itself to, this spirit of separatism so zealously

opposed to the corruption of the clergy, it came about that,

in the following centuries, the name Patarenes was applied in

Italy as a general appellation to denote sects contending

against the dominant church and clergy—sects which, for the

most part, met with great favour from the people."

A. Neander,

General History of the Christian Religion and Church

(Bohn's edition),

volume 6, page 67.

"The name Patarini is derived from the quarter of the

rag-gatherers, Pataria."

W. Moeller,

History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages,

page 253, foot-note.

During the fierce controversy of the 11th century over the

question of celibacy for the clergy (see PAPACY: A. D.

1056-1122), the party in Milan which supported Pope Gregory

VII. (Hildebrand) in his inflexible warfare against the

marriage of priests were called by their opponents Patarines.

H. H. Milman,

History of Latin Christianity,

book 6, chapter 3.

See, also,

CATHARISTS: ALBIGENSES;

and PAULICIANS;

and TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.

PATAVIUM, Early knowledge of.

See VENETI OF CISALPINE GAUL.

PATAY, Battle of (1429).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

PATCHINAKS.

UZES.

COMANS.

The Patchinaks, or Patzinaks, Uzes and Comans were successive

swarms of Turkish nomads which came into southeastern Europe

during the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, following and

driving each other into the long and often devastated Danubian

provinces of the Byzantine empire, and across the Balkans. The

wars of the empire with the Patchinaks were many and seriously

exhausting. The Comans are said to have been Turcomans, with

the first part of their true name dropped off.

E. Pears,

The Fall of Constantinople,

chapter 3.

See, also, RUSSIANS: A. D. 865-900.

PATER PATRATUS.

See FETIALES.

PATER PATRIÆ.

"The first individual, belonging to an epoch strictly

historical, who received this title was Cicero, to whom it was

voted by the Senate after the suppression of the Catilinarian

conspiracy."

W. Ramsay,

Manual of Roman Antiquity,

chapter 5.

PATERINI, The.

See PATARENES.

PATNA, Massacre at (1763).

See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

PATRIARCH OF THE WEST, The.

"It was not long after the dissolution of the Jewish state

[consequent on the revolt suppressed by Titus] that it revived

again in appearance, under the form of two separate

communities mostly dependent upon each other: one under a

sovereignty purely spiritual, the other partly temporal and

partly spiritual,—but each comprehending all the Jewish

families in the two great divisions of the world. At the head

of the Jews on this side of the Euphrates appeared the

Patriarch of the West: the chief of the Mesopotamian community

assumed the striking but more temporal title of

'Resch-Glutha,' or' Prince of the Captivity. The origin of

both these dignities, especially of the Western patriarchate,

is involved in much obscurity."

H. H. Milman,

History of the Jews,

book 18.

See, also, JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

PATRIARCHS.

See PRIMATES.

PATRICIAN, The class.

See COMITIA CURIATA;

also, PLEBEIANS.

PATRICIAN, The Later Roman Title.

"Introduced by Constantine at a time when its original meaning

had been long forgotten, it was designed to be, and for a

while remained, the name not of an office but of a rank, the

highest after those of emperor and consul. As such, it was

usually conferred upon provincial governors of the first

class, and in time also upon barbarian potentates whose vanity

the Roman court might wish to flatter. Thus Odoacer,

Theodoric, the Burgundian king Sigismund, Clovis himself, had

all received it from the Eastern emperor: so too in still

later times it was given to Saracenic and Bulgarian princes.

In the sixth and seventh centuries an invariable practice

seems to have attached it to the Byzantine viceroys of Italy,

and thus, as we may conjecture, a natural confusion of ideas

had made men take it to be, in some sense, an official title,

conveying an extensive though undefined authority, and

implying in particular the duty of overseeing the Church and

promoting her temporal interests. It was doubtless with such a

meaning that the Romans and their bishop bestowed it upon the

Frankish kings, acting quite without legal right, for it could

emanate from the emperor alone, but choosing it as the title

which bound its possessor to render to the church support and

defence against her Lombard foes."

J. Bryce,

The Holy Roman Empire,

chapter 4.

PATRICK, St., in Ireland.

See IRELAND: 5-8TH CENTURIES;

and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: IRELAND.

PATRIMONY OF ST. PETER, The.

The territory over which the Pope formerly exercised and still

claims temporal sovereignty.

See STATES OF THE CHURCH

also, PAPACY: A. D. 755-774, and after.

PATRIOT WAR, The.

See CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.

PATRIPASSIANS.

See NOËTIANS.

PATRONAGE, Political.

See STALWARTS.

PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY.

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

PATROONS OF NEW NETHERLAND, and their colonies.

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

PATZINAKS, The.

See PATCHINAKS.

PAUL, St., the Apostle,

the missionary labors of.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100;

and ATHENS: B. C. 54 (?).

Paul, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1796-1801.

Paul I., Pope, 757-767.

Paul II., Pope, 1464-1471.

Paul III., Pope, 1534-1549.

Paul IV., Pope, 1555-1559.

Paul V., Pope, 1605-1621.

{2495}

PAULETTE, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648.

PAULICIANS, The.

"After a pretty long obscurity the Manichean theory revived

with some modification in the western parts of Armenia, and

was propagated in the 8th and 9th centuries by a sect

denominated Paulicians. Their tenets are not to be collected

with absolute certainty from the mouths of their adversaries,

and no apology of their own survives. There seems however to

be sufficient evidence that the Paulicians, though professing

to acknowledge and even to study the apostolical writings,

ascribed the creation of the world to an evil deity, whom they

supposed also to be the author of the Jewish law, and

consequently rejected all the Old Testament. … Petrus Siculus

enumerates six Paulician heresies.

1. They maintained the existence of two deities, the one evil,

and the creator of this world; the other good, … the author

of that which is to come.

2. They refused to worship the Virgin, and asserted that

Christ brought his body from heaven.

3. They rejected the Lord's Supper.

4. And the adoration of the cross.

5. They denied the authority of the Old Testament, but

admitted the New, except the epistles of St. Peter, and,

perhaps, the Apocalypse.

6. They did not acknowledge the order of priests.

There seems every reason to suppose that the Paulicians,

notwithstanding their mistakes, were endowed with sincere and

zealous piety, and studious of the Scriptures. … These errors

exposed them to a long and cruel persecution, during which a

colony of exiles was planted by one of the Greek emperors in

Bulgaria. From this settlement they silently promulgated their

Manichean creed over the western regions of Christendom. A

large part of the commerce of those countries with

Constantinople was carried on for several centuries by the

channel of the Danube. This opened an immediate intercourse

with the Paulicians, who may be traced up that river through

Hungary and Bavaria, or sometimes taking the route of

Lombardy, into Switzerland and France. In the last country,

and especially in its southern and eastern provinces, they

became conspicuous under a variety of names; such as

Catharists, Picards, Paterins, but, above all, Albigenses. It

is beyond a doubt that many of these sectaries owed their

origin to the Paulicians; the appellation of Bulgarians was

distinctively bestowed upon them; and, according to some

writers, they acknowledged a primate or patriarch resident in

that country. … It is generally agreed that the Manicheans

from Bulgaria did not penetrate into the west of Europe before

the year 1000; and they seem to have been in small numbers

till about 1140. … I will only add, in order to obviate

cavilling, that I use the word Albigenses for the Manichean

sects, without pretending to assert that their doctrines

prevailed more in the neighbourhood of Albi than elsewhere.

The main position is that a large part of the Languedocian

heretics against whom the crusade was directed had imbibed the

Paulician opinions. If anyone chooses rather to call them

Catharists, it will not be material."

H. Hallam,

Middle Ages,

chapter 9, part 2, and foot-notes.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 54.

See, also,

CATHARISTS, and ALBIGENSES.

PAULINES, The.

See BARNABITES.

PAULISTAS (of Brazil).

See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.

PAULUS HOOK, The storming of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

PAUSANIUS, The mad conduct of.

See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

----------PAVIA: Start--------

PAVIA:

Origin of the city.

See LIGURIANS.

PAVIA: A. D. 270.

Defeat of the Alemanni.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

PAVIA: A. D. 493-523.

Residence of Theodoric the Ostrogoth.

See VERONA: A. D. 493-525.

PAVIA: A. D. 568-571.

Siege by the Lombards.

Made capital of the Lombard kingdom.

See LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573.

PAVIA: A. D. 753-754.

Siege by Charlemagne.

See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.

PAVIA: A. D. 924.

Destruction by the Hungarians.

See ITALY: A. D. 900-924.

PAVIA: A. D. 1004.

Burned by the German troops.

See ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.

PAVIA: 11-12th Centuries.

Acquisition of Republican Independence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

PAVIA: A. D. 1395.

Relation to the duchy of the Visconti of Milan.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

PAVIA: A. D. 1524-1525.

Siege and Battle.

Defeat and capture of Francis I., of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

PAVIA: A. D. 1527.

Taken and plundered by the French.

See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

PAVIA: A. D. 1745.

Taken by the French and Spaniards.

See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

PAVIA: A. D. 1796.

Capture and pillage by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

----------PAVIA: End--------

PAVON, Battle of.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

PAVONIA, The Patroon colony of.

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

PAWNEES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

PAWTUCKET INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PAXTON BOYS, Massacre of Indians by the.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.

PAYAGUAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

PAYENS, Hugh de, and the founding of the Order of the Templars.

See TEMPLARS.

PAYTITI, The Great.

See EL DORADO.

PAZZI, Conspiracy of the.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

PEA INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PEA RIDGE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

PEABODY EDUCATION FUND.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867-1891.

PEACE, The King's.

See KING'S PEACE;

also LAW, COMMON: A. D. 871-1066, 1110, 1135, and 1300.

PEACE CONVENTION, The.

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

PEACE OF AUGUSTUS, AND PEACE OF VESPASIAN.

See TEMPLE OF JANUS.

PEACE OF THE DAMES,

THE LADIES' PEACE.

See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

{2496}

PEACH TREE CREEK, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

PEACOCK THRONE, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

PEAGE,

PEAKE.

See WAMPUM.

----------PEASANT REVOLTS: Start--------

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 287.

The Bagauds of Gaul.

See BAGAUDS.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1358.

The Jacquerie of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1358.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1381.

Wat Tyler's rebellion in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1450.

Jack Cade's rebellion in England.

See ENGLAND; A. D. 1450.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1492-1514.

The Bundschuh in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1513.

The Kurucs of Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1521-1525.

The Peasants' War in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1652-1653.

Peasant War in Switzerland.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.

----------PEASANT REVOLTS: End--------

PEC-SÆTAN.

Band of Angles who settled on the moorlands of the Peak of

Derbyshire.

PEDDAR-WAY, The.

The popular name of an old Roman road in England, which runs

from Brancaster, on the Wash, via Colchester, to London.

PEDIÆI.

THE PEDION.

See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

PEDRO

(called The Cruel), King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1350-1369.

Pedro, King of Portugal, 1357-1367.

Pedro I., Emperor of Brazil, 1822-1831;

Pedro IV., King of Portugal, 1826

Pedro II., Emperor of Brazil, 1831-1889

Pedro II., King of Portugal, 1667-1706.

Pedro III., King-Consort of Portugal, 1777-1786.

Pedro V., King of Portugal, 1853-1861.

Pedro.

See, also, PETER.

PEEL, Sir Robert: Administrations of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1837, 1837-1839, 1841-1842, to 1846;

TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1842, and 1845-1846;

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1844.

PEEP-O'-DAY BOYS.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798; and 1784.

PEERS.

PEERAGE, The British.

"The estate of the peerage is identical with the house of

lords."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

volume 2, page 184.

See LORDS, BRITISH HOUSE OF;

and PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH.

PEERS OF FRANCE, The Twelve.

See TWELVE PEERS OF FRANCE.

PEGU, British acquisition of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1852.

PEHLEVI LANGUAGE.

"Under the Arsacids, the Old Persian passed into Middle

Persian, which at a later time was known by the name of the

Parthians, the tribe at that time supreme in Persia. Pahlav

and Pehlevi mean Parthian, and, as applied to language, the

language of the Parthians, i. e. of the Parthian era. … In the

latest period of the dominion of the Sassanids, the recent

Middle Persian or Parsec took the place of Pehlevi."

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 7, chapter 1.

PEHUELCHES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

----------PEKIN: Start--------

PEKIN: The origin of the city.

See CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

PEKIN: A. D. 1860.

English and French forces in the city.

The burning of the Summer Palace.

See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

----------PEKIN: End--------

PELAGIANISM.

"Pelagianism was … the great intellectual controversy of the

church in the fifth century, as Arianism had been in the

fourth. … Everyone is aware that this controversy turned upon

the question of free-will and of grace, that is to say, of the

relations between the liberty of man and the Divine power, of

the influence of God upon the moral activity of men. … About

the year 405, a British monk, Pelagius (this is the name given

him by the Greek and Latin writers; his real name, it appears,

was Morgan), was residing at Rome. There has been infinite

discussion as to his origin, his moral character, his

capacity, his learning; and, under these various heads, much

abuse has been lavished upon him; but this abuse would appear

to be unfounded, for judging from the most authoritative

testimony, from that of St. Augustin himself, Pelagius was a

man of good birth, of excellent education, of pure life. A

resident, as I have said, at Rome, and now a man of mature

age, without laying down any distinct doctrines, without

having written any book on the subject, Pelagius began, about

the year I have mentioned, 405, to talk much about free-will,

to insist urgently upon this moral fact, to expound it. There

is no indication that he attacked any person about the matter,

or that he sought controversy; he appears to have acted simply

upon the belief that human liberty was not held in sufficient

account, had not its due share in the religious doctrines of

the period. These ideas excited no trouble in Rome, scarcely

any debate. Pelagius spoke freely; they listened to him

quietly. His principal disciple was Celestius, like him a

monk, or so it is thought at least, but younger. … In 411

Pelagius and Celestius are no longer at Rome; we find them in

Africa, at Hippo and at Carthage. … Their doctrines spread. …

The bishop of Hippo began to be alarmed; he saw in these new

ideas error and peril. … Saint Augustin was the chief of the

doctors of the church, called upon more than any other to

maintain the general system of her doctrines. … You see, from

that time, what a serious aspect the quarrel took: everything

was engaged in it, philosophy, politics, and religion, the

opinions of Saint Augustin and his business, his self-love and

his duty. He entirely abandoned himself to it." In the end,

Saint Augustin and his opinions prevailed. The doctrines of

Pelagius were condemned by three successive councils of the

church, by three successive emperors and by two popes—one of

whom was forced to reverse his first decision. His partisans

were persecuted and banished. "After the year 418, we discover

in history no trace of Pelagius. The name of Celestius is

sometimes met with until the year 427; it then disappears.

These two men once off the scene, their school rapidly

declined."

F. Guizot,

History of Civilization

(translated by Hazlitt),

volume 2, lecture. 5.

ALSO IN:

P. Schaff,

History of the Christian Church, period 3,

chapter 9.

See, also,

PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS.

{2497}

PELASGIANS, The.

Under this name we have vague knowledge of a people whom the

Greeks of historic times refer to as having preceded them in

the occupancy of the Hellenic peninsula and Asia Minor, and

whom they looked upon as being kindred to themselves in race.

"Such information as the Hellenes … possessed about the

Pelasgi, was in truth very scanty. They did not look upon them

as a mythical people of huge giants—as, for example, in the

popular tales of the modern Greeks the ancestors of the latter

are represented as mighty warriors, towering to the height of

poplar trees. There exist no Pelasgian myths, no Pelasgian

gods, to be contrasted with the Greeks. … Thucydides, in whom

the historic consciousness of the Hellenes finds its clearest

expression, also regards the inhabitants of Hellas from the

most ancient times, Pelasgi as well as Hellenes, as one

nation. … And furthermore, according to his opinion genuine

sons of these ancient Pelasgi continued through all times to

dwell in different regions, and especially in Attica.

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 1, chapter 1.

"It is inevitable that modern historians should take widely

divergent views of a nation concerning which tradition is so

uncertain. Some writers, among whom is Kiepert, think that the

Pelasgi were a Semitic tribe, who immigrated into Greece. This

theory, though it explains their presence on the coast, fails

to account for their position at Dodona and in Thessaly. … In

another view, which has received the assent of Thirlwall and

Duncker, Pelasgian is nothing more than the name of the

ancient inhabitants of the country, which subsequently gave

way to the title Achaean, as this in its turn was supplanted

by the term Hellenes. … We have no evidence to support the

idea of a Pelasgic Age as a period of simple habits and

agricultural occupations, which slowly gave way before the

more martial age of the Achaeans. The civilization of the

'Achaean Age' exists only in the epic poems, and the 'Pelasgic

Age' is but another name for the prehistoric Greeks, of whose

agriculture we know nothing."

E. Abbott,

History of Greece,

part 1, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

M. Duncker,

History of Greece,

book 1, chapter 2.

See, also,

DORIANS AND IONIANS;

ŒNOTRIANS;

ARYANS;

ITALY: ANCIENT.

PELAYO, King of the Asturias (or Oviedo) and Leon, A. D. 718-737.

PELHAMS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745; and 1757-1760.

PELIGNIANS, The.

See SABINES.

PELISIPIA, The proposed State of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

----------PELLA: Start--------

PELLA.

A new Macedonian capital founded by Archelaus, the ninth of

the kings of Macedonia.

PELLA:

Surrendered to the Ostrogoths.

See GOTHS (OSTROGOTHS): A. D. 473-488.

----------PELLA: End--------

PELOPIDS.

PELOPONNESUS.

"Among the ancient legendary genealogies, there was none which

figured with greater splendour, or which attracted to itself a

higher degree of poetical interest and pathos, than that of

the Pelopids:—Tantalus, Pelops, Atreus and Thyestes, Agamemnon

and Menelaus and Ægisthus, Helen and Klytaemnestra, Orestes

and Elektra and Hermione. Each of these characters is a star

of the first magnitude in the Grecian hemisphere. … Pelops is

the eponym or name-giver of the Peloponnesus: to find an

eponym for every conspicuous local name was the invariable

turn of Grecian retrospective fancy. The name Peloponnesus is

not to be found either in the Iliad or the Odyssey, nor any

other denomination which can be attached distinctly and

specially to the entire peninsula. But we meet with the name

in one of the most ancient post-Homeric poems of which any

fragments have been preserved—the Cyprian Verses. … The

attributes by which the Pelopid Agamemnon and his house are

marked out and distinguished from the other heroes of the

Iliad, are precisely those which Grecian imagination would

naturally seek in an eponymus—superior wealth, power,

splendour and regality."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 1, chapter 7.

"Of the … family of myths … that of Pelops [is] especially

remarkable as attaching itself more manifestly and decisively

than any other Heroic myth to Ionia and Lydia. We remember the

royal house of Tantalus enthroned on the banks of the Sipylus,

and intimately associated with the worship of the Phrygian

Mother of the Gods. Members of this royal house emigrate and

cross to Hellas from the Ionian ports; they bring with them

bands of adventurous companions, a treasure of rich culture

and knowledge of the world, arms and ornaments, and splendid

implements of furniture, and gain a following among the

natives, hitherto combined in no political union. … This was

the notion formed by men like Thucydides as to the epoch

occasioned by the appearance of the Pelopidæ in the earliest

ages of the nation; and what element in this notion is either

improbable or untenable. Do not all the traditions connected

with Achæan princes of the house of Pelops point with one

consent over the sea to Lydia?"

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 1, chapter 3.

PELOPONNESIAN WAR, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 435-432, to B. C. 405;

and ATHENS: B. C. 431, and after.

PELOPONNESUS, The Doric migration to.

See DORIANS AND IONIANS.

PELTIER TRIAL, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803.

PELUCONES, The.

The name of one of the parties in Chilean politics, supposed

to have some resemblance to the English Whigs.

E. J. Payne,

History of European Colonies,

page 279.

----------PELUSIUM: Start--------

PELUSIUM.

"Behind, as we enter Egypt [from the east] is the treacherous

Lake Serbonis; in front the great marsh broadening towards the

west; on the right the level melancholy shore of the almost

tideless Mediterranean. At the very point of the angle stood

of old the great stronghold Pelusium, Sin, in Ezekiel's days,

'the strength of Egypt' (xxx. 15). The most eastward

Nile-stream flowed behind the city, and on the north was a

port commodious enough to hold an ancient fleet. … As the

Egyptian monarchy waned, Pelusium grew in importance, for it

was the strongest city of the border. Here the last king of

the Saïte line, Psammeticus III, son of Amasis, awaited

Cambyses. The battle of Pelusium, which crushed the native

power, may almost take rank among the decisive battles of the

world. Had the Persians failed, they might never have won the

command of the Mediterranean, without which they could

scarcely have invaded Greece. Of the details of the action we

know nothing."

R. S. Poole,

Cities of Egypt,

chapter 11.

It was at Pelusium that Pompey, defeated and flying from

Cæsar, was assassinated.

{2498}

PELUSIUM: B. C. 47.

Taken by the king of Pergamus.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

PELUSIUM: A. D. 616.

Surprised by Chosroes.

See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.

PELUSIUM: A. D. 640.

Capture by the Moslems.

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

----------PELUSIUM: End--------

PEMAQUID PATENT.

See MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631.

PEMAQUID PATENT: A. D. 1664.

Purchased for the Duke of York.

See NEW YORK A. D. 1664.

PEN SELWOOD, Battle of.

The first battle fought, A. D. 1016, between the English king

Edmund, or Eadmund, Ironsides, and his Danish rival Cnut, or

Canute, for the crown of England. The Dane was beaten.

PENACOOK INDIANS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PENAL LAWS AGAINST THE IRISH CATHOLICS.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1691-1782.

PENDLE, Forest of.

A former forest in Lancashire, England, which was popularly

believed to be the resort of "Lancashire Witches."

PENDLETON BILL, The.

See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

PENDRAGON.

See DRAGON.

PENESTÆ, The.

In ancient Thessaly there was "a class of serfs, or dependent

cultivators, corresponding to the Laconian Helots, who,

tilling the lands of the wealthy oligarchs, paid over a

proportion of its produce, furnished the retainers by which

these great families were surrounded, served as their

followers in the cavalry, and were in a condition of

villanage,—yet with the important reserve that they could not

be sold out of the country, that they had a permanent tenure

in the soil, and that they maintained among one another the

relations of family and village. This … order of men, in

Thessaly called the Penestæ, is assimulated by all ancient

authors to the Helots of Luconia."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 3.

PENINSULAR CAMPAIGN OF McCLELLAN.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862

MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA;

MAY: VIRGINIA,

JUNE: VIRGINIA,

JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA,

JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA.

PENINSULAR WAR, The Spanish.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808 to 1812-1814.

PENN, William, and the colony of Pennsylvania.

See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1681. and after.

PENNAMITE AND YANKEE WAR.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1790.

----------PENNSYLVANIA: Start--------

PENNSYLVANIA.

The aboriginal inhabitants and their relations to the white

colonists.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

DELAWARES, SUSQUEHANNAS, and SHAWANESE.

PENNSYLVANIA:A. D. 1629-1664.

The Dutch and Swedes on the Delaware.

See DELAWARE; A. D. 1620-1631, and after.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1632.

Partly embraced in the Maryland grant to Lord Baltimore.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1634.

Partly embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.

See NEW ALBION.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1641.

The settlement from New Haven, on the site of Philadelphia.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1673.

Repossession of the Delaware by the Dutch.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1681.

The Proprietary grant to William Penn.

"William Penn was descended from a long line of sailor

ancestors. His father, an admiral in the British navy, had

held various important naval commands, and in recognition of

his services had been honored by knighthood. A member of

Parliament, and possessed of a considerable fortune, the path

of worldly advancement seemed open and easy for the feet of

his son, who had received a liberal education at Oxford,

continued in the schools of the Continent. Beautiful in

person, engaging in manner, accomplished in manly exercises

and the use of the sword, fortune and preferment seemed to

wait the acceptance of William Penn. But at the very outset of

his career the Divine voice fell upon his ears as upon those

of St. Paul." He became a follower of George Fox, and one of

the people known as Quakers or Friends. "Many trials awaited

the youthful convert. His father cast him off. He underwent a

considerable imprisonment in the Tower for 'urging the cause

of freedom with importunity.' … In time these afflictions

abated. The influence of his family saved him from the heavier

penalties which fell upon many of his co-religionists. His

father on his death-bed reinstated him as his heir. 'Son

William,' said the dying man, 'if you and your friends keep to

your plain way of preaching and living, you will make an end

of the priests.' Some years later we find him exerting an

influence at Court which almost amounted to popularity. It is

evident that, with all his boldness of opinion and speech,

Penn possessed a tact and address which gave him the advantage

over most of his sect in dealings with worldly people. … In

1680 his influence at Court and with moneyed men enabled him

to purchase a large tract of land in east New Jersey, on which

to settle a colony of Quakers, a previous colony having been

sent out three years before to west New Jersey. Meanwhile a

larger project filled his mind. His father had bequeathed to

him a claim on the Crown for £16,000. Colonial property was

then held in light esteem, and, with the help of some powerful

friends, Penn was enabled so to press his claim as to secure

the charter for that valuable grant which afterward became the

State of Pennsylvania, and which included three degrees of

latitude by five of longitude, west from the Delaware. 'This

day,' writes Penn, January 5, 1681, 'my country was confirmed

to me by the name of Pennsylvania, a name the king [Charles

II.] would give it in honour of my father. I chose New Wales,

being as this a pretty hilly country. I proposed (when the

Secretary, a Welshman, refused to have it called New Wales)

Sylvania, and they added Penn to it, and though I much opposed

it, and went to the King to have it struck out and altered, he

said 'twas past, and he would take it upon him. … I feared

lest it should be looked upon as a vanity in me, and not as a

respect of the King, as it truly was, to my father, whom he

often mentions with praise.'

{2499}

'In return for this grant of 26,000,000 of acres of the best

land in the universe, William Penn, it was agreed, was to

deliver annually at Windsor Castle two beaver-skins, pay into

the King's treasury one fifth of the gold and silver which the

province might yield, and govern the province in conformity

with the laws of England and as became a liege of England's

King. He was to appoint judges and magistrates, could pardon

all crimes except murder and treason, and whatsoever things he

could lawfully do himself, he could appoint a deputy to do, he

and his heirs forever.' The original grant was fantastically

limited by a circle drawn twelve miles distant from Newcastle,

northward and westward, to the beginning of the 40th degree of

latitude. This was done to accommodate the Duke of York, who

wished to retain the three lower counties as an appanage to

the State of New York. A few months later he was persuaded to

renounce this claim, and the charter of Penn was extended to

include the western and southern shores of the Delaware Bay

and River from the 43rd degree of latitude to the Atlantic. …

The charter confirmed, a brief account of the country was

published, and lands offered for sale on the easy terms of 40

shillings a hundred acres, and one shilling's rent a year in

perpetuity. Numerous adventurers, many of them men of wealth

and respectability, offered. The articles of agreement

included a provision as to 'just and friendly conduct toward

the natives.' … In April, 1681, he sent forward 'young Mr.

Markham,' his relative, with a small party of colonists to

take possession of the grant, and prepare for his own coming

during the following year. … In August, 1682, Penn himself

embarked."

Susan Coolidge

(S. C. Woolsey),

Short History of Philadelphia,

chapter 2.

"The charter [to Penn], which is given complete in Hazard's

Annals, consists of 23 articles, with a preamble. … The grant

comprises all that part of America, islands included, which is

bounded on the east by the Delaware River from a point on a

circle twelve miles northward of New Castle town to the 43°

north latitude if the Delaware extends so far; if not, as far

as it does extend, and thence to the 43° by a meridian line.

From this point westward five degrees of longitude on the 43°

parallel; the western boundary to the 40th parallel, and

thence by a straight line to the place of beginning. … Grants

Penn rights to and use of rivers, harbors, fisheries, etc. …

Creates and constitutes him Lord Proprietary of the Province,

saving only his allegiance to the King, Penn to hold directly

of the kings of England, 'as of our castle of Windsor in the

county of Berks, in free and common socage, by fealty only,

for all services, and not in capite, or by Knight's service,

yielding and paying therefore to us, our heirs and successors,

two beaver-skins.' … Grants Penn and his successors, his

deputies and lieutenants, 'free, full, and absolute power' to

make laws for raising money for the public uses of the

Province, and for other public purposes at their discretion,

by and with the advice and consent of the people or their

representatives in assembly. … Grants power to appoint

officers, judges, magistrates, etc., to pardon offenders."

J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,

History of Philadelphia,

chapter 7 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

T. Clarkson,

Memoirs of William Penn,

volume 1, chapters 16-17.

S. Hazard,

Annals of Pennsylvania,

pages 485-504.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1681-1682.

Penn's Frame of Government.

Before the departure from England of the first company of

colonists, Penn drew up a Frame of Government which he

submitted to them, and to which they gave their assent and

approval by their signatures, he signing the instrument

likewise. The next year this Frame of Government was published

by Penn, with a preface, "containing his own thoughts upon the

origin, nature, object, and modes of Government. … The Frame,

which followed this preface, consisted of twenty-four

articles; and the Laws, which were annexed to the latter, were

forty. By the Frame the government was placed in the Governor

and Freemen of the province, out of whom were to be formed two

bodies; namely, a Provincial Council and a General Assembly.

These were to be chosen by the Freemen; and though the

Governor or his Deputy was to be perpetual President, he was

to have but a treble vote. The Provincial Council was to

consist of seventy-two members. One third part, that is,

twenty-four of them, were to serve for three years, one third

for two, and the other third for one; so that there might be

an annual succession of twenty-four new members, each third

part thus continuing for three years and no longer. It was the

office of this Council to prepare and propose bills, to see

that the laws were executed, to take care of the peace and

safety of the province, to settle the situation of ports,

cities, market towns, roads, and other public places, to

inspect the public treasury, to erect courts of justice,

institute schools, and reward the authors of useful discovery.

Not less than two thirds of these were necessary to make a

quorum; and the consent of not less than two thirds of such

quorum in all matters of moment. The General Assembly was to

consist the first year of all the freemen, and the next of two

hundred. These were to be increased afterwards according to

the increase of the population of the province. They were to

have no deliberative power; but, when bills were brought to

them from the Governor and Provincial Council, to pass or

reject them by a plain Yes or No. They were to present

sheriffs and justices of the peace to the Governor, a double

number for his choice of half. They were to be elected

annually. All elections of members, whether to the Provincial

Council or General Assembly, were to be by ballot. And this

Charter or Frame of Government was not to be altered, changed,

or diminished in any part or clause of it, without the consent

of the Governor, or his heirs or assigns, and six parts out of

seven of the Freemen both in the Provincial Council and

General Assembly. With respect to the Laws, which I said

before were forty in number, I shall only at present observe

of them that they related to whatever may be included under

the term 'Good Government of the Province'; some of them to

liberty of conscience; others to civil officers and their

qualifications; others to offences; others to legal

proceedings, such as pleadings, processes, fines,

imprisonments, and arrests; others to the natural servants and

poor of the province. With respect to all of them it may be

observed, that, like the Frame itself, they could not be

altered but by the consent of the Governor, or his heirs, and

the consent of six parts out of seven of the two bodies before

mentioned."

T. Clarkson,

Memoirs of William Penn,

volume 1, chapter 18.

ALSO IN:

S. Hazard,

Annals of Pennsylvania,

pages 558-574.

{2500}

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682.

Acquisition by Penn of the claims of the Duke of York to

Delaware.

"During the negotiations between New Netherland and Maryland

in 1659, the Dutch insisted that, as Lord Baltimore's patent

covered only savage or uninhabited territory, it could not

affect their own possession of the Delaware region.

Accordingly, they held it against Maryland until it was taken

from them by the Duke of York in 1664. But James's title by

conquest had never been confirmed to him by a grant from the

king; and Cecilius Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore,

insisted that Delaware belonged to Maryland. To quiet

controversy, the duke had offered to buy off Baltimore's

claim, to which he would not agree. Penn afterward refused a

large offer by Fenwick 'to get of the duke his interest in

Newcastle and those parts' for West Jersey. Thus stood the

matter when the Pennsylvania charter was sealed. Its

proprietor soon found that his province, wholly inland, wanted

a front on the sea. As Delaware was 'necessary' to

Pennsylvania, Penn 'endeavored to get it' from the duke by

maintaining that Baltimore's pretension 'was against law,

civil and common.' Charles Calvert, the third Lord Baltimore,

was 'very free' in talking against the Duke of York's rights;

but he could not circumvent Penn. The astute Quaker readily

got from James a quit-claim of all his interest in the

territory included within the proper bounds of Pennsylvania.

After a struggle, Penn also gained the more important

conveyances [August, 1682] to himself of the duke's interest

in all the region within a circle of twelve miles diameter

around Newcastle, and extending southward as far as Cape

Henlopen. The triumphant Penn set sail the next week. At

Newcastle he received from James's agents formal possession of

the surrounding territory, and of the region farther south."

J. R. Brodhead,

History of New York,

volume 2, chapter 7.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682-1685.

Penn's arrival in his province.

His treaty with the Indians.

The founding of Philadelphia.

Penn sailed, in person, for his province on the 1st of

September, 1682, on the ship "Welcome," with 100 fellow

passengers, mostly Friends, and landed at Newcastle after a

dreary voyage, during which thirty of his companions had died

of smallpox. "Next day he called the people together in the

Dutch court-house, when he went through the legal forms of

taking possession. … Penn's great powers being legally

established, he addressed the people in profoundest silence.

He spoke of the reasons for his coming—the great idea which he

had nursed from his youth upwards—his desire to found a free

and virtuous state, in which the people should rule

themselves. … He spoke of the constitution he had published

for Pennsylvania as containing his theory of government; and

promised the settlers on the lower reaches of the Delaware,

that the same principles should be adopted in their territory.

Every man in his provinces, he said, should enjoy liberty of

conscience and his share of political power. … The people

listened to this speech with wonder and delight. … They had

but one request to make in answer; that he would stay amongst

them and reign over them in person. They besought him to annex

their territory to Pennsylvania, in order that the white

settlers might have one country, one parliament, and one

ruler. He promised, at their desire, to take the question of a

union of the two provinces into consideration, and submit it

to an assembly then about to meet at Upland. So he took his

leave. Ascending the Delaware … the adventurers soon arrived

at the Swedish town of Upland, then the place of chief

importance in the province. … Penn changed the name from

Upland to Chester, and as Chester it is known. Markham and the

three commissioners had done their work so well that in a

short time after Penn's arrival, the first General Assembly,

elected by universal suffrage, was ready to meet. … As soon as

Penn had given them assurances similar to those which he had

made in Newcastle, they proceeded to discuss, amend, and

accept the Frame of Government and the Provisional Laws. The

settlers on the Delaware sent representatives to this

Assembly, and one of their first acts was to declare the two

Provinces united. The constitution was adopted without

important alteration; and to the forty laws were added

twenty-one others, and the infant code was passed in form. …

Penn paid some visits to the neighbouring seats of government

in New York, Maryland, and the Jerseys. At West River, Lord

Baltimore came forth to meet him with a retinue of the chief

persons in the province. … It was impossible to adjust the

boundary, and the two proprietors separated with the

resolution to maintain their several rights. … The lands

already bought from the Redmen were now put up for sale at

four-pence an acre, with a reserve of one shilling for every

hundred acres as quit-rent; the latter sum intended to form a

state revenue for the Governor's support. Amidst these sales

and settlements he recollected George Fox, for whose use and

profit he set aside a thousand acres of the best land in the

province. … Penn was no less careful for the Redskins. Laying

on one side all ceremonial manners, he won their hearts by his

easy confidence and familiar speech. He walked with them alone

into the forests. He sat with them on the ground to watch the

young men dance. He joined in their feasts, and ate their

roasted hominy and acorns. … Having now become intimate with

Taminent and other of the native kings, who had approved these

treaties, seeing great advantages in them for their people, he

proposed to hold a conference with the chiefs and warriors, to

confirm the former treaties and form a lasting league of

peace. On the banks of the Delaware, in the suburbs of the

rising city of Philadelphia, lay a natural amphitheatre, used

from time immemorial as a place of meeting for the native

tribes. The name of Sakimaxing—now corrupted by the white men

into Shackamaxon—means the place of kings. At this spot stood

an aged elm-tree, one of those glorious elms which mark the

forests of the New World. It was a hundred and fifty-five

years old; under its spreading branches friendly nations had

been wont to meet; and here the Redskins smoked the calumet of

peace long before the pale-faces landed on those shores.

Markham had appointed this locality for his first conference,

and the land commissioners wisely followed his example.

{2501}

Old traditions had made the place sacred to one of the

contracting parties,—and when Penn proposed his solemn

conference, he named Sakimaxing [or Shackamaxon] as a place of

meeting with the Indian kings. Artists have painted, poets

sung, philosophers praised this meeting of the white men and

the red [October 14, 1682]. … All being seated, the old king

announced to the Governor that the natives were prepared to

hear and consider his words. Penn then rose to address them. …

He and his children, he went on to say, never fired the rifle,

never trusted to the sword; they met the red men on the broad

path of good faith and good will. They meant no harm, and had

no fear. He read the treaty of friendship, and explained its

clauses. It recited that from that day the children of Onas

and the nations of the Lenni Lenapé should be brothers to each

other,—that all paths should be free and open—that the doors

of the white men should be open to the red men, and the lodges

of the red men should be open to the white men,—that the

children of Onas should not believe any false reports of the

Lenni Lenape, nor the Lenni Lenape of the children of Onas,

but should come and see for themselves, … that if any son of

Onas were to do any harm to any Redskin, or any Redskin were

to do harm to a son of Onas, the sufferer should not offer to

right himself, but should complain to the chiefs and to Onas,

that justice might be declared by twelve honest men, and the

wrong buried in a pit with no bottom,—that the Lenni Lenape

should assist the white men, and the white men should assist

the Lenni Lenape, against all such as would disturb them or do

them hurt; and, lastly, that both Christians and Indians

should tell their children of this league and chain of

friendship, that it might grow stronger and stronger, and be

kept bright and clean, without rust or spot, while the waters

ran down the creeks and rivers, and while the sun and moon and

stars endured. He laid the scroll on the ground. The sachems

received his proposal for themselves and for their children.

No oaths, no seals, no mummeries, were used; the treaty was

ratified on both sides with yea,—and, unlike treaties which

are sworn and sealed, was kept. When Penn had sailed, he held

a note in his mind of six things to be done on landing:

(1) to organize his government;

(2) to visit Friends in Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey;

(3) to conciliate the Indians;

(4) to see the Governor of New York, who had previously

governed his province;

(5) to fix the site for his capital city;

(6) to arrange his differences with Lord Baltimore.

The subject of his chief city occupied his anxious thought,

and Markham had collected information for his use. Some people

wished to see Chester made his capital; but the surveyor,

Thomas Holme, agreed with Penn that the best locality in

almost every respect was the neck of land lying at the

junction of the Delaware and the Skuylkill rivers. … The point

was known as Wicocoa. … The land was owned by three Swedes,

from whom Penn purchased it on their own terms; and then, with

the assistance of Holme, he drew his plan. … Not content to

begin humbly, and allow house to be added to house, and street

to street, as people wanted them, he formed the whole scheme

of his city—its name, its form, its streets, its docks, and

open spaces—fair and perfect in his mind, before a single

stone was laid. According to his original design, Philadelphia

was to cover with its houses, squares, and gardens, twelve

square miles. … One year from the date of Penn's landing in

the New World, a hundred houses had been built; two years

later there were six hundred houses."

W. H. Dixon,

History of William Penn,

chapters 24-25.

ALSO IN:

J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,

History of Philadelphia,

volume 1, chapter 9.

Memoirs of the Penn Historical Society,

volume 6 (The Belt of Wampum, &c.).

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,

Popular History of the United States,

volume 2, chapter 20.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1685.

The Maryland Boundary question.

Points in dispute with Lord Baltimore.

"The grant to Penn confused the old controversy between

Virginia and Lord Baltimore as to their boundary, and led to

fresh controversies. The question soon arose: What do the

descriptions, 'the beginning of the fortieth,' and 'the

beginning of the three and fortieth degree of northern

latitude,' mean? If they meant the 40th and 43rd parallels of

north latitude, as most historians have held, Penn's province

was the zone, three degrees of latitude in width, that leaves

Philadelphia a little to the south and Syracuse a little to

the north; but if those descriptions meant the belts lying

between 39° and 40°, and 42° and 43°, as some authors have

held, then Penn's southern and northern boundaries were 39°

and 42° north. A glance at the map of Pennsylvania will show

the reader how different the territorial dispositions would

have been if either one of these constructions had been

carried out. The first construction would avoid disputes on

the south, unless with Virginia west of the mountains; on the

north it would not conflict with New York, but would most

seriously conflict with Connecticut and Massachusetts west of

the Delaware. The second construction involved disputes with

the two southern colonies concerning the degree 39-40 to the

farthest limit of Pennsylvania, and it also overlapped

Connecticut's claim to the degree 41-42. Perhaps we cannot

certainly say what was the intention of the king, or Penn's

first understanding; but the Quaker proprietary and his

successors adopted substantially the second construction, and

thus involved their province in the most bitter disputes. The

first quarrel was with Lord Baltimore. It has been well said

that this 'notable quarrel' 'continued more than eighty years;

was the cause of endless trouble between individuals; occupied

the attention not only of the proprietors of the respective

provinces, but of the Lords of Trade and Plantations, of the

High Court of Chancery, and of the Privy Councils of at least

three monarchs; it greatly retarded the settlement and

development of a beautiful and fertile country, and brought

about numerous tumults, which sometimes ended in bloodshed.'"

B. A. Hinsdale,

The Old Northwest,

chapter 7.

"As the Duke of York claimed, by right of conquest, the

settlements on the western shores of the Bay of Delaware, and

had, by his deed of 1682, transferred to William Penn his

title to that country, embracing the town of Newcastle and

twelve miles around it (as a reasonable portion of land

attached to it), and as far down as what was then called Cape

Henlopen; an important subject of controversy was the true

situation of that cape, and the ascertainment of the southern

and western boundaries of the country along the bay, as

transferred by the Duke's deed. …

{2502}

After two personal interviews in America, the Proprietaries

separated without coming to any arrangement and with mutual

recriminations and dissatisfaction. And they each wrote to the

Lords of Plantations excusing themselves and blaming the

other. … At length, in 1685, one important step was taken

toward the decision of the conflicting claims of Maryland and

Pennsylvania, by a decree of King James' Council, which

ordered, 'that for a voiding further differences, the tract of

land lying between the Bay of Delaware and the eastern sea, on

the one side, and the Chesapeake Bay on the other, be divided

into equal parts, by a line from the latitude of Cape Henlopen

to the 40th degree of north latitude, the southern boundary of

Pennsylvania by Charter; and that the one half thereof, lying

towards the Bay of Delaware and the eastern sea, be adjudged

to belong to his majesty, and the other half to Lord

Baltimore, as comprised in his charter.' … This decree of King

James, which evidently exhibits a partiality towards the

claims of Penn, in decreeing the eastern half of the peninsula

to his majesty, with whom Lord Baltimore could not presume,

and indeed had declined to dispute, instead of to the

Proprietary himself, by no means removed the difficulties

which hung over this tedious, expensive, and vexatious

litigation. For … there existed as much uncertainty with

respect to the true situation of Cape Henlopen and the

ascertainment of the middle of the Peninsula, as any points in

contest."

J. Dunlop,

Memoir on the Controversy between William Penn

and Lord Baltimore,

(Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs, volume 1).

See, PENNSYLVANIA: 1760-1767.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1691-1702.

Practical separation of Delaware.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1691-1702.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

Keith's schism.

Penn deprived of his government, but restored.

Early resistance to the proprietary yoke.

"While New England and New York were suffering from war,

superstition, and the bitterness of faction, Pennsylvania was

not without internal troubles. These troubles originated with

George Keith, a Scotch Quaker, formerly surveyor-general of

East Jersey, and at this time master of the Quaker school at

Philadelphia, and champion of the Quakers against Cotton

Mather and the Boston ministers. Pressing the doctrines of

non-resistance to their logical conclusion, Keith advanced the

opinion that Quaker principles were not consistent with the

exercise of political authority. He also attacked negro

slavery as inconsistent with those principles. There is no

surer way of giving mortal offense to a sect or party than to

call upon it to be consistent with its own professed

doctrines. Keith was disowned by the yearly meeting, but he

forthwith instituted a meeting of his own, to which he gave

the name of Christian Quakers. In reply to a 'Testimony of

Denial' put forth against him, he published an 'Address,' in

which he handled his adversaries with very little ceremony. He

was fined by the Quaker magistrates for insolence, and

Bradford, the only printer in the colony, was called to

account for having published Keith's address. Though he

obtained a discharge, Bradford, however, judged it expedient

to remove with his types to New York, which now [1692] first

obtained a printing press. The Episcopalians and other

non-Quakers professed great sympathy for Keith, and raised a

loud outcry against Quaker intolerance. Keith himself

presently embraced Episcopacy, went to England, and took

orders there. The Quaker magistrates were accused of hostility

to the Church of England, and in the alleged maladministration

of his agents, joined with his own suspected loyalty, a

pretense was found for depriving Penn of the government—a step

taken by the Privy Council without any of the forms, or,

indeed, any authority of law, though justified by the opinions

of some of the leading Whig lawyers of that day." Governor

Fletcher of New York was now authorized for a time to

administer the government of Pennsylvania and Delaware. "He

accordingly visited Philadelphia, and called an Assembly in

which deputies from both provinces were present. Penn's frame

of government was disregarded, the Assembly being modeled

after that of New York. Fletcher hoped to obtain a salary for

himself and some contributions toward the defense of the

northern frontier. The Quakers, very reluctant to vote money

at all, had special scruples about the lawfulness of war. They

were also very suspicious of designs against their liberties,

and refused to enter on any business until the existing laws

and liberties of the province had been first expressly

confirmed. This concession reluctantly made, Fletcher obtained

the grant of a small sum of money, not, however, without

stipulating that it 'should not be dipped in blood.' … The

suspicions against Penn soon dying away, the administration of

his province was restored to him [1694]. But the pressure of

his private affairs—for he was very much in debt—detained him

in England, and he sent a commission to Markham [his relative

and representative in Pennsylvania] to act as his deputy. An

Assembly called by Markham refused to recognize the binding

force of Penn's frame of government, which, indeed, had been

totally disregarded by Fletcher. To the restrictions on their

authority imposed by that frame they would not submit. A

second Assembly [1696] proved equally obstinate, and, as the

only means of obtaining a vote of the money required of the

province toward the defense of New York, Markham was obliged

to agree to a new act of settlement, securing to the Assembly

the right of originating laws. A power of disapproval was

reserved, however, to the proprietary, and this act never

received Penn's sanction."

R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

chapter 21 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

G. E. Ellis,

Life of Penn,

chapter 10

(Library of American Bibliographies, series 2, volume 12).

G. P. Fisher,

The Colonial Era,

chapter 16.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1696-1749.

Suppression of colonial manufactures.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1701-1718.

The new Charter of Privileges and

the city charter of Philadelphia.

The divorcing of Delaware.

Differences with the Proprietary.

The death of Penn.

It was not until 1699 that Penn returned to his domain after

an absence of fifteen years, and his brief stay of two years

was not made wholly agreeable to him. Between him and his

colonists there were many points of friction, as was

inevitable under the relationship in which they stood to one

another. The assembly of the province would not be persuaded

to contribute to the fortification of the northern frontier of

the king's dominions (in New York) against the French and

Indians. Penn's influence, however, prevailed upon that body

to adopt measures for suppressing both piracy and illicit

trade.

{2503}

With much difficulty, moreover, he settled with his subjects

the terms of a new constitution of government, or Charter of

Privileges, as it was called. The old Frame of Government was

formally abandoned and the government of Pennsylvania was now

organized upon an entirely new footing. "The new charter for

the province and territories, signed by Penn, October 25,

1701, was more republican in character than those of the

neighboring colonies. It not only provided for an assembly of

the people with great powers, including those of creating

courts, but to a certain extent it submitted to the choice of

the people the nomination of some of the county officers. The

section concerning liberty of conscience did not discriminate

against the members of the Church of Rome. The closing section

fulfilled the promise already made by Penn, that in case the

representatives of the two territorial districts [Pennsylvania

proper, held under Penn's original grant, and the Lower

Counties, afterwards constituting Delaware, which he acquired

from the Duke of York] could not agree within three years to

join in legislative business, the Lower Counties should be

separated from Pennsylvania. On the same day Penn established

by letters-patent a council of state for the province, 'to

consult and assist the proprietary himself or his deputy with

the best of their advice and council in public affairs and

matters relating to the government and the peace and

well-being of the people; and in the absence of the

proprietary, or upon the deputy's absence out of the province,

his death, or other incapacity, to exercise all and singular

the powers of government.' The original town and borough of

Philadelphia, having by this time 'become near equal to the

city of New York in trade and riches,' was raised, by patent

of the 25th of October, 1701, to the rank of a city, and, like

the province, could boast of having a more liberal charter

than her neighbors; for the municipal officers were to be

elected by the representatives of the people of the city, and

not appointed by the governor, as in New York. The government

of the province had been entrusted by Penn to Andrew Hamilton,

also governor for the proprietors in New Jersey, with James

Logan as provincial secretary, to whom was likewise confided

the management of the proprietary estates, thus making him in

reality the representative of Penn and the leader of his

party. Hamilton died in December, 1702; but before his death

he had endeavored in vain to bring the representatives of the

two sections of his government together again. The Delaware

members remained obstinate, and finally, while Edward Shippen,

a member of the council and first mayor of Philadelphia, was

acting as president, it was settled that they should have

separate assemblies, entirely independent of each other. The

first separate assembly for Pennsylvania proper met at

Philadelphia, in October, 1703, and by its first resolution

showed that the Quakers, so dominant in the province, were

beginning to acquire a taste for authority, and meant to color

their religion with the hue of political power." In December,

1703, John Evans, a young Welshman, appointed deputy-governor

by Penn, arrived at Philadelphia, and was soon involved in

quarrels with the assemblies. "At one time they had for ground

the refusal of the Quakers to support the war which was waging

against the French and Indians on the frontiers. At another

they disagreed upon the establishment of a judiciary. These

disturbances produced financial disruptions, and Penn himself

suffered therefrom to such an extent that he was thrown into a

London prison, and had finally to mortgage his province for

£6,000. The recall of Evans in 1709, and the appointment of

Charles Gookin in his stead, did not mend matters. Logan,

Penn's intimate friend and representative, was finally

compelled to leave the country; and, going to England (1710),

he induced Penn to write a letter to the Pennsylvania

assembly, in which he threatened to sell the province to the

crown, a surrender by which he was to receive £12,000. The

transfer was in fact prevented by an attack of apoplexy from

which Penn suffered in 1712. The epistle, however, brought the

refractory assembly to terms." In 1717 Gookin involved himself

in fresh troubles and was recalled. Sir William Keith was then

appointed—"the last governor commissioned by Penn himself; for

the great founder of Pennsylvania died in 1718. … After Penn's

death his heirs went to law among themselves about the

government and proprietary rights in Pennsylvania."

B. Fernow,

Middle Colonies

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 5, chapter 3).

ALSO IN:

G. E. Ellis,

Life of Penn

(Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 12),

chapters 11-12.

R. Proud,

History of Pennsylvania,

chapters 14-22 (volumes 1-2).

Penn and Logan Correspondence

(Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs, volumes 9-10).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1709-1710.

Immigration of Palatines and other Germans.

See PALATINES.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

First settlements and missions of the Moravian Brethren.

See MORAVIAN BRETHREN.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1743.

Origin of the University of Pennsylvania.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1683-1779.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1744-1748.

King George's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1748-1754.

First movements beyond the mountains

to dispute possession with the French.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799.

Connecticut claims and settlements in the Wyoming Valley.

The Pennamite and Yankee War.

"The charter bounds [of Connecticut] extended west to the

Pacific Ocean [see CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664]: this would

have carried Connecticut over a strip covering the northern

two fifths of the present State of Pennsylvania. Stuart

faithlessness interfered with this doubly. Almost immediately

after the grant of the charter, Charles granted to his brother

James the Dutch colony of New Netherland, thus interrupting

the continuity of Connecticut. Rather than resist the king's

brother, Connecticut agreed and ratified the interruption. In

1681 a more serious interference took place. Charles granted

to Penn the province of Pennsylvania, extending westward five

degrees between the 40th and 43rd parallels of north

latitude." Under the final compromise of Penn's boundary

dispute with Lord Baltimore the northern line of Pennsylvania

was moved southward to latitude 42° instead of 43°; but it

still absorbed five degrees in length of the Connecticut

western belt.

{2504}

"The territory taken from Connecticut by the Penn grant would

be bounded southerly on the present map by a straight line

entering Pennsylvania about Stroudsburg, just north of the

Delaware Water Gap, and running west through Hazelton,

Catawissa, Clearfield, and New Castle, taking in all the

northern coal, iron, and oil fields. It was a royal heritage,

but the Penns made no attempt to settle it, and Connecticut

until the middle of the 18th century had no energy to spare

from the task of winning her home territory 'out of the fire,

as it were, by hard blows and for small recompense.' This task

had been fairly well done by 1750, and in 1753 a movement to

colonize in the Wyoming country was set on foot in Windham

county. It spread by degrees until the Susquehanna Company was

formed the next year, with nearly 700 members, of whom 638

were of Connecticut. Their agents made a treaty with the Five

Nations July 11, 1754, by which they bought for £2,000 a tract

of land beginning at the 41st degree of latitude, the

southerly boundary of Connecticut; thence running north,

following the line of the Susquehanna at a distance of ten

miles from it, to the present northern boundary of

Pennsylvania; thence 120 miles west; thence south to the 41st

degree and back to the point of beginning. In May, 1755, the

Connecticut general assembly expressed its acquiescence in the

scheme, if the king should approve it; and it approved also a

plan of Samuel Hazard, of Philadelphia, for another colony, to

be placed west of Pennsylvania, and within the chartered

limits of Connecticut. The court might have taken stronger

ground than this; for, at the meeting of commissioners from

the various colonies at Albany, in 1754, the representatives

of Pennsylvania being present, no opposition was made to a

resolution that Connecticut and Massachusetts, by charter

right, extended west to the South Sea. The formation of the

Susquehanna Company brought out objections from Pennsylvania,

but the company sent out surveyors and plotted its tract.

Settlement was begun on the Delaware River in 1757, and in the

Susquehanna purchase in 1762. This was a temporary settlement,

the settlers going home for the winter. A permanent venture

was made the next year on the flats below Wilkes Barre, but it

was destroyed by the Indians the same year. In 1768 the

company marked out five townships, and sent out forty settlers

for the first, Kingston. Most of them, including the famous

Captain Zebulon Butler, had served in the French and Indian

War; and their first step was to build the 'Forty Fort.' The

Penns, after their usual policy, had refused to sell lands,

but had leased plots to a number of men on condition of their

'defending the lands from the Connecticut claimants.' The

forty Connecticut men found these in possession when they

arrived in February, 1769, and a war of writs and arrests

followed for the remainder of the year. The Pennsylvania men

had one too powerful argument, in the shape of a four-pounder

gun, and they retained possession at the end of the year.

Early in 1770 the forty reappeared, captured the four-pounder,

and secured possession. For a time in 1771 the Pennsylvania

men returned, put up a fort of their own, and engaged in a

partisan warfare; but the numbers of the Connecticut men were

rapidly increasing, and they remained masters until the

opening of the Revolution, when they numbered some 3,000. …

But for the Revolution, the check occasioned by the massacre

[of 1778—see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY)], and

the appearance of a popular government in place of the Penns,

nothing could have prevented the establishment of

Connecticut's authority over all the regions embraced in her

western claims. … The articles of confederation went into

force early in 1781. One of their provisions empowered

congress to appoint courts of arbitration to decide disputes

between States as to boundaries. Pennsylvania at once availed

herself of this, and applied for a court to decide the Wyoming

dispute. Connecticut asked for time, in order to get papers

from England; but congress overruled the motion, and ordered

the court to meet at Trenton in November, 1782. After

forty-one days of argument, the court came to the unanimous

conclusion that Wyoming, or the Susquehanna district, belonged

to Pennsylvania and not to Connecticut." Connecticut yielded

to the decision at once; but, in 1786, when, following New

York and Virginia, she was called upon to make a cession of

her western territorial claims to congress (see UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786) she compensated herself for the

loss of the Susquehanna district by reserving from the cession

"a tract of about the same length and width as the Wyoming

grant, west of Pennsylvania, in northeastern Ohio …; and this

was the tract known as the Western Reserve of Connecticut. It

contained about 3,500,000 acres. … The unfortunate Wyoming

settlers, deserted by their own State, and left to the mercy

of rival claimants, had a hard time of it for years. The

militia of the neighboring counties of Pennsylvania was

mustered to enforce the writs of Pennsylvania courts; the

property of the Connecticut men was destroyed, their fences

were cast down, and their rights ignored; and the 'Pennamite

and Yankee War' began. … The old Susquehanna Company was

reorganized in 1785-86, and made ready to support its settlers

by force. New Yankee faces came crowding into the disputed

territory. Among them was Ethan Allen, and with him came some

Green Mountain Boys." It was not until 1799 that the

controversy came to an end, by the passage of an act which

confirmed the title of the actual settlers.

A. Johnston,

Connecticut,

chapter 15.

ALSO IN:

C. Miner,

History of Wyoming,

letters 5-12.

W. L. Stone,

Poetry and History of Wyoming,

chapters 4-5.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1754.

Building of Fort Duquesne by the French.

The first armed collision in the western valley.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1754.

The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.

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

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1755.

The opening of the French and Indian War.

Braddock's defeat.

The frontier ravaged.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1755-1760.

French and Indian War.

Conquest of Canada and the west.

See CANADA: A. D.1755, 1756, 1756-1757, 1758, 1759, 1760;

and NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.

{2505}

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1757-1762.

The question of taxation in dispute with the proprietaries.

Franklin's mission to England.

"For a long while past the relationship between the Penns,

unworthy sons of the great William, and now the proprietaries,

on the one side, and their quasi subjects, the people of the

Province, upon the other, had been steadily becoming more and

more strained, until something very like a crisis had [in

1757] been reached. As usual in English and Anglo-American

communities, it was a quarrel over dollars, or rather over

pounds sterling, a question of taxation, which was producing

the alienation. At bottom, there was the trouble which always

pertains to absenteeism; the proprietaries lived in England,

and regarded their vast American estate, with about 200,000

white inhabitants, only as a source of revenue. … The chief

point in dispute was, whether or not the waste lands, still

directly owned by the proprietaries, and other lands let by

them at quitrents, should be taxed in the same manner as like

property of other owners. They refused to submit to such

taxation; the Assembly of Burgesses insisted. In ordinary

times the proprietaries prevailed; for the governor was their

nominee and removable at their pleasure; they gave him general

instructions to assent to no law taxing their holdings, and he

naturally obeyed his masters. But since governors got their

salaries only by virtue of a vote of the Assembly, it seems

that they sometimes disregarded instructions, in the sacred

cause of their own interests. After a while, therefore, the

proprietaries, made shrewd by experience, devised the scheme

of placing their unfortunate sub-rulers under bonds. This went

far towards settling the matter. Yet in such a crisis and

stress as were now present in the colony … it certainly seemed

that the rich and idle proprietaries might stand on the same

footing with their poor and laboring subjects. They lived

comfortably in England upon revenues estimated to amount to

the then enormous sum of £20,000 sterling; while the colonists

were struggling under unusual losses, as well as enormous

expenses, growing out of the war and Indian ravages. At such a

time their parsimony, their 'incredible meanness,' as Franklin

called it, was cruel as well as stupid. At last the Assembly

flatly refused to raise any money unless the proprietaries

should be burdened like the rest. All should pay together, or

all should go to destruction together. The Penns too stood

obstinate, facing the not less resolute Assembly. It was

indeed a deadlock! Yet the times were such that neither party

could afford to maintain its ground indefinitely. So a

temporary arrangement was made, whereby of £60,000 sterling to

be raised the proprietaries agreed to contribute £5,000, and

the Assembly agreed to accept the same in lieu or commutation

for their tax. But neither side abandoned its principle.

Before long more money was needed, and the dispute was as

fierce as ever. The burgesses now thought that it would be

well to carry a statement of their case before the king in

council and the lords of trade. In February, 1757, they named

their speaker, Isaac Norris, and Franklin to be their

emissaries 'to represent in England the unhappy situation of

the Province,' and to seek redress by an act of Parliament.

Norris, an aged man, begged to be excused; Franklin accepted.

… A portion of his business also was to endeavor to induce the

king to resume the Province of Pennsylvania as his own. A

clause in the charter had reserved this right, which could be

exercised on payment of a certain sum of money. The colonists

now preferred to be an appanage of the crown rather than a

fief of the Penns." In this latter object of his mission

Franklin did not succeed; but he accomplished its main

purpose, procuring, after long delays, from the board of

trade, a decision which subjected the proprietary estate to

its fair share of taxation. He returned home after an absence

of five years.

J. T. Morse, Jr.,

Benjamin Franklin,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

J. Parton,

Life of Franklin,

part 3 (volume 1).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767.

Settlement of the Maryland boundary dispute.

Mason and Dixon's line.

The decision of 1685 (see above), in the boundary dispute

between the proprietaries of Pennsylvania and Maryland,

"formed the basis of a settlement between the respective heirs

of the two proprietaries in 1732. Three years afterward, the

subject became a question in chancery; in 1750 the present

boundaries were decreed by Lord Hardwicke; ten years later,

they were, by agreement, more accurately defined; and, in

1761, commissioners began to designate the limit of Maryland

on the side of Pennsylvania and Delaware. In 1763, Charles

Mason and Jeremiah Dixon, two mathematicians and surveyors

[sent over from England by the proprietaries], were engaged to

mark the lines. In 1764, they entered upon their task, with

good instruments and a corps of axe men; by the middle of

June, 1765, they had traced the parallel of latitude to the

Susquehannah; a year later, they climbed the Little Alleghany;

in 1767, they carried forward their work, under an escort from

the Six Nations, to an Indian war-path, 244 miles from the

Delaware River. Others continued Mason and Dixon's line to the

bound of Pennsylvania on the south-west."

G. Bancroft,

History of the United States

(Author's last revision),

part 2, chapter 16.

"The east and west line which they [Mason and Dixon] ran and

marked … is the Mason and Dixon's line of history, so long the

boundary between the free and the slave States. Its precise

latitude is 39° 43' 26.3" north. The Penns did not, therefore,

gain the degree 39-40, but they did gain a zone one-fourth of

a degree in width, south of the 40th degree, to their western

limit, because the decision of 1760 controlled that of 1779,

made with Virginia. … Pennsylvania is narrower by nearly

three-fourths of a degree than the charter of 1681

contemplated. No doubt, however, the Penns considered the

narrow strip gained at the south more valuable than the broad

one lost at the north."

B. A. Hinsdale,

The Old Northwest,

chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

T. Donaldson,

The Public Domain,

page 50.

Pennsylvania Archives,

volume 4, pages 1-37.

W. H. Browne,

Maryland,

pages 238-239.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1763-1764.

Pontiac's War.

Bouquet's expedition.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1763-1766.

The question of taxation by Parliament.

The Sugar Act.

The Stamp Act and its repeal.

The Declaratory Act.

The Stamp Act Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775;

1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1765.

Patriotic self-denials.

Non-importation agreements.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1766-1768.

The Townshend duties.

The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

{2506}

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1768.

The boundary treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1768-1774.

Opening events of the Revolution.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773;

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, to 1774.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1774.

The western territorial claims of Virginia pursued.

Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1775.

The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.

Lexington.

Concord.

Action taken upon the news.

Ticonderoga.

Bunker Hill.

The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1776.

The end of royal and proprietary government.

Adoption of a State Constitution.

"Congress, on the 15th of May, 1776, recommended … 'the

respective Assemblies and conventions of the United Colonies,

where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their

affairs has been hitherto established, to adopt such

government as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of

the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their

constituents in particular, and America in general.' A

diversity of opinion existed in the Province upon this

resolution. … The Assembly referred the resolve of Congress to

a committee, but took no further action, nor did the committee

ever make a report. 'The old Assembly,' says Westcott, 'which

had adjourned on the 14th of June, to meet on the 14th of

August, could not obtain a quorum, and adjourned again to the

23d of September. It then interposed a feeble remonstrance

against the invasion of its prerogatives by the Convention,

but it was a dying protest. The Declaration of Independence

had given the old State Government a mortal blow, and it soon

expired without a sigh—thus ending forever the Proprietary and

royal authority in Pennsylvania.' In the meantime, the

Committee of Correspondence for Philadelphia issued a circular

to all the county committees for a conference in that city on

Tuesday, the 18th day of June. … The Conference at once

unanimously resolved, 'That the present government of this

Province is not competent to the exigencies of our affairs,

and that it is necessary that a Provincial Convention be

called by this Conference for the express purpose of forming a

new government in this Province on the authority of the people

only.' Acting upon these resolves, preparations were

immediately taken to secure a proper representation in the

Convention. … Every voter was obliged to take an oath of

renunciation of the authority of George III., and one of

allegiance to the State of Pennsylvania, and a religious test

was prescribed for all members of the Convention. … The

delegates to the Convention to frame a constitution for the

new government consisted of the representative men of the

State—men selected for their ability, patriotism, and personal

popularity. They met at Philadelphia, on the 15th of July, …

and organized by the selection of Benjamin Franklin,

president, George Ross, vice-president, and John Morris and

Jacob Garrigues, secretaries. … On the 28th of September, the

Convention completed its labors by adopting the first State

Constitution, which went into immediate effect, without a vote

of the people. … The legislative power of the frame of

government was vested in a General Assembly of one House,

elected annually. The supreme executive power was vested in a

President, chosen annually by the Assembly and Council, by

joint ballot—the Council consisting of twelve persons, elected

in classes, for a term of three years. A Council of Censors,

consisting of two persons from each city and county, was to be

elected in 1783, and in every seventh year thereafter, whose

duty it was to make inquiry as to whether the Constitution had

been preserved inviolate during the last septennary, and

whether the executive or legislative branches of the

government had performed their duties."

W. H. Egle,

History of Pennsylvania,

chapter 9.

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1776-1777.

The Declaration of Independence.

The struggle for the Hudson and the Delaware.

Battles of the Brandywine and Germantown.

The British in Philadelphia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 and 1777;

and PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1777-1779.

The Articles of Confederation.

The alliance with France.

British evacuation of Philadelphia.

The war on the northern border.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781, to 1779.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1778 (July).

The Wyoming Massacre.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1779-1786.

Final settlement of boundaries with Virginia.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779–1786.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1780.

Emancipation of Slaves.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1688-1780.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1780-1783.

The treason of Arnold.

The war in the south.

Surrender of Cornwallis.

Peace with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1781.

Mutiny of the Pennsylvania Line.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781 (JANUARY).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1787.

Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1780.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1794.

The Whiskey Insurrection.

"In every part of the United States except Pennsylvania, and

in by far the larger number of the counties of that state, the

officers of the Federal Government had been able to carry the

excise law [passed in March, 1791, on the recommendation of

Hamilton], unpopular as it generally was, into execution; but

resistance having been made in a few of the western counties,

and their defiance of law increasing with the forbearance of

the Government in that State, prosecutions had been ordered

against the offenders. In July, the Marshal of the District,

Lenox, who, was serving the process, and General Neville, the

Inspector, were attacked by a body of armed men, and compelled

to desist from the execution of their official duties. The

next day, a much larger number, amounting to 500 men,

assembled, and endeavored to seize the person of General

Neyille. Failing in that, they exacted a promise from the

Marshal that he would serve no more process on the west side

of the Alleghany; and attacking the Inspector's house, they

set fire to it, and destroyed it with its contents. On this

occasion, the leader of the assailants was killed, and several

of them wounded. Both the Inspector and Marshal were required

to resign; but they refused, and sought safety in flight.

{2507}

A meeting was held a few days later, at Mingo Creek

meeting-house, which recommended to all the townships in the

four western counties of Pennsylvania, and the neighboring

counties of Virginia, to meet, by their delegates, at

Parkinson's ferry, on the Monongahela, on the 14th of August,

'to take into consideration the situation of the western

country.' Three days after this meeting, a party of the

malcontents seized the mail, carried it to Canonsburg, seven

miles distant, and there opened the letters from Pittsburg to

Philadelphia, to discover who were hostile to them. They then

addressed a circular letter to the officers of the militia in

the disaffected counties, informing them of the intercepted

letters, and calling on them to rendezvous at Braddock's Field

on the 1st of August, with arms in good order, and four days'

provision. … This circular was signed by seven persons, but

the prime mover was David Bradford, a lawyer, who was the

prosecuting attorney of Washington County. In consequence of

this summons, a large body of men, which has been estimated at

from five to seven thousand, assembled at Braddock's Field on

the day appointed. … Bradford took upon himself the military

command, which was readily yielded to him. … Bradford proposed

the expulsion from Pittsburg of several persons whose

hostility had been discovered by the letters they had

intercepted; but his motion was carried only as to two

persons, Gibson and Neville, son of the Inspector. They then

decided to proceed to Pittsburg. Some assented to this, to

prevent the mischief which others meditated. But for this, and

the liberal refreshments furnished by the people of Pittsburg,

it was thought that the town would have been burnt. … The

President issued a proclamation reciting the acts of treason,

commanding the insurgents to disperse, and warning others

against abetting them. He, at the same time, wishing to try

lenient measures, appointed three Commissioners to repair to

the scene of the insurrection, to confer with the insurgents,

and to offer them pardon on condition of a satisfactory

assurance of their future obedience to the laws. … Governor

Mifflin followed the example of the President in appointing

Commissioners to confer with the insurgents, with power to

grant pardons, and he issued an admonitory proclamation, after

which he convened the Legislature to meet on the 3d of

November. The Federal and the State Commissioners reached the

insurgent district while the convention at Parkinson's ferry

was in session. It assembled on the 14th of August, and

consisted of 226 delegates, all from the western counties of

Pennsylvania, except six from Ohio County in Virginia. They

appointed Cook their Chairman, and Albert Gallatin, Secretary,

though he at first declined the appointment. … The

Commissioners required … an explicit assurance of submission

to the laws; a recommendation to their associates of a like

submission; and meetings of the citizens to be held to confirm

these assurances. All public prosecutions were to be suspended

until the following July, when, if there had been no violation

of the law in the interval, there should be a general amnesty.

These terms were deemed reasonable by the subcommittee: but

before the meeting of sixty took place, a body of armed men

entered Brownsville, the place appointed for the meeting, and

so alarmed the friends of accommodation, that they seemed to

be driven from their purpose. Gallatin, however, was an

exception; and the next day, he addressed the committee of

sixty in favor of acceding to the proposals of the

Commissioners; but nothing more could be effected than to pass

a resolution that it would be to the interest of the people to

accept those terms, without any promise or pledge of

submission. … On the whole, it was the opinion of the

well–disposed part of the population, that the inspection laws

could not be executed in that part of the State; and that the

interposition of the militia was indispensable. The

Commissioners returned to Philadelphia, and on their report

the President issued a second proclamation, on the 25th of

September, in which he announced, the march of the militia,

and again commanded obedience to the laws. The order requiring

the militia to march was promptly obeyed in all the States

except Pennsylvania, in which some pleaded defects in the

militia law; but even in that State, after the Legislature

met, the Governor was authorised to accept the services of

volunteers. … The news that the militia were on the march

increased the numbers of the moderate party. … Bradford, who

was foremost in urging resistance to the law, was the first to

seek safety in flight. He sought refuge in New Orleans. A

second convention was called to meet at Parkinson's ferry on

the second of October. A resolution of submission was passed,

and a committee of two was appointed to convey it to the

President at Carlisle. … On the return of the committee, the

Parkinson ferry convention met for the third time, and

resolutions were passed, declaring the sufficiency of the

civil authorities to execute the laws; affirming that the

excise duties would be paid, and recommending all delinquents

to surrender themselves. … Lee, then, as Commander-in-chief,

issued a proclamation granting an amnesty to all who had

submitted to the laws; and calling upon the inhabitants to

take the oath of allegiance to the United States. Orders were

issued and executed to seize those offenders who had not

signed the declaration of submission, and send them to

Philadelphia; and thus was this purpose of resisting the

execution of the excise law completely defeated, and entire

order restored in less than four months from the time of the

burning of Neville's house, which was the first overt act of

resistance. It was, however, deemed prudent to retain a force

of 2,500 militia during the winter, under General Morgan, to

prevent a return of that spirit of disaffection which had so

long prevailed in Pennsylvania."

George Tucker,

History of the United States,

volume 1, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

J. T. Morse,

Life of Hamilton,

volume 2, chapter 4.

T. Ward,

The Insurrection of 1794

(Memoirs of Pennsylvania Historical Society, volume 6).

J. B. McMaster,

History of the People of the United States,

chapter 9 (volume 2).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1861.

First troops sent to Washington.

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

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1863.

Lee's invasion.

Battle of Gettysburg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1864.

Early's invasion.

Burning of Chambersburg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

----------PENNSYLVANIA: End--------

{2508}

PENNY POSTAGE.

See POST.

PENSACOLA: Unauthorized capture by General Jackson (1818).

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

PENTACOSIOMEDIMNI, The.

See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

PENTAPOLIS IN AFRICA.

See CYRENE.

PENTATHLON, The.

The five exercises of running, leaping, wrestling, throwing

the diskos, and throwing the spear, formed what the Greeks

called the pentathlon. "At the four great national festivals

all these had to be gone through on one and the same day, and

the prize was awarded to him only who had been victorious in

all of them."

E. Guhl and W. Koner,

Life of the Greeks and Romans,

section 52.

PEORIAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PEPIN.

See PIPPIN.

PEPLUM, The.

"The peplum constituted the outermost covering of the body.

Among the Greeks it was worn in common by both sexes, but was

chiefly reserved for occasions of ceremony or of public

appearance, and, as well in its texture as in its shape,

seemed to answer to our shawl. When very long and ample, so as

to admit of being wound twice round the body—first under the

arms, and the second time over the shoulders—it assumed the

name of diplax. In rainy or cold weather it was drawn over the

head. At other times this peculiar mode of wearing it was

expressive of humility or of grief."

T. Hope,

Costume of the Ancients,

volume 1.

PEPPERELL, Sir William, and the expedition against Louisburg.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.

PEQUOTS.

PEQUOT WAR.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,

and SHAWANESE:

also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

PERA, The Genoese established at.

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

PERCEVAL MINISTRY, The.

See: ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.

PERDICCAS, and the wars of the Diadochi.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

PERDUELLIO, The Crime of.

"'Perduellis,' derived from 'duellum' e. q. 'bellum,' properly

speaking signifies 'a public enemy,' and hence Perduellio was

employed [among the Romans] in legal phraseology to denote the

crime of hostility to one's native country, and is usually

represented as corresponding, in a general sense, to our term

High Treason."

W. Ramsay,

Manual of Roman Antiquity,

chapter 9.

See MAJESTAS.

PERED, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

PEREGRINI.

"The term 'Peregrinus,' with which in early times 'Hostis'

(i. e. stranger) was synonymous, embraced, in its widest

acceptation, everyone possessed of personal freedom who was

not a Civis Romanus. Generally, however, Peregrinus was not

applied to all foreigners indiscriminately, but to those

persons only, who, although not Cives, were connected with

Rome."

w. Ramsay,

Manual of Roman Antiquity,

chapter 3.

See, also, CIVES ROMANI.

----------PERGAMUM: Start--------

PERGAMUM,

PERGAMUS.

This ancient city in northwestern Asia Minor, within the

province of Mysia, on the north of the river Caïcus, became,

during the troubled century that followed the death of

Alexander, first the seat of an important principality, and

then the capital of a rich and flourishing kingdom, to which

it gave its name. It seems to have owed its fortunes to a

great deposit of treasures—part of the plunder of Asia—which

Lysimachus, one of the generals and successors of Alexander,

left for safe keeping within its walls, under the care of an

eunuch, named Philetærus. This Philetærus found excuses, after

a time, for renouncing allegiance to Lysimachus, appropriating

the treasures and using them to make himself lord of Pergamum.

He was succeeded by a nephew, Eumenes, and he in turn by his

cousin Attalus. The latter, "who had succeeded to the

possession of Pergamum in 241 [B. C.], met and vanquished the

Galatians in a great battle, which gave him such popularity

that he was able to assume the title of king, and extend his

influence far beyond his inherited dominion. … The court of

Pergamum continued to flourish till it controlled the larger

part of Asia Minor. In his long reign this king represented

almost as much as the King of Egypt the art and culture of

Hellenism. His great victory over the Galatians was celebrated

by the dedication of so many splendid offerings to various

shrines, that the Pergamene school made a distinct impression

upon the world's taste. Critics have enumerated seventeen

remaining types, which appear to have come from statues of

that time—the best known is the so–called 'Dying Gladiator,'

who is really a dying Galatian. … Perhaps the literature of

the court was even more remarkable. Starting on the model of

Alexandria, with a great library, Attalus was far more

fortunate than the Ptolemies in making his university the home

of Stoic philosophy."

J. P. Mahaffy,

Story of Alexander's Empire,

chapter 20.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_Gaul

From the assumption of the crown by Attalus I. the kingdom of

Pergamus existed about a century. Its last king bequeathed it

to the Romans in 133 B. C. and it became a Roman province. Its

splendid library of 200,000 volumes was given to Cleopatra a

century later by Antony, and was added to that of Alexandria.

The name of the city is perpetuated in the word parchment,

which is derived therefrom. Its ruins are found at a place

called Bergamah.

See, also,

SELEUCIDÆ; B. C. 224-187;

ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246;

and ROME: B. C. 47-46.

PERGAMUM: A. D. 1336.

Conquest by the Ottoman Turks.

See TURKS (OTTOMAN): A. D. 1326-1359.

----------PERGAMUM: End--------

PERGAMUS, Citadel of.

See TROJA.

PERICLES, Age of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454; and 445-429.

PERINTHUS: B. C. 340.

Siege by Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 340.

PERIOECI, The.

See SPARTA: THE CITY.

PERIPLUS.

The term periplus, in the usage of Greek and Roman writers,

signified a voyage round the coast of some sea. Example: "The

Periplus of the Erythrean Sea."

PERIZZITES, The.

"The name 'Perizzites,' where mentioned in the Bible, is not

meant to designate any particular race, but country people, in

contradistinction to those dwelling in towns."

F. Lenormant,

Manual of Ancient History,

book 6, chapter 1.

PERMANENT SETTLEMENT OF BENGAL LAND REVENUE.

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

PERONNE, The Treaty of.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468.

{2509}

PERPETUAL EDICT, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

PERPIGNAN: A. D. 1642.

Siege and capture by the French.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

PERRHÆBIANS, The.

"There had dwelt in the valley of the Peneus [Thessaly] from

the earliest times a Pelasgic nation, which offered up thanks

to the gods for the possession of so fruitful a territory at

the festival of Peloria. … Larissa was the ancient capital of

this nation. But at a very early time the primitive

inhabitants were either expelled or reduced to subjection by

more northern tribes. Those who had retired into the mountains

became the Perrhæbian nation, and always retained a certain

degree of independence. In the Homeric catalogue the

Perrhæbians are mentioned as dwelling on the hill Cyphus,

under Olympus."

C. O. Müller,

History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,

book 1, chapter 1.

Dr. Curtius is of the opinion that the Dorians were a

subdivision of the Perrhæbians.

E. Curtius

History of Greece,

book 1, chapter 4.

PERRY, Commodore Matthew C.: Expedition to Japan.

See JAPAN: A. D. 1852-1888.

PERRY, Commodore Oliver H.: Victory on Lake Erie.

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

PERRYVILLE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

PERSARGADÆ.

See PERSIA., ANCIENT PEOPLE, &c.

PERSARMENIA.

While the Persians possessed Armenia Major, east of the

Euphrates, and the Romans held Armenia Minor, west of that

river, the former region was sometimes called Persarmenia.

PERSECUTIONS, Religious.

Of Albigenses.

See ALBIGENSES.

Of Christians under the Roman Empire.

See ROME: A. D. 64-68; 96-138; 192-284; 303-305;

and CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.

Of Hussites in Bohemia.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434, and after.

Of Jews.

See JEWS.

Of Lollards.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.

Of Protestants in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1555-1558.

Of Protestants in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547; 1559-1561 to 1598-1599;

1661-1680; 1681-1698.

Of Protestants in the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A.D. 1521-1555 to 1594-1609.

Of Roman Catholics in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603; 1585-1587;

1587-1588; 1678-1679.

Of Roman Catholics in Ireland.

See IRELAND: A. D.1691-1782.

Of Christians in Japan.

See JAPAN: A. D. 1549-1686.

Of the Waldenses.

See WALDENSES.

See, also, INQUISITION.

PERSEIDÆ, The.

See ARGOS.—ARGOLIS.

----------PERSEPOLIS: Start--------

PERSEPOLIS: Origin.

See PERSIA, ANCIENT PEOPLE.

PERSEPOLIS: B. C. 330.

Destruction by Alexander.

Although Persepolis was surrendered to him on his approach to

it (B. C. 331), Alexander the Great determined to destroy the

city. "In this their home the Persian kings had accumulated

their national edifices, their regal sepulchres, the

inscriptions commemorative of their religious or legendary

sentiment, with many trophies and acquisitions arising out of

their conquests. For the purposes of the Great King's empire,

Babylon, or Susa, or Ekbatana, were more central and

convenient residences; but Persepolis was still regarded as

the heart of Persian nationality. It was the chief magazine,

though not the only one, of those annual accumulations from

the imperial revenue, which each king successively increased,

and which none seems to have ever diminished. … After

appropriating the regal treasure—to the alleged amount of

120,000 talents in gold and silver (=£27,600,000 sterling)

—Alexander set fire to the citadel. … The persons and property

of the inhabitants were abandoned to the licence of the

soldiers, who obtained an immense booty, not merely in gold

and silver, but also in rich clothing, furniture, and

ostentatious ornaments of every kind. The male inhabitants

were slain, the females dragged into servitude; except such as

obtained safety by flight, or burned themselves with their

property in their own houses."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 93.

----------PERSIA: Start--------

PERSIA:

Ancient people and country.

"Persia Proper seems to have corresponded nearly to that

province of the modern Iran which still bears the ancient name

slightly modified, being called Farsistan or Fars. … Persia

Proper lay upon the gulf to which it has given name, extending

from the mouth of the Tab (Oroatis) to the point where the

gulf joins the Indian Ocean. It was bounded on the west by

Susiana, on the north by Media Magna, on the east by Mycia,

and on the south by the sea. Its length seems to have been

about 450, and its average width about 250 miles. … The

earliest known capital of the region was Pasargadæ, or

Persagadæ, as the name is sometimes written, of which the

ruins still exist near Murgab, in latitude 30° 15', longitude

53° 17'. Here is the famous tomb of Cyrus. … At the distance

of thirty miles from Pasargadæ, or of more than forty by the

ordinary road, grew up the second capital, Persepolis. … The

Empire, which, commencing from Persia Proper, spread itself,

toward the close of the sixth century before Christ, over the

surrounding tracts, [extended from the Caspian Sea and the

Indian Desert to the Mediterranean and the Propontis]. … The

earliest appearance of the Persians in history is in the

inscriptions of the Assyrian kings, which begin to notice them

about the middle of the ninth century, B. C. At this time

Shalmanezer II. [the Assyrian king] found them in

south-western Armenia, where they were in close contact with

the Medes, of whom, however, they seem to have been wholly

independent. … It is not until the reign of Sennacherib that

we once more find them brought into contact with the power

which aspired to be mistress of Asia. At the time of their

re-appearance they are no longer in Armenia, but have

descended the line of Zagros and reached the districts which

lie north and north-east of Susiana. … It is probable that

they did not settle into an organized monarchy much before the

fall of Nineveh. … The history of the Persian 'Empire' dates

from the conquest of Astyages [the Median king] by Cyrus, and

therefore commences with the year B. C. 558 [or, according to

Sayce, B. C. 549 —see below]."

G. Rawlinson,

Five Great Monarchies: Persia,

chapters 1 and 7.

ALSO IN:

A. R. Sayce,

Ancient Empires of the East,

appendix 5.

See, also,

ARIANS; IRAN; and ACHÆMENIDS.

PERSIA:

The ancient religion.

See ZOROASTRIANS.

{2510}

PERSIA: B. C. 549-521.

The founding of the empire by Cyrus the Great, King of Elam.

His conquest of Media, Persia, Lydia, and Babylonia.

The restoration of the Jews.

Conquest of Egypt by Kambyses.

"It was in B. C. 549 that Astyages was overthrown [see MEDIA].

On his march against Kyros [Cyrus] his own soldiers, drawn

probably from his Aryan subjects, revolted against him and

gave him into the hands of his enemy. 'The land of Ekbatana

and the royal city' were ravaged and plundered by the

conqueror; the Aryan Medes at once acknowledged the supremacy

of Kyros, and the empire of Kyaxares was destroyed. Some time,

however, was still needed to complete the conquest; the older

Medic population still held out in the more distant regions of

the empire, and probably received encouragement and promises

of help from Babylonia. In B. C. 546, however, Kyros marched

from Arbela, crossed the Tigris, and destroyed the last relics

of Median independence. … The following year saw the opening

of the campaign against Babylonia [see BABYLONIA: B. C.

625-539]. But the Babylonian army, encamped near Sippara,

formed a barrier which the Persians were unable to overcome;

and trusting, therefore, to undermine the power of Nabonidos

by secret intrigues with his subjects, Kyros proceeded against

Krœsos. A single campaign sufficed to capture Sardes and its

monarch, and to add Asia Minor to the Persian dominions [see

LYDIANS, and ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539]. The Persian conqueror

was now free to attack Babylonia. Here his intrigues were

already bearing fruit. The Jewish exiles were anxiously

expecting him to redeem them from captivity, and the tribes on

the sea coast were ready to welcome a new master. In B. C. 538

the blow was struck. The Persian army entered Babylonia from

the south. The army of Nabonidos was defeated at Rata in June;

on the 14th of that month Sippara opened its gates, and two

days later Gobryas, the Persian general, marched into Babylon

itself 'without battle and fighting.' … In October Kyros

himself entered his new capital in triumph."

A. H. Sayee,

The Ancient Empires of the East:

Herodotus 1-3. Appendix 5.

"The history of the downfall of the great Babylonian Empire,

and of the causes, humanly speaking, which brought about a

restoration of the Jews, has recently been revealed to us by

the progress of Assyrian discovery. We now possess the account

given by Cyrus himself, of the overthrow of Nabonidos, the

Babylonian king, and of the conqueror's permission to the

captives in Babylonia to return to their homes. The account is

contained in two documents, written, like most other Assyrian

and Babylonian records, upon clay, and lately brought from

Babylonia to England by Mr. Rassam. One of these documents is

a tablet which chronicles the events of each year in the reign

of Nabonidos, the last Babylonian monarch, and continues the

history into the first year of Cyrus, as king of Babylon. The

other is a cylinder, on which Cyrus glorifies himself and his

son Kambyses, and professes his adherence to the worship of

Bel-Merodach, the patron-god of Babylon. The

tablet-inscription is, unfortunately, somewhat mutilated,

especially at the beginning and the end, and little can be

made out of the annals of the first five years of Nabonidos,

except that he was occupied with disturbances in Syria. In the

sixth year the record becomes clear and continuous. … The

inscriptions … present us with an account of the overthrow of

the Babylonian Empire, which is in many important respects

very different from that handed down to us by classical

writers. We possess in them the contemporaneous account of one

who was the chief actor in the events he records, and have

ceased to be dependent upon Greek and Latin writers, who could

not read a single cuneiform character, and were separated by a

long lapse of time from the age of Nabonidos and Cyrus.

Perhaps the first fact which will strike the mind of the

reader with astonishment is that Cyrus does not call himself

and his ancestors kings of Persia, but of Elam. The word used

is Anzan or Ansan, which an old Babylonian geographical tablet

explains as the native name of the country which the Assyrians

and Hebrews called Elam. This statement is verified by early

inscriptions found at Susa and other places in the

neighbourhood, and belonging to the ancient monarchs of Elam,

who contended on equal terms with Babylonia and Assyria until

they were at last conquered by the Assyrian king

Assur-bani-pal, and their country made an Assyrian province.

In these inscriptions they take the imperial title of 'king of

Anzan.' The annalistic tablet lets us see when Cyrus first

became king of Persia. In the sixth year of Nabonidos (B. C.

549) Cyrus is still king of Elam; in the ninth year he has

become king of Persia. Between these two years, therefore, he

must have gained possession of Persia either by conquest or in

some peaceable way. When he overthrew Astyages his rule did

not as yet extend so far. At the same time Cyrus must have

been of Persian descent, since he traces his ancestry back to

Teispes, whom Darius, the son of Hystaspes, in his great

inscription on the sacred rock of Behistun, claims as his own

forefather. … The fact that Susa or Shushan was the original

capital of Cyrus explains why it remained the leading city of

the Persian Empire; and we can also now understand why it is

that in Isaiah xxi. 2, the prophet bids Elam and Media, and

not Persia and Media, 'go up' against Babylon. That Cyrus was

an Elamite, however, is not the only startling revelation

which the newly-discovered inscriptions have made to us. We

learn from them that he was a polytheist who worshipped

Bel-Merodach and Nebo, and paid public homage to the deities

of Babylon. We have learned a similar fact in regard to his

son Kambyses from the Egyptian monuments. These have shown us

that the account of the murder of the sacred bull Apis by

Kambyses given by Herodotus is a fiction; a tablet

accompanying the huge granite sarcophagus of the very bull he

was supposed to have wounded has been found with the image of

Kambyses sculptured upon it kneeling before the Egyptian god.

The belief that Cyrus was a monotheist grew out of the belief

that he was a Persian, and, like other Persians, a follower of

the Zoroastrian faith; there is nothing in Scripture to

warrant it. Cyrus was God's shepherd only because he was His

chosen instrument in bringing about the restoration of Israel.

… The first work of Cyrus was to ingratiate himself with the

conquered population by affecting a show of zeal and piety

towards their gods, and with the nations which had been kept

in captivity in Babylonia, by sending them and their deities

back to their homes.

{2511}

Among these nations were the Jews, who had perhaps assisted

the king of Elam in his attack upon Nabonidos. Experience had

taught Cyrus the danger of allowing a disaffected people to

live in the country of their conquerors. He therefore reversed

the old policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, which

consisted in transporting the larger portion of a conquered

population to another country, and sought instead to win their

gratitude and affection by allowing them to return to their

native lands. He saw, moreover, that the Jews, if restored

from exile, would not only protect the southwestern corner of

his empire from the Egyptians, but would form a base for his

intended invasion of Egypt itself. … The number of exiles who

took advantage of the edict of Cyrus, and accompanied

Zerubbabel to Jerusalem, amounted to 42,360. It is probable,

however, that this means only the heads of families; if so,

the whole body of those who left Babylon, including women and

children, would have been about 200,000. … The conquest of

Babylonia by Cyrus took place in the year 538 B. C. He was

already master of Persia, Media, and Lydia; and the overthrow

of the empire of Nebuchadnezzar extended his dominions from

the mountains of the Hindu Kush on the east to the shores of

the Mediterranean on the west. Egypt alone of the older

empires of the Oriental world remained independent, but its

doom could not be long delayed. The career of Cyrus had indeed

been marvellous. He had begun as the king only of Anzan or

Elam, whose power seemed but 'small' and contemptible to his

neighbour the great Babylonian monarch. But his victory over

the Median king Astyages and the destruction of the Median

Empire made him at once one of the most formidable princes in

Western Asia. Henceforth the seat of his power was moved from

Susa or Shushan to Ekbatana, called Achmetha in Scripture,

Hagmatan in Persian, the capital of Media. … The conquest of

Media was quickly followed by that of Persia, which appears to

have been under the government of a collateral branch of the

family of Cyrus. Henceforward the king of Elam becomes also

the king of Persia. The empire of Lydia, which extended over

the greater part of Asia Minor, fell before the army of Cyrus

about B. C. 540. … The latter years of the life of Cyrus were

spent in extending and consolidating his power among the wild

tribes and unknown regions of the Far East. When he died, all

was ready for the threatened invasion of Egypt. This was

carried out by his son and successor Kambyses, who had been

made 'king of Babylon' three years before his father's death,

Cyrus reserving to himself the imperial title of 'King of the

world.' … As soon as Kambyses became sole sovereign, Babylon

necessarily took rank with Shushan and Ekbatana. It was the

third centre of the great empire, and in later days the

Persian monarchs were accustomed to make it their official

residence during the winter season. … Kambyses was so

fascinated by his new province that he refused to leave it.

The greater part of his reign was spent in Egypt, where he so

thoroughly established his power and influence that it was the

only part of the empire which did not rise in revolt at his

death. … Soon after his father's death he stained his hands

with the blood of his brother Bardes, called Smerdis by

Herodotus, to whom Cyrus had assigned the eastern part of his

empire. Bardes was put to death secretly at Susa, it is said.

… A Magian, Gaumata or Gomates by name, who resembled Bardes

in appearance, came forward to personate the murdered prince,

and Persia, Media, and other provinces at once broke into

rebellion against their long-absent king. When the news of

this revolt reached Kambyses he appointed Aryandes' satrap of

Egypt, and, if we may believe the Greek accounts, set out to

oppose the usurper. He had not proceeded far, however, before

he fell by his own hand. The false Bardes was now master of

the empire. Darius, in his inscription on the rock of

Behistun, tells us that 'he put to death many people who had

known Bardes, to prevent its being known that he was not

Bardes, son of Cyrus.' At the same time he remitted the taxes

paid by the provinces, and proclaimed freedom for three years

from military service. But he had not reigned more than seven

months before a conspiracy was formed against him. Darius, son

of Hystaspes, attacked him at the head of the conspirators, in

the land of Nisæa in Media, and there slew him, on the 10th

day of April, B. C. 521. Darius, like Kambyses, belonged to

the royal Persian race of Akhæmenes."

A. H. Sayce,

Introduction to the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther,

chapters 1 and 3.

ALSO IN:

A. H. Sayce,

Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,

chapter 7.

Z. A. Ragozin,

The Story of Media, Babylon and Persia,

chapter 10-12.

PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

The reign of Darius I.

His Indian and Scythian expeditions.

The Ionian revolt and its suppression.

Aid given to the insurgents by Athens.

"Darius I., the son of Hystaspes, is rightly regarded as the

second founder of the Persian empire. His reign is dated from

the first day of the year answering to B. C. 521; and it

lasted 36 years, to December 23, B. C. 486. … Throughout the

Behistun Inscription Darius represents himself as the

hereditary champion of the Achaemenids, against Gomates and

all other rebels. … It is 'by the grace of Ormazd' that he

does everything. … This restoration of the Zoroastrian

worship, and the putting down of several rebellions, are the

matters recorded in the great trilingual inscription at

Behistun, which Sir Henry Rawlinson dates, from internal

evidence, in the sixth year of Darius (B. C. 516). … The

empire of which Darius became king embraced, as he says, the

following provinces: 'Persia, Susiana, Babylonia, Assyria,

Arabia, Egypt; those which are of the sea (the islands),

Saparda, Ionia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Zarangia,

Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Gandaria, the Sacae,

Sattagydia, Arachotia, and Mecia: in all twenty-three

provinces.' … All the central provinces constituting the

original empire, from the mountains of Armenia to the head of

the Persian Gulf, as well as several of those of the Iranian

table-land, had to be reconquered. … Having thus restored the

empire, Darius pursued new military expeditions and conquests

in the true spirit of its founder. To the energy of youth was

added the fear that quiet might breed new revolts; and by such

motives, if we may believe Herodotus, he was urged by Queen

Atossa —at the instigation of the Greek physician,

Democedes—to the conquest of Greece; while he himself was

minded to construct a bridge which should join Asia to Europe,

and so to carry war into Scythia.

{2512}

It seems to have been according to an Oriental idea of right,

and not as a mere pretext, that he claimed to punish the

Scythians for their invasion of Media in the time of Cyaxares.

So he contented himself, for the present, with sending spies

to Greece under the guidance of Democedes, and with the

reduction of Samos. The Scythian expedition, however, appears

to have been preceded by the extension of the empire eastward

from the mountains of Afghanistan—the limit reached by Cyrus—

over the valley of the Indus. … The part of India thus added

to the empire, including the Punjab and apparently Scinde,

yielded a tribute exceeding that of any other province. … The

Scythian Expedition of Darius occupies the greater part of the

Fourth Book of Herodotus. … The great result of the

expedition, in which the king and his army narrowly escaped

destruction, was the gaining of a permanent footing in Europe

by the conquest of Thrace and the submission of Macedonia. …

It was probably in B. C. 508 that Darius, having collected a

fleet of 600 ships from the Greeks of Asia, and an army of

700,000 or 800,000 men from an the nations of his empire,

crossed the Hellespont by a bridge of boats, and marched to

the Danube, conquering on his way the Thracians within, and

the Getæ beyond, the Great Balkan. The Danube was crossed by a

bridge formed of the vessels of the Ionians, just above the

apex of its Delta. The confusion in the geography of Herodotus

makes it as difficult as it is unprofitable to trace the

direction and extent of the march, which Herodotus carries

beyond the Tanais (Don), and probably as far north as 50° lat.

The Scythians retreated before Darius, avoiding a pitched

battle, and using every stratagem to detain the Persians in

the country till they should perish from famine." Darius

retreated in time to save his army. "Leaving his sick behind,

with the campfires lighted and the asses tethered, to make the

enemy believe that he was still in their front, he retreated

in the night. The pursuing Scythians missed his line of march,

and came first to the place where the Ionian ships bridged the

Danube. Failing to persuade the Greek generals to break by the

same act both the bridge and the yoke of Darius, they marched

back to encounter the Persian army. But their own previous

destruction of the wells led them into a different route; and

Darius got safe, but with difficulty, to the Danube. … The

Hellespont was crossed by means of the fleet with which the

strait had been guarded by Megabazus, or, more probably,

Megabyzus; and the second opportunity was barred against a

rising of the Greek colonies. … He left Megabazus in Europe

with 80,000 troops to complete the reduction of all Thrace."

Megabazus not only executed this commission, but reduced the

kingdom of Macedonia to vassalage before returning to his

master, in B. C. 506.

P. Smith,

Ancient History of the East,

book 3, chapter 27.

"Darius returned to Susa, leaving the western provinces in

profound peace under the government of his brother

Artaphernes. A trifling incident lighted the flame of

rebellion. One of those political conflicts, which we have

seen occurring throughout Greece, broke out in Naxos, an

island of the Cyclades (B. C. 502). The exiles of the

oligarchical party applied for aid to Aristagoras, the tyrant

of Miletus, who persuaded Artaphernes to send an expedition

against Naxos. The Persian commander, incensed by the

interference of Aristagoras on a point of discipline, warned

the Naxians, and so caused the failure of the expedition and

ruined the credit of Aristagoras, who saw no course open to

him but revolt. … With the consent of the Milesian citizens,

Aristagoras seized the tyrants who were on board of the fleet

that had returned from Naxos; he laid down his own power;

popular governments were proclaimed in all the cities and

islands; and Ionia revolted from Darius (B. C. 501).

Aristagoras went to Sparta … and tried to tempt the king,

Cleomenes, by displaying the greatness of the Persian empire;

but his admission that Susa was three months' journey from the

sea ruined his cause. He had better success at Athens; for the

Athenians knew that Artaphernes had been made their enemy by

Hippias. They voted twenty ships in aid of the Ionians, and

the squadron was increased by five ships of the Eretrians.

Having united with the Ionian fleet, they disembarked at

Ephesus, marched up the country, and surprised Sardis, which

was accidentally burnt during the pillage. Their forces were

utterly inadequate to hold the city; and their return was not

effected without a severe defeat by the pursuing army. The

Athenians reembarked and sailed home, while the Ionians

dispersed to their cities to make those preparations which

should have preceded the attack. Their powerful fleet gained

for them the adhesion of the Hellespontine cities as far as

Byzantium, of Caria, Caunus, and Cyprus; but this island was

recovered by the Persians within a year. The Ionians

protracted the insurrection for six years. Their cause was

early abandoned by Aristagoras, who fled to the coast of

Thrace and there perished. … The fate of the revolt turned at

last on the siege of Miletus. The city was protected by the

Ionian fleet, for which the Phoenician navy of Artaphernes was

no match. But there was fatal disunion and want of discipline

on board, and the defection of the Samians gave the Persians

an easy victory off Lade (B. C. 495). Miletus suffered the

worst horrors of a storm, and the other cities and islands

were treated with scarcely less severity. This third

subjugation of Ionia inflicted the most lasting blow on the

prosperity of the colonies (B. C. 493). Throughout his

narrative of these events, Herodotus declares his opinion of

the impolicy of the interference of the Athenians. The ships

they voted, he says, were the beginning of evils both to the

Greeks and the barbarians. When the news of the burning of

Sardis was brought to Darius, he called for his bow, and shot

an arrow towards the sky, with a prayer to Auramazda for help

to revenge himself on the Athenians. Then he bade one of his

servants repeat to him thrice, as he sat down to dinner, the

words, 'Master, remember the Athenians.' Upon the suppression

of the Ionian revolt, he appointed his son-in-law Mardonius to

succeed Artaphernes, enjoining him to bring these insolent

Athenians and Eretrians to Susa."

P. Smith,

History of the World: Ancient,

chapter 13 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapters 33-35 (volume 4).

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 14 (volume 2).

PERSIA: B. C. 509.

Alliance solicited, but subjection refused by the Athenians.

See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

{2513}

PERSIA: B. C. 492-491.

First expedition against Greece and its failure.

Wrathful preparations of the king for subjugation of the Greeks.

See GREECE: B. C. 492-491.

PERSIA: B. C. 490-479.

Wars with the Greeks.

See GREECE: B. C. 490, to B. C. 479.

PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.

From Xerxes I. to Artaxerxes II.

The disastrous invasion of Greece.

Loss of Egypt.

Recovery of Asia Minor.

Decay of the empire.

"Xerxes I, who succeeded Darius, B. C. 486, commenced his

reign by the reduction of Egypt, B. C. 485, which he entrusted

to his brother, Achæmenes. He then provoked and chastised a

rebellion of the Babylonians, enriching himself with the

plunder of their temples. After this he turned his attention

to the invasion of Greece [where he experienced the disastrous

defeats of Salamis, Platæa and Mycale.

See GREECE: B. C. 480, to B. C. 479.

… It was now the turn of the Greeks to retaliate on their

prostrate foe. First under the lead of Sparta and then under

that of Athens they freed the islands of the Ægean from the

Persian yoke, expelled the Persian garrisons from Europe, and

even ravaged the Asiatic coast and made descents on it at

their pleasure. For twelve years no Persian fleet ventured to

dispute with them the sovereignty of the seas; and when at

last, in B. C. 466, a naval force was collected to protect

Cilicia and Cyprus, it was defeated and destroyed by Cimon at

the Eurymedon.

See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

Soon after this Xerxes' reign came to an end. This weak

prince, … on his return to Asia, found consolation for his

military failure in the delights of the seraglio, and ceased

to trouble himself much about affairs of State. … The bloody

and licentious deeds which stain the whole of the later

Persian history commence with Xerxes, who suffered the natural

penalty of his follies and his crimes when, after reigning

twenty years, he was murdered by the captain of his guard,

Artabanus, and Aspamitres, his chamberlain. … Artabanus placed

on the throne the youngest son of Xerxes, Artaxerxes I [B. C.

465]. … The eldest son, Darius, accused by Artabanus of his

father's assassination, was executed; the second, Hystaspes,

who was satrap of Bactria, claimed the crown; and, attempting

to enforce his claim, was defeated and slain in battle. About

the same time the crimes of Artabanus were discovered, and he

was put to death. Artaxerxes then reigned quietly for nearly

forty years. He was a mild prince, possessed of several good

qualities; but the weakness of his character caused a rapid

declension of the empire under his sway. The revolt of Egypt

[B. C. 460-455] was indeed suppressed after a while, through

the vigorous measures of the satrap of Syria, Megabyzus; and

the Athenians, who had fomented it, were punished by the

complete destruction of their fleet, and the loss of almost

all their men.

See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

… Bent on recovering her prestige, Athens, in B. C. 449,

despatched a fleet to the Levant, under Cimon, which sailed to

Cyprus and laid siege to Citium. There Cimon died; but the

fleet, which had been under his orders, attacked and

completely defeated a large Persian armament off Salamis,

besides detaching a squadron to assist Amyrtæus, who still

held out in the Delta. Persia, dreading the loss of Cyprus and

Egypt, consented to an inglorious peace [the much disputed

'Peace of Cimon,' or 'Peace of Callias'

See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

… Scarcely less damaging to Persia was the revolt of

Megabyzus, which followed. This powerful noble … excited a

rebellion in Syria [B. C. 447], and so alarmed Artaxerxes that

he was allowed to dictate the terms on which he would consent

to be reconciled to his sovereign. An example was thus set of

successful rebellion on the part of a satrap, which could not

but have disastrous consequences. … The disorders of the court

continued, and indeed increased, under Artaxerxes I, who

allowed his mother Amestris, and his sister Amytis, who was

married to Megabyzus, to indulge freely the cruelty and

licentiousness of their dispositions. Artaxerxes died B. C.

425, and left his crown to his only legitimate son, Xerxes II.

Revolutions in the government now succeeded each other with

great rapidity. Xerxes. II, after reigning forty-five days,

was assassinated by his half-brother, Secydianus, or

Sogdianus, an illegitimate son of Artaxerxes, who seized the

throne, but was murdered in his turn, after a reign of six

months and a half, by another brother, Ochus. Ochus, on

ascending the throne, took the name of Darius, and is known in

history as Darius Nothus. He was married to Parysatis, his

aunt, a daughter of Xerxes I., and reigned nineteen years, B.

C. 424-405, under her tutelage. His reign … was on the whole

disastrous. Revolt succeeded to revolt; and, though most of

the insurrections were quelled, it was at the cost of what

remained of Persian honour and self-respect. Corruption was

used instead of force against the rebellious armies. … The

revolts of satraps were followed by national outbreaks, which,

though sometimes quelled, were in other instances successful.

In B. C. 408, the Medes, who had patiently acquiesced in

Persian rule for more than a century, made an effort to shake

off the yoke, but were defeated and reduced to subjection.

Three years later, B. C. 405, Egypt once more rebelled, under

Nepherites, and succeeded in establishing its independence.

The Persians were expelled from Africa, and a native prince

seated himself on the throne of the Pharaohs. It was some

compensation for this loss, and perhaps for others towards the

north and north-east of the empire, that in Asia Minor the

authority of the Great King was once more established over the

Greek cities. It was the Peloponnesian War, rather than the

Peace of Callias, which had prevented any collision between

the great powers of Europe and Asia for 37 years. Both Athens

and Sparta had their hands full; and though it might have been

expected that Persia would have at once taken advantage of the

quarrel to reclaim at least her lost continental dominion, yet

she seems to have refrained, through moderation or fear, until

the Athenian disasters in Sicily encouraged her to make an

effort. She then invited the Spartans to Asia, and by the

treaties which she concluded with them, and the aid which she

gave them, reacquired without a struggle all the Greek cities

of the coast [B. C. 412]. … Darius Nothus died B. C. 405, and

was succeeded by his eldest son, Arsaces, who on his accession

took the name of Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes II, called by the

Greeks Mnemon, on account of the excellence of his memory, had

from the very first a rival in his brother Cyrus."

G. Rawlinson,

Manual of Ancient History,

book 2, sections 24-39.

{2514}

ALSO IN:

G. Rawlinson,

The Five Great Monarchies,

volume 3: Persia, chapter 7.

PERSIA: B. C. 413.

Tribute again demanded from the Greek cities in Asia Minor.

Hostility to Athens.

Subsidies to her enemies.

See GREECE: B. C. 413.

PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

The expedition of Cyrus the Younger,

and the Retreat of the Ten Thousand.

Cyrus the Younger, so called to distinguish him from the great

founder of the Persian empire, was the second son of Darius

Nothus, king of Persia, and expected to succeed his father on

the throne through the influence of his mother, Parysatis.

During his father's life he was appointed satrap of Lydia,

Phrygia and Cappadocia, with supreme military command in all

Asia Minor. On the death of Darius, B. C. 404, Cyrus found

himself thwarted in his hopes of the succession, and laid

plans at once for overthrowing the elder brother, Artaxerxes,

who had heen placed on the throne. He had acquired an

extensive acquaintance with the Greeks and had had much to do

with them, in his administration of Asia Minor, during the

Peloponnesian War. That acquaintance had produced in his mind

a great opinion of their invincible qualities in war, and had

shown him the practicability of forming, with the means which

he commanded, a compact army of Greek mercenaries which no

Persian force could withstand. He executed his plan of

gathering such a column of Greek soldiers, without awakening

his brother's suspicions, and set out upon his expedition from

Sardes to Susa, in March B. C. 401. As he advanced, finding

himself unopposed, the troops of Artaxerxes retreating before

him, he and his Asiatic followers grew rash in their

confidence, and careless of discipline and order. Hence it

happened that when the threatened Persian monarch did confront

them, with a great army, at Cunaxa, on the Euphrates, in

Babylonia, they were taken by surprise and routed, and the

pretender, Cyrus, was slain on the field. The Greeks—who

numbered about 13,000, but whose ranks were soon thinned and

who are famous in history as the Ten Thousand,—stood unshaken,

and felt still equal to the conquest of the Persian capital,

if any object in advancing upon it had remained to them. But

the death of Cyrus left them in a strange situation,—deserted

by every Asiatic ally, without supplies, without knowledge of

the country, in the midst of a hostile population. Their own

commander, moreover, had been slain, and no one held authority

over them. But they possessed what no other people of their

time could claim—the capacity for self-control. They chose

from their ranks a general, the Athenian Xenophon, and endowed

him with all necessary powers. Then they set their faces

homewards, in a long retreat from the lower Euphrates to the

Euxine, from the Euxine to the Bosporus, and so into Greece.

"Although this eight months' military expedition possesses no

immediate significance for political history, yet it is of

high importance, not only for our knowledge of the East, but

also for that of the Greek character; and the accurate

description which we owe to Xenophon is therefore one of the

most valuable documents of antiquity. … This army is a typical

chart, in many colours, of the Greek population—a picture, on

a small scale, of the whole people, with all its virtues and

faults, its qualities of strength and its qualities of

weakness, a wandering political community which, according to

home usage, holds its assemblies and passes its resolutions,

and at the same time a wild and not easily manageable hand of

free–lances. … And how very remarkable it is, that in this

mixed multitude of Greeks it is an Athenian who by his

qualities towers above all the rest, and becomes the real

preserver of the entire army! The Athenian Xenophon had only

accompanied the expedition as a volunteer, having been

introduced by Proxenus to Cyrus, and thereupon moved by his

sense of honour to abide with the man whose great talents he

admired. … The Athenian alone possessed that superiority of

culture which was necessary for giving order and self-control

to the band of warriors, barbarized by their selfish life, and

for enabling him to serve them in the greatest variety of

situations as spokesman, as general, and as negotiator; and to

him it was essentially due that, in spite of their unspeakable

trials, through hostile tribes and desolate snow-ranges, 8,000

Greeks after all, by wanderings many and devious, in the end

reached the coast. They fancied themselves safe when, at the

beginning of March, they had reached the sea at Trapezus. But

their greatest difficulties were only to begin here, where

they first again came into contact with Greeks." Sparta, then

supreme in Greece, feared to offend the Great King by showing

any friendliness to this fugitive remnant of the unfortunate

expedition of Cyrus. The gates of her cities were coldly shut

against them, and they were driven to enter the service of a

Thracian prince, in order to obtain subsistence. But another

year found Sparta involved in war with Persia, and the

surviving Cyreans, as they came to be called, were then

summoned to Asia Minor for a new campaign against the enemy

they hated most.

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 5, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

chapters 69-71.

Xenophon,

Anabasis.

PERSIA: B. C. 399-387.

War with Sparta.

Alliance with Athens, Thebes, Corinth and Argos.

The Peace of Antalcidas.

Recovery of Ionian cities.

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

PERSIA: B. C. 366.

Intervention in Greece solicited by Thebes.

The Great King's rescript.

See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

PERSIA: B. C. 337-336.

Preparations for invasion by Philip of Macedonia.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

PERSIA: B. C. 334-330.

Conquest by Alexander the Great.

See MACEDONIA &c.: B. C. 334-330.

PERSIA: B. C. 323-150.

Under the Successors of Alexander.

In the empire of the Seleucidæ.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316;

and SELEUCIDÆ.

PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

Embraced in the Parthian empire.

Recovery of national independence.

Rise of the Sassanian monarchy.

"About B. C. 163, an energetic [Parthian] prince, Mithridates

I., commenced a series of conquests towards the West, which

terminated (about B. C. 150) in the transference from the

Syro-Macedonian to the Parthian rule of Media Magna, Susiana,

Persia, Babylonia, and Assyria Proper. It would seem that the

Persians offered no resistance to the progress of the new

conqueror. … The treatment of the Persians by their Parthian

lords seems, on the whole, to have been marked by moderation.

… It was a principle of the Parthian governmental system to

allow the subject peoples, to a large extent, to govern

themselves.

{2515}

These people generally, and notably the Persians, were ruled

by native kings, who succeeded to the throne by hereditary

right, had the full power of life and death, and ruled very

much as they pleased, so long as they paid regularly the

tribute imposed upon them by the 'King of Kings,' and sent him

a respectable contingent when he was about to engage in a

military expedition."

G. Rawlinson,

The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 1.

"The formidable power of the Parthians … was in its turn

subverted by Ardshir, or Artaxerxes, the founder of a new

dynasty, which, under the name of Sassanides [see SASSANIAN

DYNASTY], governed Persia till the invasion of the Arabs. This

great revolution, whose fatal influence was soon experienced

by the Romans, happened in the fourth year of Alexander

Severus [A. D. 226]. … Artaxerxes had served with great

reputation in the armies of Artaban, the last king of the

Parthians; and it appears that he was driven into exile and

rebellion by royal ingratitude, the customary reward for

superior merit. His birth was obscure, and the obscurity

equally gave room to the aspersions of his enemies and the

flattery of his adherents. If we credit the scandal of the

former, Artaxerxes sprang from the illegitimate commerce of a

tanner's wife with a common soldier. The latter represents him

as descended from a branch of the ancient kings of Persia. …

As the lineal heir of the monarchy, he asserted his right to

the throne, and challenged the noble task of delivering the

Persians from the oppression under which they groaned above

five centuries, since the death of Darius. The Parthians were

defeated in three great battles. In the last of these their

king Artaban was slain, and the spirit of the nation was for

ever broken. The authority of Artaxerxes was solemnly

acknowledged in a great assembly held at Balkh in Khorasun."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 8 (volume 1).

PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

Wars with the Romans.

The revolution in Asia which subverted the Parthian empire and

brought into existence a new Persian monarchy—the monarchy of

the Sassanides—occurred A. D. 226. The founder of the new

throne, Artaxerxes, no sooner felt firm in his seat than he

sent an imposing embassy to bear to the Roman emperor—then

Alexander Severus —his haughty demand that all Asia should be

yielded to him and that Roman arms and Roman authority should

be withdrawn to the western shores of the Ægean and the

Propontis. This was the beginning of a series of wars,

extending through four centuries and ending only with the

Mahometan conquests which swept Roman and Persian power,

alike, out of the contested field. The first campaigns of the

Romans against Artaxerxes were of doubtful result. In the

reign of Sapor, son of Artaxerxes, the war was renewed, with

unprecedented humiliation and disaster to the Roman arms.

Valerian, the emperor, was surrounded and taken prisoner,

after a bloody battle fought near Edessa (A. D.

260),—remaining until his death a captive in the hands of his

insolent conqueror and subjected to every indignity.

See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

Syria was overrun by the Persian armies, and its splendid

capital, Antioch, surprised, pillaged, and savagely wrecked,

while the inhabitants were mostly slain or reduced to slavery.

Cilicia and Cappadocia were next devastated in like manner.

Cæsarea, the Cappadocian capital, being taken after an

obstinate siege, suffered pillage and unmerciful massacre. The

victorious career of Sapor, which Rome failed to arrest, was

cheeked by the rising power of Palmyra (see PALMYRA). Fifteen

years later, Aurelian, who had destroyed Palmyra, was marching

to attack Persia when he fell by the hands of domestic enemies

and traitors. It was not until A. D. 283, in the reign of

Carus, that Rome and Persia crossed swords again. Carus

ravaged Mesopotamia, captured Seleucia and Ctesiphon and

passed beyond the Tigris, when he met with a mysterious death

and his victorious army retreated. A dozen years passed before

the quarrel was taken up again, by Diocletian.

See ROME: A. D. 284-305).

That vigorous monarch sent one of his Cæsars—Galerius—into

the field, while he stationed himself at Antioch to direct the

war. In his first campaign (A. D. 297), Galerius was defeated,

on the old fatal field of Carrhæ. In his second campaign (A.

D. 297-298) he won a decisive victory and forced on the

Persian king, Narses, a humiliating treaty, which renounced

Mesopotamia, ceded five provinces beyond the Tigris, made the

Araxes, or Aboras, the boundary between the two empires, and

gave other advantages to the Romans. There was peace, then,

for forty years, until another Sapor, grandson of Narses, had

mounted the Persian throne. Constantine the Great was dead and

his divided empire seemed less formidable to the neighboring

power. "During the long period of the reign of Constantius [A.

D. 337-361] the provinces of the East were afflicted by the

calamities of the Persian war. … The armies of Rome and Persia

encountered each other in nine bloody fields, in two of which

Constantius himself commanded in person. The event of the day

was most commonly adverse to the Romans." In the great battle

of Singara, fought A. D. 348, the Romans were victors at

first, but allowed themselves to be surprised at night, while

plundering the enemy's camp, and were routed with great

slaughter. Three sieges of Nisibis, in Mesopotamia—the bulwark

of Roman power in the East—were among the memorable incidents

of these wars. In 338, in 346, and again in 350, it repulsed

the Persian king with shame and loss. Less fortunate was the

city of Amida [modern Diarbekir], in Armenia, besieged by

Sapor, in 350. It was taken, at the last, by storm, and the

inhabitants put to the sword. On the accession of Julian, the

Persian war was welcomed by the ambitious young emperor as an

opportunity for emulating the glory of Alexander, after

rivalling that of Cæsar in Gaul. In the early spring of 363,

he led forth a great army from Antioch, and traversed the

sandy plains of Mesopotamia to the Persian capital of

Ctesiphon, reducing and destroying the strong cities of

Perisabor and Maogamalcha on his march. Finding Ctesiphon too

strong in its fortifications to encourage a siege, he crossed

the Tigris, burned his fleet and advanced boldly into the

hostile country beyond. It was a fatal expedition. Led astray

by perfidious guides, harassed by a swarm of enemies, and

scantily supplied with provisions, the Romans were soon forced

to an almost desperate retreat. If Julian had lived, he might

possibly have sustained the courage of his men and rescued

them from their situation; but he fell, mortally wounded, in

repelling one of the incessant attacks of the Persian cavalry.

{2516}

An officer named Jovian was then hastily proclaimed emperor,

and by his agency an ignominious treaty was arranged with the

Persian king. It gave up all the conquests of Galerius,

together with Nisibis, Singara and other Roman strongholds in

Mesopotamia; on which hard terms the Roman army was permitted

to recross the Tigris and find a refuge in regions of its own.

The peace thus shamefully purchased endured for more than

half-a-century. Religious fanaticism kindled war afresh, A. D.

422, between Persia and the eastern empire; but the events are

little known. It seems to have resulted, practically, in the

division of Armenia which gave Lesser Armenia to the Romans as

a province and made the Greater Armenia, soon afterwards, a

Persian satrapy, called Persarmenia. The truce which ensued

was respected for eighty years. In the year 502, while

Anastasius reigned at Constantinople and Kobad was king of

Persia, there was a recurrence of war, which ended, however,

in 505, without any territorial changes. The unhappy city of

Amida was again captured in this war, after a siege of three

months, and 80,000 of its inhabitants perished under the

Persian swords. Preparatory to future conflicts, Anastasius

now founded and Justinian afterwards strengthened the

powerfully fortified city of Dara, near Nisibis. The value of

the new outpost was put to the proof in 526, when hostilities

again broke out. The last great Roman general, Belisarius, was

in command at Dam during the first years of this war, and

finally held the general command. In 529 he fought a great

battle in front of Dara and won a decisive victory. The next

year he suffered a defeat at Sura and in 532 the two powers

arranged a treaty of peace which they vauntingly called "The

Endless Peace"; but Justinian (who was now emperor) paid

11,000 pounds of gold for it. "The Endless Peace" was so

quickly ended that the year 540 found the Persian king

Chosroes, or Nushirvan, at the head of an army in Syria

ravaging the country and despoiling the cities. Antioch, just

restored by Justinian, after an earthquake which, in 526, had

nearly levelled it with the ground, was stormed, pillaged,

half burned, and its streets drenched with blood. The seat of

war was soon transferred to the Caucasian region of Colchis,

or Lazica (modern Mingrelia), and became what is known in

history as the Lazic War [see LAZICA], which was protracted

until 561, when Justinian consented to a treaty which pledged

the empire to pay 30,000 pieces of gold annually to the

Persian king, while the latter surrendered his claim to

Colchis. But war broke out afresh in 572 and continued till

591, when the armies of the Romans restored to the Persian

throne another Chosroes, grandson of the first, who had fled

to them from a rebellion which deposed and destroyed his

unworthy father. Twelve years later this Chosroes became the

most formidable enemy to the empire that it had encountered in

the East. In successive campaigns he stripped from it Syria

and Palestine, Egypt, Cyrenaica, and the greater part of Asia

Minor, even to the shores of the Bosphorus. Taking the city of

Chalcedon in 616, after a lengthy siege, he established a camp

and army at that post, within sight of Constantinople, and

held it for ten years, insulting and threatening the imperial

capital. But he found a worthy antagonist in Heraclius, who

became emperor of the Roman East in 610, and who proved

himself to be one of the greatest of soldiers. It was twelve

years after the beginning of his reign before Heraclius could

gather in hand, from the shrunken and exhausted empire, such

resources as would enable him to turn aggressively upon the

Persian enemy. Then, in three campaigns, between 622 and 627,

he completely reversed the situation. After a decisive battle,

fought December 1, A. D. 627, on the very site of ancient

Nineveh, the royal city of Dastagerd was taken and spoiled,

and the king, stripped of all his conquests and his glory, was

a fugitive.

See ROME: A. D. 565-628.

A conspiracy and an assassination soon ended his career and

his son made peace. It was a lasting peace, as between Romans

and Persians; for eight years afterwards the Persians were in

their death struggle with the warriors of Mahomet.

G. Rawlinson,

The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapters 18, 24-25, 40, 42, 46.

PERSIA: A. D. 632-651.

Mahometan Conquest.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

PERSIA: A. D. 901-998.

The Samanide and Bouide dynasties.

See SAMANIDES;

and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 815-945.

PERSIA: A. D. 999-1038.

Under the Gaznevides.

See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

PERSIA: A. D. 1050-1193.

Under the Seljuk Turks.

See TURKS (SELJUK): 1004-1063, and after.

PERSIA: A. D. 1150-1250.

The period of the Atabegs.

See ATABEGS.

PERSIA: A. D. 1193.

Conquest by the Khuarezmians.

See KHUAREZM: 12TH CENTURY.

PERSIA: A. D. 1220-1226.

Conquest by Jingiz Khan.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;

and KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.

The Mongol empire of the Ilkhans.

Khulagu, or Houlagou, grandson of Jingis Khan, who

extinguished the caliphate at Bagdad, A. D. 1258, and

completed the Mongol conquest of Persia and Mesopotamia (see

BAGDAD: A. D. 1258), "received the investiture of his

conquests and of the country south of the Oxus. He founded an

empire there, known as that of the Ilkhans. Like the Khans of

the Golden Horde, the successors of Batu, they for a long time

acknowledged the suzerainty of the Khakan of the Mongols in

the East."

H. H. Howorth,

History of the Mongols,

part 1, page 211.

Khulagu "fixed his residence at Maragha, in Aderbijan, a

beautiful town, situated on a fine plain watered by a small

but pure stream, which, rising in the high mountains of

Sahund, flows past the walls of the city, and empties itself

in the neighbouring lake of Oormia. … At this delightful spot

Hulakoo [or Khulagu] appears to have employed his last years

in a manner worthy of a great monarch. Philosophers and

astronomers were assembled from every part of his dominions,

who laboured in works of science under the direction of his

favourite, Nasser-u-deen." The title of the Ilkhans, given to

Khulagu and his successors, signified simply the lords or

chiefs (the Khans). Their empire was extinguished in 1393 by

the conquests of Timour.

Sir J. Malcolm,

History of Persia,

chapter 10 (volume 1).

{2517}

"It was under Sultan Ghazan, who reigned from 1294 to 1303,

that Mahometanism again became the established religion of

Persia. In the second year of his reign, Ghazan Khan publicly

declared his conversion to the faith of the Koran. … After

Sultan Ghazan the power of the Mongolian dynasty in Persia

rapidly declined. The empire soon began to break in pieces. …

The royal house became extinct, while another branch of the

descendants of Hulaku established themselves at Bagdad. At

last Persia became a mere scene of anarchy and confusion,

utterly incapable of offering any serious resistance to the

greatest of Mussulman conquerors, the invincible and merciless

Timour."

E. A. Freeman,

History and Conquest of the Saracens,

lecture 6.

PERSIA: A. D. 1386-1393.

Conquest by Timour.

See TIMOUR.

PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

The founding of the Sefavean dynasty.

Triumph of the Sheahs.

Subjugation by the Afghans.

Deliverance by Nadir Shah.

The Khajar dynasty.

"At an early period in the rise of Islamism, the followers of

Mohammed became divided on the question of the succession to

the caliphate, or leadership, vacated by the death of

Mohammed. Some, who were in majority, believed that it lay

with the descendants of the caliph, Moawiyeh, while others as

firmly clung to the opinion that the succession lay with the

sons of Alee and Fatimeh, the daughter of the prophet, Hassan

and Houssein, and their descendants. In a desperate conflict

on the banks of the Euphrates, nearly al the male descendants

of the prophet were slain [see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST &c.: A. D.

680], and almost the entire Mohammedan peoples, from India to

Spain, thenceforward became Sunnees—that is, they embraced

belief in the succession of the line of the house of Moawiyeh,

called the Ommiades. But there was an exception to this

uniformity of belief. The Persians, as has been seen, were a

people deeply given to religious beliefs and mystical

speculations to the point of fanaticism. Without any apparent

reason many of them became Sheahs [or Shiahs], or believers in

the claims of the house of Alee and Fatimeh [see ISLAM]. …

Naturally for centuries the Sheahs suffered much persecution

from the Sunnees, as the rulers of Persia, until the 15th

century, were generally Sunnees. But this only stimulated the

burning zeal of the Sheahs, and in the end resulted in

bringing about the independence of Persia under a dynasty of

her own race. In the 14th century there resided at Ardebil a

priest named the Sheikh Saifus, who was held in the highest

repute for his holy life. He was a lineal descendant of Musa,

the seventh Holy Imam. His son, Sadr-ud-Deen, not only enjoyed

a similar fame for piety, but used it to such good account as

to become chieftain of the province where he lived. Junaid,

the grandson of Sadr-ud–Deen, had three sons, of whom the

youngest, named Ismail, was born about the year 1480. When

only eighteen years of age, the young Ismail entered the

province of Ghilan, on the shores of the Caspian, and by the

sheer force of genius raised a small army, with which he

captured Baku. His success brought recruits to his standard,

and at the head of 16,000 men he defeated the chieftain of

Alamut, the general sent against him, and, marching on

Tabreez, seized it without a blow. In 1499 Ismail, the founder

of the Sefavean dynasty, was proclaimed Shah of Persia. Since

that period, with the exception of the brief invasion of

Mahmood the Afghan, Persia has been an independent and at

times a very powerful nation. The establishment of the

Sefavean dynasty also brought about the existence of a Sheah

government, and gave great strength to that sect of the

Mohammedans, between whom and other Islamites there was always

great bitterness and much bloodshed. Ismail speedily carried

his sway as far as the Tigris in the southwest and to Kharism

and Candahar in the north and east. He lost one great battle

with the Turks under Selim II. at Tabreez [or Chaldiran—see

TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520], but with honor, as the Persians were

outnumbered; but it is said he was so cast down by that event

he never was seen to smile again. He died in 1524, leaving the

record of a glorious reign. His three immediate successors,

Tahmasp, Ismail II., and Mohammed Khudabenda, did little to

sustain the fame and power of their country, and the new

empire must soon have yielded to the attacks of its enemies at

home and abroad, if a prince of extraordinary ability had not

succeeded to the throne when the new dynasty seemed on the

verge of ruin. Shah Abbass, called the Great, was crowned in

the year 1586, and died in 1628, at the age of seventy, after

a reign of forty-two years [see TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640]. This

monarch was one of the greatest sovereigns who ever sat on the

throne of Persia. … It was the misfortune of Persia that the

Sefavean line rapidly degenerated after the death of Shah

Abbass. … Taking advantage of the low state of the Sefavean

dynasty, Mahmood, an Afghan chieftain, invaded Persia in 1722

with an army of 50,000 men. Such was the condition of the

empire that he had little difficulty in capturing Ispahan,

although it had a population of 600,000. He slaughtered every

male member of the royal family except Houssein the weak

sovereign, his son Tahmasp, and two grandchildren; all the

artists of Ispahan and scores of thousands besides were slain.

That magnificent capital has never recovered from the blow.

Mahmood died in 1725, and was succeeded by his cousin Ashraf.

But the brief rule of the Afghans terminated in 1727. Nadir

Kuli, a Persian soldier of fortune, or in other words a

brigand of extraordinary ability, joined Tahmasp II., who had

escaped and collected a small force in the north of Persia.

Nadir marched on Ispahan and defeated the Afghans in several

battles; Ashraf was slain and Tahmasp II. was crowned. But

Nadir dethroned Tahmasp II. in 1732, being a man of vast

ambition as well as desire to increase the renown of Persia;

and he caused that unfortunate sovereign to be made way with

some years later. Soon after Nadir Kuli proclaimed himself

king of Persia with the title of Nadir Kuli Khan. Nadir was a

man of ability equal to his ambition. He not only beat the

Turks with comparative ease, but he organized an expedition

that conquered Afghanistan and proceeded eastward until Delhi

fell into his hands, with immense slaughter. …

See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

He was assassinated in 1747. Nadir Kuli Khan was a man of

great genius, but he died too soon to establish an enduring

dynasty, and after his death civil wars rapidly succeeded each

other until the rise of the present or Khajar dynasty, which

succeeded the reign of the good Kerim Khan the Zend, who

reigned twenty years at Shiraz. Aga Mohammed Khan, the founder

of the Khajar dynasty, succeeded in 1794 in crushing the last

pretender to the throne, after a terrible civil war, and once

more reunited the provinces of Persia under one sceptre. …

{2518}

Aga Mohammed Khan was succeeded, after his assassination, by

his nephew Feth Alee Shah, a monarch of good disposition and

some ability. It was his misfortune to be drawn into two wars

with Russia, who stripped Persia of her Circassian provinces,

notwithstanding the stout resistance made by the Persian

armies. Feth Alec Shah was succeeded by his grandson Mohammed

Shah, a sovereign of moderate talents. No events of unusual

interest mark his reign, excepting the siege of Herat which

was captured in the present reign from the Afghans. He died in

1848, and was succeeded by his son Nasr-ed-Deen Shah, the

present (1887), sovereign of Persia."

S. G. W. Benjamin,

The Story of Persia,

chapter 20.

ALSO IN:

C. R. Markham,

General Sketch of the History of Persia,

chapters 10-20.

Sir J. Malcolm,

History of Persia,

chapters 12-20 (volume 1-2).

R. G. Watson,

History of Persia, 1800-1858.

PERSIA: A. D. 1894.

The reigning Shah.

Nasr-ed-Deen is still, in 1894, the reigning sovereign. He is

blessed with a family of four sons and fifteen daughters.

----------PERSIA: End--------

PERSIAN SIBYL.

See SIBYLS.

PERSIANS, Education of the ancient.

See EDUCATION, ANCIENT.

PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER)

PRESIDENT BUCHANAN'S SURRENDER.

----------PERTH: Start--------

PERTH: A. D. 1559.

The Reformation Riot.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.

PERTH: A. D. 1715.

Headquarters of the Jacobite Rebellion.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

----------PERTH: End--------

PERTH, The Five Articles of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.

PERTINAX, Roman Emperor, A. D. 193.

----------PERU: Start--------

PERU:

Origin of the name.

"There was a chief in the territory to the south of the Gulf

of San Miguel, on the Pacific coast" named Biru, and this

country was visited by Gaspar de Morales and Francisco Pizarro

in 1515. For the next ten years Biru was the most southern

land known to the Spaniards; and the consequence was that the

unknown regions farther south, including the rumored empire

abounding in gold, came to be designated as Biru, or Peru. It

was thus that the land of the Yncas got the name of Peru from

the Spaniards, some years before it was actually discovered."

C. H. Markham,

Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 2, chapter 8.

ALSO IN:

A. Helps,

Spanish Conquest in America,

book 6, chapter 2.

PERU:

The aboriginal inhabitants and their civilization.

The extraordinary paternal despotism of the Incas.

"The bulk of the population [of Peru] is composed of the

aboriginal Indians, the natives who had been there from time

immemorial when America was discovered. The central tribe of

these Indians was that of the Yncas, inhabiting the region in

the Sierra which has already been described as the Cuzco

section. Such a country was well adapted for the cradle of an

imperial tribe. … The Ynca race was originally divided into

six tribes, whose lands are indicated by the rivers which

formed their limits. Of these tribes the Yncas themselves had

their original seat between the rivers Apurimac and

Paucartampu, with the lovely valley of the Vilcamayu bisecting

it. The Canas dwelt in the upper part of that valley up to the

Vilcañota Pass, and on the mountains on either side. The

Quichuas were in the valleys round the head waters of the

Apurimac and Abancay. The Chancas extended from the

neighbourhood of Ayacucho (Guamanga) to the Apurimac. The

Huancas occupied the valley of the Xauxa up to the saddle of

the Cerro Pasco, and the Rucanas were in the mountainous

region between the central and western cordilleras. These six

tribes eventually formed the conquering Ynca race. Their

language was introduced into every conquered province, and was

carefully taught to the people, so that the Spaniards

correctly called it the 'Lengua General' of Peru. This

language was called Quichua, after the tribe inhabiting the

upper part of the valleys of the Pachachaca and Apurimac.

Their territory consisted chiefly of uplands covered with long

grass, and the name has been derived from the abundance of

straw in this region. 'Quehuani' is to twist; 'quehuasca' is

the participle; and 'ychu' is straw. Together,

'Quehuasca-Ychu,' or twisted straw, abbreviated into Quichua.

The name was given to the language by Friar San Tomas in his

grammar published in 1500, who perhaps first collected words

among the Quichuas and so gave it their name, which was

adopted by all subsequent grammarians. But the proper name

would have been the Ynca language. The aboriginal people in

the basin of Lake Titicaca were called Collas, and they spoke

a language which is closely allied to the Quichua. … The

Collas were conquered by the Yncas in very remote times, and

their language, now incorrectly called Aymara, received many

Quichua additions; for it originally contained few words to

express abstract ideas, and none for many things which are

indispensable in the first beginnings of civilized life. One

branch of the Collas (now called Aymaras) was a savage tribe

inhabiting the shores and islands of Lake Titicaca, called

Urus. … The Ynca and Colla (Aymara) tribes eventually combined

to form the great armies which spread the rule of Ynca

sovereigns over a much larger extent of country. … In the

happy days of the Yncas they cultivated many of the arts, and

had some practical knowledge of astronomy. They had

domesticated all the animals in their country capable of

domestication, understood mining and the working of metals,

excelled as masons, weavers, dyers, and potters, and were good

farmers. They brought the science of administration to a high

pitch of perfection, and composed imaginative songs and dramas

of considerable merit. … The coast of Peru was inhabited by a

people entirely different from the Indians of the Sierra.

There are some slight indications of the aborigines having

been a diminutive race of fishermen who were driven out by the

more civilized people, called Yuncas. … The Yncas conquered

the coast valleys about a century before the discovery of

America, and the Spaniards completed the destruction of the

Yunca people."

C. R. Markham,

Peru,

chapter 3.

{2519}

"In the minuter mechanical arts, both [the Aztecs of Mexico

and the Incas of Peru] showed considerable skill; but in the

construction of important public works, of roads, aqueducts,

canals, and in agriculture in all its details, the Peruvians

were much superior. Strange that they should have fallen so

far below their rivals in their efforts after a higher

intellectual culture, in astronomical science, more

especially, and in the art of communicating thought by visible

symbols. … We shall look in vain in the history of the East

for a parallel to the absolute control exercised by the Incas

over their subjects. … It was a theocracy more potent in its

operation than that of the Jews; for, though the sanction of

the law might be as great among the latter, the law was

expounded by a human lawgiver, the servant and representative

of Divinity. But the Inca was both the lawgiver and the law.

He was not merely the representative of Divinity, or, like the

Pope, its vicegerent, but he was Divinity itself. The

violation of his ordinance was sacrilege. Never was there a

scheme of government enforced by such terrible sanctions, or

which bore so oppressively on the subjects of it. For it

reached not only to the visible acts, but to the private

conduct, the words, the very thoughts of its vassals. … Under

this extraordinary polity, a people advanced in many of the

social refinements, well skilled in manufactures and

agriculture, were unacquainted … with money. They had nothing

that deserved to be called property. They could follow no

craft, could engage in no labor, no amusement, but such as was

specially provided by law. They could not change their

residence or their dress without a license from the

government. They could not even exercise the freedom which is

conceded to the most abject in other countries, that of

selecting their own wives. The imperative spirit of despotism

would not allow them to be happy or miserable in any way but

that established by law. The power of free agency—the

inestimable and inborn right of every human being—was

annihilated in Peru."

W. H. Prescott,

History of the Conquest of Peru,

book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

The Standard Natural History

(J. S. Kingsley, edition.),

volume 6, pages 215-226.

J. Fiske,

The Discovery of America,

chapter 9 (volume 2).

E. J. Payne,

History of the New World called America,

book 2 (volume 1).

See, also,

AMERICAN ABORIGINES, ANDESIANS.

PERU:

The empire of the Incas.

"The Inca empire had attained its greatest extension and power

precisely at the period of the discovery by Columbus, under

the reign of Huayna Capac, who, rather than Huascar or

Atahualpa, should be called the last of the Incas. His father,

the Inca Tupac Yupanqui, had pushed his conquests on the

south, beyond the great desert of Atacama, to the river Maule

in Chili; while, at the same time, Huayna Capac himself had

reduced the powerful and refined kingdom of the Sciris of

Quito [see ECUADOR], on the north. From their great dominating

central plateau, the Incas had pressed down to the Pacific, on

the one hand, and to the dense forests of the Amazonian

valleys on the other. Throughout this wide region and over all

its nations, principalities, and tribes, Huayna Capac at the

beginning of the 16th century ruled supreme. His empire

extended from four degrees above the equator to the 34th

southern parallel of latitude, a distance of not far from

3,000 miles; while from east to west it spread, with varying

width, from the Pacific to the valleys of Paucartambo and

Chuquisaca, an average distance of not far from 400 miles,

covering an area, therefore, of more than one million square

miles, equal to about one-third of the total area of the

United States, or to the whole of the United States to the

eastward of the Mississippi river. … In the islands of Lake

Titicaca, if tradition be our guide, were developed the germs

of Inca civilization. Thence, it is said, went the founders of

the Inca dynasty, past the high divide between the waters

flowing into the lake and those falling into the Amazon, and

skirting the valley of the river Vilcanota for more than 200

miles, they established their seat in the bolson [valley] of

Cuzco. … It is not only central in position, salubrious and

productive, but the barriers which separate it from the

neighboring valleys are relatively low, with passes which may

be traversed with comparative ease; while they are, at the

same time, readily defensible. The rule of the first Inca

seems not to have extended beyond this valley, and the passes

leading into it are strongly fortified, showing the direction

whence hostilities were anticipated in the early days of the

empire, before the chiefs of Cuzco began their career of

conquest and aggregation, reducing the people of the bolson of

Anta in the north, and that of Urcos in the south. … The

survey of the monuments of Peru brings the conviction that the

ancient population was not nearly so numerous as the accounts

of the chroniclers would lead us to suppose. From what I have

said, it will be clear that but a small portion of the country

is inhabitable, or capable of supporting a considerable number

of people. The rich and productive valleys and bolsones are

hardly more than specks on the map; and although there is

every evidence that their capacities of production were taxed

to the very utmost, still their capacities were limited. The

ancient inhabitants built their dwellings among rough rocks,

on arid slopes of hills, and walled up their dead in eaves and

clefts, or buried them among irreclaimable sands, in order to

utilize the scanty cultivable soil for agriculture. They

excavated great areas in the deserts until they reached

moisture enough to support vegetation, and then brought guano

from the islands to fertilize these sunken gardens. They

terraced up every hill and mountain–side, and gathered the

soil from the crevices of the rocks to fill the narrow

platforms, until not a foot of surface, on which could grow a

single stalk of maize or a single handful of quinoa, was left

unimproved. China, perhaps Japan and some portions of India,

may afford a parallel to the extreme utilization of the soil

which was effected in Peru at the time of the Inca Empire. No

doubt the Indian population lived, as it still lives, on the

scantiest fare, on the very minimum of food; but it had not

then, as now, the ox, the hog, the goat, and the sheep, nor

yet many of the grains and fruits which contribute most to the

support of dense populations. … The present population of the

three states which were wholly or in part included in the Inca

Empire—namely, Equador, Peru and Bolivia—does not exceed five

millions. I think it would be safe to estimate the population

under the Inca rule at about double that number, or perhaps

somewhere between ten and twelve millions; notwithstanding Las

Casas, the good, but not very accurate, Bishop of Chiapa tells

us that, 'in the Province of Peru alone the Spaniards killed

above forty millions of people.'"

E. G. Squier,

Peru,

chapter 1.

PERU:A. D. 1527-1528.

Discovery by the Spaniards.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528.

{2520}

PERU: A. D. 1528-1531.

The commission and the preparations of Pizarro.

"In the spring of 1528, Pizarro and one of his comrades,

taking with them some natives of Peru and some products of

that country, set out [from Panama] to tell their tale at the

court of Castile. Pizarro … found the Emperor Charles V. at

Toledo, and met with a gracious reception. … His tales of the

wealth which he had witnessed were the more readily believed

in consequence of the experiences of another Spaniard whom he

now met at court, the famous conqueror of Mexico. Yet affairs

in Spain progressed with proverbial slowness, and it was not

until the expiry of a year from the date of his arrival in the

country that the capitulation was signed defining the powers

of Pizarro. By this agreement he was granted the right of

discovery and conquest in Peru, or New Castile, with the

titles of Captain-general of the province and Adelantado, or

lieutenant-governor. He was likewise to enjoy a considerable

salary, and to have the right to erect certain fortresses

under his government, and, in short, to exercise the

prerogatives of a viceroy. Almagro was merely appointed

commander of the fortress of Tumbez, with the rank of Hidalgo;

whilst Father Luque became bishop of the same place. …

Pizarro, on his part, was bound to raise within six months a

force of 250 men; whilst the government on theirs engaged to

furnish some assistance in the purchase of artillery and

stores." Thus commissioned, Pizarro left Seville in January,

1530, hastening back to Panama, accompanied or followed by

four half-brothers, who were destined to stormy careers in

Peru. Naturally, his comrade and partner Almagro was ill

pleased with the provision made for him, and the partnership

came near to wreck; but some sort of reconciliation was

brought about, and the two adventurers joined hands again in

preparations for a second visit to Peru, with intentions

boding evil to the unhappy natives of that too bountiful land.

It was early in January 1531 that Pizarro sailed southward

from the Isthmus for the third and last time.

R. G. Watson,

Spanish and Portuguese South America,

volume 1, chapters 6-7.

PERU:A. D. 1531-1533.

Pizarro's conquest.

Treacherous murder of Atahualpa.

"Pizarro sailed from Panama on the 28th of December, 1531,

with three small vessels carrying one hundred and eighty-three

men and thirty-seven horses. In thirteen days he arrived at

the bay of San Mateo, where he landed the horses and soldiers

to march along the shore, sending back the ships to get more

men and horses at Panama and Nicaragua. They returned with

twenty-six horses and thirty more men. With this force Pizarro

continued his march along the sea-coast, which was well

peopled; and on arriving at the bay of Guayaquil, he crossed

over in the ships to the island of Puna. Here a devastating

war was waged with the unfortunate natives, and from Puna the

conqueror proceeded again in his ships to the Peruvian town of

Tumbez. The country was in a state of confusion, owing to a

long and desolating war of succession between Huascar and

Atahualpa, the two sons of the great Ynca Huayna Capac, and

was thus an easy prey to the invaders. Huascar had been

defeated and made prisoner by the generals of his brother, and

Atahualpa was on his way from Quito to Cusco, the capital of

the empire, to enjoy the fruits of his victory. He was

reported to be at Caxamarca, on the eastern side of the

mountain; and Pizarro, with his small force, set out from

Tumbez on the 18th of May, 1532. … The first part of Pizarro's

march was southward from Tumbez, in the rainless coast region.

After crossing a vast desert he came to Tungarara, in the

fertile valleys of the Chira, where he founded the city of San

Miguel, the site of which was afterwards removed to the valley

of Piura. The accountant Antonio Navarro and the royal

treasurer Riquelme were left in command at San Miguel, and

Pizarro resumed his march in search of the Ynca Atahualpa on

the 24th of September, 1532. He detached the gallant cavalier,

Hernando de Soto, into the sierra of Huancabamba, to

reconnoitre, and pacify the country. De Soto rejoined the main

body after an absence of about ten days. The brother of

Atahualpa, named Titu Atauchi, arrived as an envoy, with

presents, and a message to the effect that the Ynca desired

friendship with the strangers. Crossing the vast desert of

Sechura, Pizarro reached the fertile valley of Motupe, and

marched thence to the foot of the cordilleras in the valley of

the Jequetepeque. Here he rested for a day or two, to arrange

the order for the ascent. He took with him forty horses and

sixty foot, instructing Hernando de Soto to follow him with

the main body and the baggage. News arrived that the Ynca

Atahualpa had reached the neighborhood of Caxamarca about

three days before, and that he desired peace. Pizarro pressed

forward, crossed the cordillera, and on Friday, the 15th of

November, 1532, he entered Caxamarca with his whole force.

Here he found excellent accommodation in the large masonry

buildings, and was well satisfied with the strategic position.

Atahualpa was established in a large camp outside, where

Hernando de Soto had an interview with him. Atahualpa

announced his intention of visiting the Christian commander,

and Pizarro arranged and perpetrated a black act of treachery.

He kept all his men under arms. The Ynca, suspecting nothing,

came into the great square of Cusco in grand regal procession.

He was suddenly attacked and made prisoner, and his people

were massacred. The Ynca offered a ransom, which he described

as gold enough to fill a room twenty-two feet long and

seventeen wide, to a height equal to a man's stature and a

half. He undertook to do this in two months, and sent orders

for the collection of golden vases and ornaments in all parts

of the empire. Soon the treasure began to arrive, while

Atahualpa was deceived by false promises, and he beguiled his

captivity by acquiring Spanish and learning to play at chess

and cards. Meanwhile Pizarro sent an expedition under his

brother Hernando, to visit the famous temple of Pachacamac on

the coast; and three soldiers were also despatched to Cusco,

the capital of the empire, to hurry forward the treasure. They

set out in February, 1533, but behaved with so much imprudence

and insolence at Cusco as to endanger their own lives and the

success of their mission. Pizarro therefore ordered two

officers of distinction, Hernando de Soto and Pedro del Barco,

to follow them and remedy the mischief which they were doing.

On Easter eve, being the 14th of April, 1533, Almagro arrived

at Caxamarca with a reinforcement of 150 Spaniards and 84

horses.

{2521}

On the 3rd of May it was ordered that the gold already arrived

should be melted down for distribution; but another large

instalment came on the 14th of June. An immense quantity

consisted of slabs, with holes at the corners, which had been

torn off the walls of temples and palaces; and there were

vessels and ornaments of all shapes and sizes. After the royal

fifth had been deducted, the rest was divided among the

conquerors. The total sum of 4,605,670 ducats would be equal

to about £3,500,000 of modern money. After the partition of

the treasure, the murder of the Ynca was seriously proposed as

a measure of good policy. The crime was committed by order of

Pizarro, and with the concurrence of Almagro and the friar

Valverde. It was expected that the sovereign's death would be

followed by the dispersion of his army, and the submission of

the people. This judicial murder was committed in the square

of Caxamarca on the 29th of August, 1533. Hernando de Soto was

absent at the time, and on his return he expressed the warmest

indignation. Several other honorable cavaliers protested

against the execution. Their names are even more worthy of

being remembered than those of the heroic sixteen who crossed

the line on the sea-shore at Gallo."

C. R. Markham,

Pizarro and the Conquest and Settlement of Peru and Chili

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 2, chapter 8).

ALSO IN:

W. H. Prescott,

History of the Conquest of Peru,

book 3, chapters 1-8 (volume 1).

J. Fiske,

The Discovery of America,

chapter 10 (volume 2).

PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.

The fighting of the Spanish conquerors over the spoils.

"The feud between the Pizarros and the Almagros, which forms

the next great series of events in American history, is one of

the most memorable quarrels in the world. … This dire contest

in America destroyed almost every person of any note who came

within its influence, desolated the country where it

originated, prevented the growth of colonization, and changed

for the worse the whole course of legislation for the Spanish

colonies. Its effects were distinctly visible for a century

afterward. … There were no signs, however, of the depth and

fatality of this feud between the Pizarros and Almagros at the

period immediately succeeding the execution of Atahuallpa.

That act of injustice having been perpetrated, Pizarro gave

the royal borla [a peculiar head-dress worn by the reigning

Incas, described as a tassel of fine crimson wool] to a

brother of the late Inca [who died two months later, of shame

and rage at his helpless position], and set out from

Cassamarca on his way to Cusco. It was now time to extend his

conquests and to make himself master of the chief city in

Peru." After a slight resistance, the Spaniards entered "the

great and holy city of Cusco," the capital of the Incas, on

the 15th of November, 1533. According to the Spanish

descriptions it was a remarkable city, constructed with great

regularity, having paved streets, with a stone conduit of

water running through the middle of each, with grand squares

and many splendid palaces and temples. "In Cusco and its

environs, including the whole valley which could be seen from

the top of the tower, it is said that there were 'a hundred

thousand' houses. Among these were shops, and store–houses,

and places for the reception of tribute. … The great Temple of

the Sun had, before the Spaniards rifled Cusco, been a

building of singular gorgeousness. The interior was plated

with gold; and on each side of the central image of the Sun

were ranged, the embalmed bodies of the Incas, sitting upon

their golden thrones raised upon pedestals of gold. All round

the outside of the building, at the top of the walls, ran a

coronal of gold about three feet in depth." For three years

the Spaniards held undisturbed possession of Cusco, reducing

it to the forms of a Spanish municipality, converting the

great Temple of the Sun into a Dominican monastery and turning

many palaces into cathedrals and churches. In the meantime,

Fernando Pizarro, one of the four brothers of the conqueror,

returned from his mission to Spain, whither he had been sent

with full accounts of the conquest and with the king's fifth

of its spoils. He brought back the title of Marquis for

Francisco, and a governor's commission, the province placed

under him to be called New Castile. For Pizarro's associate

and partner, Almagro, there was also a governorship, but it

was one which remained to be conquered. He was authorized to

take possession and govern a province, which should be called

New Toledo, beginning at the southern boundary of Pizarro's

government and extending southward 200 leagues. This was the

beginning of quarrels, which Pizarro's brothers were accused

of embittering by their insolence. Almagro claimed Cusco, as

lying within the limits of his province. Pizarro was engaged

in founding a new capital city near the coast, which he began

to build in 1535, calling it Los Reyes, but which afterwards

received the name of Lima; he would not, however, give up

Cusco. The dispute was adjusted in the end, and Almagro set

out for the conquest of his province (Chile), much of which

had formed part of the dominions of the Inca, and for the

subduing of which he commanded the aid of a large army of

Peruvians, under two chiefs of the royal family. A few months

after this, in the spring of 1536, the nominally reigning

Inca, Manco, escaped from his Spanish masters at Cusco, into

the mountains, and organized a furious and formidable rising,

which brought the Spaniards, both at Cusco and Los Reyes, into

great peril, for many months. Before the revolt had been

overcome, Almagro returned, unsuccessful and disappointed,

from his expedition into Chile, and freshly determined to

assert and enforce his claim to Cusco. It is said that he

endeavored, at first, to make common cause with the Inca

Manco; but his overtures were rejected. He then attacked the

Inca and defeated him; marched rapidly on Cusco, arriving

before the city April 18, 1537; surprised the garrison while

negotiations were going on and gained full possession of the

town. Fernando and Gonzalo, two brothers of the Marquis

Pizarro, were placed in prison. The latter sent a force of 500

men, under his lieutenant, Alvarado, against the intruder; but

Alvarado was encountered on the way and badly beaten. In

November there was a meeting brought about, between Pizarro

and Almagro, in the hope of some compromise, but they parted

from it in sharper enmity than before. Meantime, the younger

Pizarro had escaped from his captivity at Cusco, and Fernando

had been released. In the spring of 1538 Fernando led an army

against the Almagristas, defeated them (April 6, 1538) in a

desperate battle near Cusco and entered the city in triumph.

{2522}

Almagro was taken prisoner, subjected to a formal trial,

condemned and executed. The Pizarros were now completely

masters of the country and maintained their domination for a

few years, extending the Spanish conquests into Chile under

Pedro de Valdivia, and exploring and occupying other regions.

But in 1541, old hatreds and fresh discontents came to a head

in a plot which bore fruit in the assassination of the

governor, the Marquis Pizarro, now past 70 years of age. A

young half-caste son of old Almagro was installed in the

governorship by the conspirators, and when, the next year, a

new royally commissioned governor, Vaca de Castro, arrived

from Spain, young Almagro was mad enough to resist him. His

rebellion was overcome speedily and he suffered death. Vaca de

Castro was superseded in 1544 by a viceroy, Blasco Nuñez Vela,

sent out by the emperor, Charles V., to enforce the "New

Laws," lately framed in Spain, under the influence of Las

Casas, to protect the natives, by a gradual abolition of the

"repartimientos" and "encomiendas." A rebellion occurred, in

which Gonzalo Pizarro took the lead, and the Spanish

government was forced to annul the "New Laws." Pizarro,

however, still refused to submit, and was only overcome after

a civil war of two years, which ended in his defeat and death.

This closed the turbulent career of the Pizarro brothers in

Peru; but the country did not settle into peace until after

some years.

Sir A. Helps,

The Spanish Conquest in America,

books 17-18 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

W. H. Prescott,

History of the Conquest of Peru.

PERU: A. D. 1539-1541.

Gonzalo Pizarro's expedition to the head waters of the Amazon

and Orellana's voyage down the great river.

See AMAZONS RIVER.

PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.

Under the Spanish Viceroys.

"When the President la Gasca had conquered Gonsalo Pizarro and

returned to Spain, a peaceful viceroy arrived in Peru, sprung

from one of the noblest families of the peninsula. This was

Don Antonio de Mendoza. … Don Antonio died in 1551, after a

very brief enjoyment of his power; but from this date, during

the whole period of the rule of kings of the Austrian House,

the Peruvian Viceroyalty was always filled by members of the

greatest families of Spain. … At an immense distance from the

mother country, and ruling at one time nearly the whole of

South America, including the present republics of Venezuela,

New Granada, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, and La Plata, the

court of the Viceroys was surrounded by regal pomp and

magnificence. … The archbishop of Lima ranked next to the

viceroy, and filled his post during his absence from the

capital. … It was not long after the conquest before the

inquisition, that fearful engine of the despotic power of

Spain, was established in Peru. … The Indians were exempted

from its jurisdiction in theory, but whether, in practice,

this unfortunate and persecuted people always escaped may be

considered as doubtful. It was only in the beginning of the

present century, and shortly before the commencement of the

war of independence, that this fearful tribunal was

abolished." Under the senseless government of Philip II. the

seeds of decay and ruin were planted in every part of the

Spanish empire. "Though receiving from the silver mines of

Peru and Mexico the largest revenue of any sovereign in

Europe, his coffers were always empty, and of $35,000,000

received from America in 1595, not one rial remained in Spain

in 1596. … Then followed the reigns of his worthless

descendants and their profligate ministers; and fast and

heedlessly did they drive this unfortunate country on the high

road to ruin and poverty. On the establishment of the Bourbon

kings of Spain in 1714, a more enlightened policy began to

show itself in the various measures of government; and the

trade to the colonies, which had hitherto been confined by the

strictest monopoly, was slightly opened. At this time, the

commerce of Peru and Mexico was carried on by what was called

the 'flota,' consisting of three men-of-war and about fifteen

merchant-vessels, of from 400 to 1,000 tons. Every kind of

manufactured article of merchandise was embarked on board this

fleet, so that all the trading ports of Europe were interested

in its cargo, and Spain itself sent out little more than wines

and brandy. The flota sailed from Cadiz, and was not allowed

to break bulk on any account during the voyage. Arriving at

Vera Cruz, it took in, for the return voyage, cargoes of

silver, cocoa, indigo, cochineal, tobacco, and sugar; and

sailed to the rendezvous at Havannah, where it awaited the

galleons from Porto Bello, with all the riches of Peru. The

galleons were vessels of about 500 tons; and an immense fair,

which collected merchants from all parts of South America, was

commenced at Porto Bello on their arrival." About the middle

of the 18th century, "a marked change appears to have come

over the colonial policy of Spain; and the enlightened

government of the good Count Florida Blanca, who was prime

minister for 20 years, introduced a few attempts at

administrative reform, not before they were needed, into the

colonial government. The enormous viceroyalty of Peru, long

found to be too large for a single command, was divided; and

viceroys were appointed in La Plata and New Granada, while

another royal audience was established at Quito. The haughty

grandees of Spain also ceased to come out to Peru; and in

their places practical men, who had done good service as

captains-general of Chile, were appointed viceroys, such as

Don Manuel Amat, in 1761, and Don Agustin Jaurequi, in 1780.

At last, Don Ambrosio O'Higgins, whose father was a poor Irish

adventurer, who kept a little retail shop in the square at

Lima, became viceroy of Peru, and was created Marquis of

Osorno. … His son, the famous General O'Higgins, was one of

the liberators of Chile. O'Higgins was followed in the

viceroyalty by the Marquis of Aviles, and in 1806, Don Jose

Abascal, an excellent ruler, assumed the reins of government.

… But the rule of Spain was drawing to a close. The successor

of Abascal, General Pezuela, was the last viceroy who

peacefully succeeded. … Many things had tended to prepare the

minds of the Creole population for revolt. The partial opening

of foreign trade by Florida Blanca; the knowledge of their own

enslaved condition, obtained through the medium of their

increasing intercourse with independent states; and, finally,

the invasion of the mother country by Napoleon's armies,

brought popular excitement in South America to such a height

that it required but a spark to ignite the inflammable

materials."

C. R. Markham,

Cuzco and Lima,

chapter 9.

{2523}

The natives of Spanish descent had received heroic examples of

revolt from the Inca Peruvians. "In November, 1780, a chief

named Tupac Amaru rose in rebellion. His original object was

to obtain guarantees for the due observance of the laws and

their just administration. But when his moderate demands were

only answered by cruel taunts and brutal menaces, he saw that

independence or death were the only alternatives. He was a

descendant of the ancient sovereigns, and he was proclaimed

Ynca of Peru. A vast army joined him, as if by magic, and the

Spanish dominion was shaken to its foundations. The

insurrection all but succeeded, and a doubtful war was

maintained for two years and a half. It lasted until July,

1783, and the cruelties which followed its suppression were

due to the cowardly terror of panic-stricken tyrants. Tupac

Amaru did not suffer in vain. … From the cruel death of the

Ynca date the feelings which resulted in the independence of

Peru. In 1814, another native chief, named Pumacagua, raised

the cry of independence at Cuzco, and the sons of those who

fell with Tupac Amaru flocked in thousands to his standard.

The patriot army entered Arequipa in triumph, and was joined

by many Spanish Americans, including the enthusiastic young

poet, Melgar. Untrained valor succumbed to discipline, and in

March, 1815, the insurrection was stamped out, but with less

cruelty than disgraced the Spanish name in 1783."

C. R. Markham,

Peru,

page 150.

PERU: A. D. 1579.

The piracies of Drake.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

PERU: A. D. 1776.

Separation of the viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

The Struggle for Independence.

Help from Chile and Colombia.

San Martin and Bolivar, the Liberators.

The decisive battle of Ayacucho.

"The great struggle for independence in the Spanish provinces

of South America had been elsewhere, for the most part,

crowned with success before Peru became the theatre for

important action. Here the Spaniards maintained possession of

their last stronghold upon the continent, and, but for

assistance from the neighbouring independent provinces, there

would hardly have appeared a prospect of overthrowing the

viceroyal government. … In the month of August, 1820,

independence having been established in Chili [see CHILE: A.

D. 1810-1818], an army of between 4,000 and 5,000 men was

assembled at Valparaiso for the purpose of breaking up the

royalist strongholds of Peru, and of freeing that province

from the dominion of Spain. The command was held by General

Jose de San Martin, the emancipator of Chili, to whose

exertions the expedition was mainly attributable. Such vessels

of war as could be procured were fitted out and placed under

command of Lord Cochrane. In the month following, the whole

force was landed and quartered at Pisco, on the Peruvian

coast, without opposition from the royalist forces, which

retreated to Lima, about 100 miles northward. An attempt at

negotiation having failed, the army of invasion was again in

motion in the month of October. The naval force anchored off

Callao, where, on the night of November 5th, Lord Cochrane

[afterwards Lord Dundonald], commanding in person, succeeded

in cutting out and capturing the Spanish frigate Esmerelda,

which lay under the protection of the guns of the fort, and in

company with a number of smaller armed vessels. This exploit

is considered as one of the most brilliant achievements of the

kind on record. The main body of the Chilian troops was

transported to Huara, about 75 miles north of the capital. …

As San Martin, after some months' delay at Huara, advanced

upon Lima, the city was thrown into the utmost confusion. The

Spanish authorities found it necessary to evacuate the place.

… The general [San Martin] entered the city on the 12th of

July, 1821, unaccompanied by his army, and experienced little

difficulty in satisfying the terrified inhabitants as to his

good faith and the honesty of his intentions. All went on

prosperously for the cause, and on the 28th the independence

of Peru was formally proclaimed, amid the greatest exhibition

of enthusiasm on the part of the populace. On the 3rd of the

ensuing month San Martin assumed the title of Protector of

Peru. No important military movements took place during a

considerable subsequent period. The fortress at Callao

remained in possession of the royalists" until the 21st of

September, when it capitulated. "The independent army remained

at Lima, for the most part unemployed, during a number of

months subsequent to these events, and their presence began to

be felt as a burden by the inhabitants. In April, 1822, a

severe reverse was felt in the surprise and capture, by

Canterac [the viceroy], of a very considerable body of the

revolutionary forces, at Ica. … An interview took place in the

month of July, of this year [1821], between the Protector and

the great champion of freedom in South America, Bolivar, then

in the full pride of success in the northern provinces. The

result of the meeting was the augmentation of the force at

Lima by 2,000 Columbian troops. During San Martin's absence

the tyranny of his minister, Monteagudo, who made the deputy

protector, the Marquis of Truxillo, a mere tool for the

execution of his private projects, excited an outbreak, which

was only quelled by the arrest and removal of the offending

party. In the succeeding month the first independent congress

was assembled at the capital, and San Martin, having resigned

his authority, soon after took his departure for Chili.

Congress appointed a junta of three persons to discharge the

duties of the executive. Under this administration the affairs

of the new republic fell into great disorder." In June, 1823,

the Spanish viceroy regained possession of Lima, but withdrew

his troops from it again a month later. Nevertheless, "all

hopes of success in the enterprise of the revolution now

seemed to rest upon the arrival of foreign assistance, and

this was fortunately at hand. Simon Bolivar, the liberator of

Venezuela, and the most distinguished of the champions of

freedom in South America, had so far reduced the affairs of

the recently constituted northern states [see COLOMBIAN

STATES: A. D. 1810-1819; and 1819-1830] to order and security,

that he was enabled to turn his attention to the distressed

condition of the Peruvian patriots. He proceeded at once to

the scene of action, and entered Lima on the 1st of September,

1823. … He was received with great rejoicing, and was at once

invested with supreme power, both civil and military. …

{2524}

In February, 1824, an insurrection of the garrison at Callao

resulted in the recapture of this important stronghold by the

Spaniards, and a few weeks later the capital shared the same

fate. The revolutionary congress broke up, after declaring its

own dissolution and the confirmation of Bolivar's authority as

supreme dictator. This gloomy state of affairs only served to

call forth the full energies of the great general. He had

under his command about 10,000 troops, the majority of whom

were Columbians, stationed near Patavilca. The available

forces of the royalists were at this period numerically far

superior to those of the patriots." An action which did not

become general took place on the plains of Junin, but no

decisive engagement occurred until the 9th of December, 1824,

"when the decisive battle of Ayacucho, one of the most

remarkable in its details and important in its results ever

fought in South America, gave a deathblow to Spanish power in

Peru. The attack was commenced by the royalists, under command

of the viceroy. Their numbers very considerably exceeded those

of the patriots, being set down at over 9,000, while those of

the latter fell short of 6,000. … After a single hour's hard

fighting, the assailants were routed and driven back to the

heights of Condorcanqui, where, previous to the battle, they

had taken a position. Their loss was 1,400 in killed and 700

wounded. The patriots lost in killed and wounded a little less

than 1,000." Before the day closed, Canterac, the viceroy,

entered the patriot camp and arranged the terms of a

capitulation with General Sucre—who had commanded in the

battle and won its honors, Bolivar not being present. "His

whole remaining army became prisoners of war, and by the terms

of the capitulation all the Spanish forces in Peru were also

bound to surrender." A strong body of Spanish troops held out,

however, in Upper Peru (afterwards Bolivia) until April, 1825,

and the royalists who had taken refuge at Callao endured with

desperate obstinacy a siege which was protracted until

January, 1826, when most of them had perished of hunger and

disease. "Bolivar was still clothed with the powers of a

dictator in Peru. … He was anxious to bring about the adoption

by the Peruvians of the civil code known as the Bolivian

constitution, but it proved generally unsatisfactory. While he

remained in the country, it is said, 'the people overwhelmed

him with professions of gratitude, and addressed him in

language unsuitable to any being below the Deity.' A reaction

took place notwithstanding, and numbers were found ready to

accuse this truly great man of selfish personal ambition."

H. Brownell,

North and South America: Peru,

chapters 12-13.

ALSO IN:

Earl of Dundonald,

Autobiography of a Seaman, Sequel,

chapter 3.

J. Miller,

Memoirs of General Miller,

chapters 12-27 (volumes 1-2).

T. Sutcliffe,

Sixteen Years in Chile and Peru,

chapters 2-3.

PERU: A. D. 1825-1826.

The founding of the Republic of Bolivia in upper Peru.

The Bolivian Constitution.

"Bolivar reassembled the deputies of the Congress of Lower

Peru, February 10, 1825, and in his message to that body

resigned the dictatorship, adding, 'I felicitate Peru on her

being delivered from whatever is most dreadful on earth; from

war by the victory of Ayacucho, and from despotism by my

resignation. Proscribe for ever, I entreat you, this

tremendous authority, which was the sepulchre of Rome.' On the

same occasion he also said; 'My continuance in this republic

is an absurd and monstrous phenomenon; it is the approbrium of

Peru;' with other expressions equally strong; while at the

same time, at the pressing solicitation of the Congress, he

consented, notwithstanding his many declarations of

reluctance, to remain at the head of the republic. Nothing

could exceed the blind submissiveness of this Congress to

Bolivar. After investing him with dictatorial authority for

another year, they voted him a grant of a million of dollars,

which he twice refused, with a disinterestedness that does him

the greatest honor. … Liberality of feeling, and entire

freedom from rapacity of spirit, must be admitted as prominent

traits in his character. After continuing in session about a

month, the Congress came to a resolution, that as they had

granted absolute and unconditional power to Bolivar, in regard

to all subjects, whether legislative or executive, it was

unnecessary, and incompatible with his authority, that they

should continue to exercise their functions; and they

accordingly separated. Bolivar, being left without check or

control in the government, after issuing a decree for

installing a new Congress at Lima the ensuing year, departed

from Lima in April, for the purpose of visiting the interior

provinces of Upper and Lower Peru. … There is reason to

believe, that the flattering reception, with which he was

greeted on this tour, largely contributed to foster those

views of ambition respecting Peru, which he betrayed in the

sequel. Certain it is, at least, that the extravagant

gratitude of the inhabitants of Peru, gave him occasion to

assume the task of a legislator, and thus to bring his

political principles more directly before the world. When the

victory of Ayacucho left the provinces of Upper Peru free to

act, the great question presented to their consideration was,

whether Upper Peru should be united to Lower Peru, or

reannexed to Buenos Ayres, or constitute an independent state.

Under the auspices of the Liberator and of Sucre [Bolivar's

chief of staff], a general assembly was convened at Chuquisaco

in August, 1825, which declared the will of the people to be,

that Upper Peru should become a separate republic, and decreed

that it should be called Bolivia in honor of the Liberator.

Here their functions should properly have ceased, with the

fulfilment of the object for which they met. Regardless,

however, of the limited extent of their powers, they proceeded

to exercise the authority of a general Congress. They

conferred the supreme executive powers on Bolivar, so long as

he should reside within the territory of the republic. Sucre

was made captain-general of the army, with the title of Grand

Marshal of Ayacucho, and his name was bestowed upon the

capital. Medals, statues, and pictures were bountifully and

profusely decreed, in honor of both Sucre and Bolivar. To the

latter was voted a million of dollars, as an acknowledgment of

his preeminent services to the country. With the same

characteristic magnanimity, which he displayed on a like

occasion in Lower Peru, he refused to accept the grant for his

own benefit, but desired that it might be appropriated to

purchasing the emancipation of about a thousand negroes held

in servitude in Bolivia. Finally, they solicited Bolivar to

prepare for the new republic a fundamental code, that should

perpetuate his political principles in the very frame and

constitution of the state.

{2525}

Captivated by the idea of creating a nation, from its very

foundation, Bolivar consented to undertake the task, if,

indeed, which has been confidently asserted to be the case, he

did not himself procure the request to be made. The Liberator

left Chuquisaca in January, 1826, and returned to Lima, to

assist at the installation of the Congress summoned to meet

there in February. He transmitted the form of a constitution

for Bolivia from Lima, accompanied with an address, bearing

date May 25, 1826. Of this extraordinary instrument, we feel

at a loss to decide in what terms to speak. Bolivar has again

and again declared, that it contains his confession of

political faith. He gave all the powers of his mind to its

preparation; he proclaimed it as the well-weighed result of

his anxious meditations. … This constitution proposes a

consolidated or central, not a federal, form of government;

and thus far it is unobjectionable. Every ten citizens are to

name an elector, whose tenure of office is four years. The

Legislative power is to be vested in three branches, called

tribunes, senators, and censors. Tribunes are to be elected

for four years, senators for eight, and censors for life. So

complicated is the arrangement proposed for the enactment of

laws by means of this novel legislature, and so arbitrary and

unnatural the distribution of powers among the several

branches, that it would be impracticable for any people,

having just notions of legislative proceedings, to conduct

public business in the projected mode; and much more

impracticable for men, like the South Americans, not at all

familiar with the business of orderly legislation. But the

most odious feature in the constitution relates to the nature

and appointment of the executive authority. It is placed in

the hands of a president, elected in the first instance by the

legislative body, holding his office for life, without

responsibility for the acts of his administration, and having

the appointment of his successor. The whole patronage of the

state, every appointment of any importance, from the

vice-president and secretaries of state down to the officers

of the revenue, belongs to him; in him is placed the absolute

control of all the military force of the nation, it being at

the same time specially provided, that a permanent armed force

shall be constantly maintained. For the mighty power, the

irresistible influence, which this plan imparts to the

executive, the only corresponding security, assured to the

people, is the inviolability of persons and property. The

constituent Congress of Bolivia assembled at Chuquisaca, May

25, 1826, and passively adopted the proposed constitution to

the letter, as if it had been a charter granted by a sovereign

prince to his subjects, instead of a plan of government

submitted to a deliberative assembly for their consideration.

It took effect accordingly, as the constitution of Bolivia,

and was sworn to by the people; and General Sucre was elected

president for life under it, although one of its provisions

expressly required, that the president should be a native of

Bolivia."

C. Cushing,

Bolivar and the Bolivian Constitution

(N. A. Rev., January 1830).

PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

Retirement of Bolivar.

Attempted confederation with Bolivia and war with Chile.

The succession of military presidents.

Abolition of Slavery.

War with Spain.

"As Bolivar … was again prevailed upon [1826] by the Peruvians

to accept the dictatorship of the northern republic, and was

at the same time President of the United States of Colombia,

he was by far the most powerful man on the continent of

America. For a time it was supposed that the balance of power

on the southern continent was falling into Colombian hands. …

But the power of Bolivar, even in his own country, rested on a

tottering basis. Much more was this the case in the greater

Vice-royalty. The Peruvian generals, who ruled the opinion of

the country, were incurably jealous of him and his army, and

got rid of the latter as soon as they could clear off the

arrears of pay. They looked upon the Code Bolivar itself as a

badge of servitude, and were not sorry when the domestic

disturbances of Colombia summoned the Dictator from among them

[September, 1826]. The Peruvians, who owed a heavy debt, both

in money and gratitude, to Colombia, now altogether repudiated

Bolivar, his code, and his government; and the Bolivians

followed their example by expelling Sucre and his Colombian

troops (1828). The revolution which expelled the Colombian

element was mainly a national and military one: but it was no

doubt assisted by whatever of liberalism existed in the

country. Bolivar had now shown himself in Colombia to be the

apostle of military tyranny, and he was not likely to assume

another character in Peru. The ascendeney of Colombia in the

Perus was thus of short duration; but the people of the two

Perus only exchanged Colombian dictatorship for that of the

generals of their own nation."

E. J. Payne,

History of European Colonies,

pages 290-291.

"A Peruvian Congress met in 1827, after General Bolivar had

returned to Colombia, and elected Don José Lamar, the leader

of the Peruvian infantry at Ayacucho, as President of the

Republic; but his defeat in an attempt to wrest Guayaquil from

Colombia led to his fall, and Agustin Gamarra, an Ynca Indian

of Cuzco, succeeded him in 1829. Although successful soldiers

secured the presidential chair, the administration in the

early days of the Republic contained men of rank, and others

of integrity and talent. … General Gamarra served his regular

term of office, and after a discreditable display of sedition

he was succeeded in 1834 by Don Luis José Orbegoso. Then

followed an attempt to unite Peru and Bolivia in a

confederation. The plan was conceived by Don Andres Santa

Cruz, an Ynca Indian of high descent, who had been President

of Bolivia since 1829. Orbegoso concurred, and the scheme,

which had in it some elements of hopefulness and success, was

carried out, but not without deplorable bloodshed. The

Peru-Bolivian Confederation was divided into three

States—North Peru, South Peru, and Bolivia. During the

ascendancy of Santa Cruz, Peru enjoyed a period of peace and

prosperity. But his power excited the jealousy of Chile, and

that Republic united with Peruvian malcontents, headed by

General Gamarra, to destroy it. A Chilian army landed, and

Santa Cruz was hopelessly defeated in the battle of Yungay,

which was fought in the Callejon de Huaylas, on the banks of

the river Santa, on January 20th, 1839. A Congress assembled

at the little town of Huancayo, in the Sierra, which

acknowledged Gamarra as President of the Republic, and

proclaimed a new Constitution on November 16th, 1839. But the

new state of things was of short duration.

{2526}

On the pretext of danger from the party of Santa Cruz, war was

declared upon Bolivia, which resulted in the defeat of the

Peruvians at the battle of Yngavi, near the banks of Lake

Titicaca, on November 20th, 1841, and the death of Gamarra. A

very discreditable period of anarchy ensued, during which

Gamarra's generals fought with each other for supremacy, which

was ended by the success of another Indian, and on April 19th,

1845, General Don Ramon Castilla was proclaimed Constitutional

President of Peru. … Uneducated and ignorant, his

administrative merits were small, but his firm and vigorous

grasp of power secured for Peru long periods of peace. … At

the end of Castilla's term of office General Echenique

succeeded him; but in 1854 Castilla placed himself at the head

of a revolution, and again found himself in power. A new

Constitution was promulgated in 1856; the tribute of the

Indians and negro slavery were abolished, and a grant of

$1,710,000 was voted as compensation to the owners of slaves.

The mass of the people ceased to be taxed. The revenue was

entirely derived from sales of guano, customs duties,

licences, and stamps. … When Castilla retired from office in

1862, he was succeeded by General San Roman, an old Ynca

Indian of Puno, whose father had fought under Pumacagua. The

Republic had then existed for 40 years, during which time it

had been torn by civil or external wars for nine years and had

enjoyed 81 years of peace and order. Very great advances had

been made in prosperity during the years of peace. … General

San Roman died in 1863, his Vice President, General Pezet, was

replaced [through a revolution] by Colonel Don Mariano Ignacio

Prado, and a war with Spain practically ended with the repulse

of the Spanish fleet from Callao au May 2nd, 1866. The war was

unjust, the pretext being the alleged ill-treatment of some

Spanish immigrants at an estate called Talambo, in the coast

valley of Jequetepeque, which might easily have been arranged

by arbitration. But the success at Callao aroused the

enthusiasm of the people and excited strong patriotic

feelings. Colonel Don Jose Balta was elected President of Peru

on August 2nd, 1868, the present Constitution having been

proclaimed on August 31st, 1867. The Senate is composed of

Deputies of the Provinces, with a property qualification, and

the House of Representatives of members nominated by electoral

colleges of provinces and districts, one member for every

20,000 inhabitants. The district colleges choose deputies to

the provincial colleges, who elect the representatives to

Congress. There are 44 senators and 110 representatives.

Executive power is in the hands of a President and

Vice–President, elected for four years, with a Cabinet of five

Ministers. … The government of Colonel Balta entered upon a

career of wild extravagance, and pushed forward the execution

of railways and other public works with feverish haste,

bringing ruin upon the country. … It is sad that a wretched

military outbreak, in which the President was killed on July

26th, 1872, should have given it a tragic termination. … On

August 2nd, 1872, Don Manuel Pardo became Constitutional

President of Peru. He was the first civilian that had been

elected. … He came to the helm at a period of great financial

difficulty, and he undertook a thankless but patriotic task. …

He was the best President that Peru has ever known. When his

term of office came to an end, he was peacefully succeeded, on

August 2nd, 1876, by General Don Mariano Ignacio Prado."

C. R. Markham,

Peru,

chapter 8.

PERU: A. D. 1879-1884.

The disastrous war with Chile.

See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

PERU: A. D. 1886-1894.

Slow recovery.

Since the close of the war with Chile, Peru has been slowly

recovering from its destructive effects. General Caceres

became President in 1886, and was succeeded in 1890 by General

Remigio Morales Bermudez, whose term expires in 1894.

----------PERU: End--------

PERUGIA, Early history of.

See PERUSIA.

PERUGIA, Under the domination of the Baglioni.

See BAGLIONI.

PERUS, The Two.

Upper Peru and Lower Peru of the older Spanish viceroyalty are

represented, at the present time, the former by the Republic

of Bolivia, the latter by the Republic of Peru.

PERUSIA, The war of.

In the second year of the triumvirate of Octavius, Antony and

Lepidus, Antony being in the east, his wife Fulvia and his

brother fomented a revolt in Italy against Octavius, which

forced the latter for a time to quit Rome. But his coolness,

with the energy and ability of his friend Agrippa, overcame

the conspiracy. The army of the insurgents was blockaded in

Perusia (modern Perugia) and sustained a siege of several

months, so obstinate that the whole affair came to be called

the war of Perusia. The siege was distinguished by a peculiar

horror; for the slaves of the city were deliberately starved

to death, being denied food and also denied escape, lest the

besiegers should learn of the scarcity within the walls.

C. Merivale,

History of Rome,

chapter 27.

PERUVIAN BARK, Introduction of.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY.

PERUVIAN QUIPU.

See QUIPU.

PES, The.

See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

PESHWA OF THE MAHRATTAS, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748; 1798-1805; and 1816-1819.

PESO DE ORO.

See SPANISH COINS.

PESTALOZZI, and educational reform.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1798-1827.

PESTH: A. D. 1241.

Destruction by the Mongols.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

PESTH: A. D. 1872.

Union with Buda.

See BUDAPESTH.

PESTILENCE.

See PLAGUE.

PETALISM.

A vote of banishment which the ancient Syracusans brought into

practice for a time, in imitation of the Ostracism of the

Athenians,—(see OSTRACISM). The name of the citizen to be

banished was written, at Syracuse, on olive-leaves, instead of

on shells, as at Athens. Hence the name, petalism.

Diodorus,

Historical Library,

book 11, chapter 26.

PETER,

Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1217-1219.

Peter I. (called The Great), Czar of Russia, 1689-1725.

Peter I., King of Aragon and Navarre, 1094-1104.

Peter I., King of Hungary, 1088-1046.

Peter II., Czar of Russia, 1727-1780.

Peter II., King of Aragon, 1196-1213.

{2527}

Peter II., King of Sicily, 1337-1342.

Peter III., Czar of Russia, 1762.

Peter III., King of Aragon, 1276-1285;

King of Sicily, 1283-1285.

Peter IV., King of Aragon, 1336-1387.

Peter the Hermit's Crusade.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094-1095; and 1096-1099.

Peter.

See, also, PEDRO.

PETERBOROUGH, Earl of, and the siege of Barcelona.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.

PETERLOO, Massacre of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

PETER'S PENCE.

King Offa, of the old English kingdom of Mercia, procured, by

a liberal tribute to Rome, a new archbishopric for Lichfield,

thus dividing the province of Canterbury. "This payment … is

probably the origin of the Rom-feoh, or Peter's pence, a tax

of a penny on every hearth, which was collected [in England]

and sent to Rome from the beginning of the tenth century, and

was a subject of frequent legislation. But the archiepiscopate

of Lichfield scarcely survived its founder."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 8, section 86 (volume 1).

PETERSBURG, Siege and evacuation of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (JUNE: VIRGINIA), (JULY: VIRGINIA),

(AUGUST: VIRGINIA); 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

PETERSHAM, Rout of Shays' rebels at.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.

PETERVARDEIN, Battle of (1716).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1600-1718.

PETILIA, Battle at.

See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.

PETIT SERJEANTY.

See FEUDAL TENURES.

PETITION OF RIGHT, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1625–1628; and 1628.

PETITS MAÍTRES, Les.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

PETRA, Arabia.

The rock-city of the Nabatheans.

See NABATHEANS.

PETRA, Illyricum: Cæsar's blockade of Pompeius.

See ROME B. C. 48.

PETRA, Lazica.

See LAZICA.

PETROBRUSIANS.

HENRICIANS.

"The heretic who, for above twenty years, attempted a

restoration of a simple religion in Southern France, the

well-known Pierre de Bruys, a native of Gap or Embrun, …

warred against images and all other visible emblems of

worship; he questioned the expediency of infant baptism, the

soundness of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and opposed

prayers for the dead; but he professed poverty for himself,

and would have equally enforced it upon all the ministers of

the altar. He protested against the payment of tithes; and it

was, most probably, owing to this last, the most heinous of

all offences, that he was, towards 1130, burnt with slow fire

by a populace maddened by the priests, at St. Gilles, on the

Rhone. … His followers rallied … and changed their name of

Petrobrusians into that of Henricians, when the mantle of

their first master rested on the shoulders of Henry, supposed

by Mosheim [Eccles. History, volume 2] to have been an Italian

Eremite monk."

L. Mariotti (A. Gallenga),

Frà Dolcina and his Times,

chapter 1.

PETROCORII, The.

A Gallic tribe established in the ancient Périgord, the modern

French department of the Dordogne.

Napoleon III.,

History of Cæsar,

book 3, chapter 2, footnote.

PETRONILLA, Queen of Aragon, A. D. 1137-1163.

PETRONIUS MAXIMUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 455.

PEUCINI, The.

"The Peucini derived their name from the little island Peuce

(Piczino) at the mouth of the Danube. Pliny (iv. 14) speaks of

them as a German people bordering on the Daci. They would thus

stretch through Moldavia from the Carpathian Mountains to the

Black Sea. Under the name Bastarnæ they are mentioned by Livy

(xl. 57, 58) as a powerful people, who helped Philip, king of

Macedonia, in his wars with the Romans. Plutarch ('Life of

Paullus Æmilius,' ch. ix.) says they were the same as the

Galatæ, who dwelt round the Ister (Danube). If so, they were

Gauls, which Livy also implies."

Church and Brodribb,

Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus.

PEUKETIANS, The.

See ŒNOTRIANS.

PEUTINGERIAN TABLE, The.

This is the name given to the only copy which has survived of

a Roman official road-chart. "Tables of this kind were not

maps in the proper sense of the term, but were rather diagrams

drawn purposely out of proportion, on which the public roads

were projected in a panoramic view. The latitude and longitude

and the positions of rivers and mountains were disregarded so

far as they might interfere with the display of the provinces,

the outlines being flattened out to suit the shape of a roll

of parchment; but the distances between the stations were

inserted in numerals, so that an extract from the record might

be used as a supplement to the table of mileage in the

road-book. The copy now remaining derives its name from Conrad

Peutinger of Augsburg, in whose library it was found on his

death in 1547. It is supposed to have been brought to Europe

from a monastery in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, and to

have been a copy taken by some thirteenth century scribe from

an original assigned to the beginning of the fourth century or

the end of the third.'

C. Elton,

Origins of English History,

chapter 11 and plate 7.

ALSO IN:

W. M. Ramsay,

Historical Geography of Asia Minor,

part 1, chapter 6.

PEVENSEY.

The landing-place of William the Conqueror, September 28,

A. D. 1066, when he came to win the crown of England.

See, also, ANDERIDA.

PFALZ.

PFALZGRAF.

In German, the term signifying Palatine and Palatine Count.

See PALATINE COUNT.

PHACUSEH.

See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

PHÆACIANS, The.

"We are wholly at a loss to explain the reasons that led the

Greeks in early times … to treat the Phæacians [of Homer's

Odyssey] as a historical people, and to identify the Homeric

Scheria with the island of Corcyra [modern Corfu]. … We must …

be content to banish the kindly and hospitable Phæacians, as

well as the barbarous Cyclopes and Læstrygones, to that outer

zone of the Homeric world, in which everything was still

shrouded in a veil of marvel and mystery."

E. H. Bunbury,

History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 3, section 3 volume 1).

PHALANGITES, The.

The soldiers of the Macedonian phalanx.

{2528}

PHALANX, The Macedonian.

"The main body, the phalanx—or quadruple phalanx, as it was

sometimes called, to mark that it was formed of four

divisions, each bearing the same name—presented a mass of

18,000 men, which was distributed, at least by Alexander, into

six brigades of 3,000 each, formidable in its aspect, and, on

ground suited to its operations, irresistible in its attacks.

The phalangite soldier wore the usual defensive armour of the

Greek heavy infantry, helmet, breast-plate, and greaves; and

almost the whole front of his person was covered with the long

shield called the aspis. His weapons were a sword, long enough

to enable a man in the second rank to reach an enemy who had

come to close quarters with the comrade who stood before him,

and the celebrated spear, known by the Macedonian name

sarissa, four and twenty feet long. The sarissa, when couched,

projected eighteen feet in front of the soldier, and the space

between the ranks was such that those of the second rank were

fifteen, those of the third twelve, those of the fourth nine,

those of the fifth six, and those of the sixth three feet in

advance of the first line; so that the man at the head of the

file was guarded on each side by the points of six spears. The

ordinary depth of the phalanx was of sixteen ranks. The men

who stood too far behind to use their sarissas, and who

therefore kept them raised until they advanced to fill a

vacant place, still added to the pressure of the mass. As the

efficacy of the phalanx depended on its compactness, and this

again on the uniformity of its movements, the greatest care

was taken to select the best soldiers for the foremost and

hindmost ranks—the frames, as it were, of the engine. The bulk

and core of the phalanx consisted of Macedonians; but it was

composed in part of foreign troops."

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 48.

PHALARIS,

Brazen bull of.

Epistles of.

Phalaris is said to have been a rich man who made himself

tyrant of the Greek city of Agrigentum in Sicily, about 570 B.

C., and who distinguished himself above all others of his kind

by his cruelties. He seems to have been especially infamous in

early times on account of his brazen bull. "This piece of

mechanism was hollow, and sufficiently capacious to contain

one or more victims enclosed within it, to perish in tortures

when the metal was heated: the cries of these suffering

prisoners passed for the roarings of the animal. The artist

was named Perillus, and is said to have been himself the first

person burnt in it by order of the despot."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 43.

At a later time Phalaris was represented as having been a man

of culture and letters, and certain Epistles were ascribed to

him which most scholars now regard as forgeries. The famous

treatise of Bentley is thought to have settled the question.

PHALERUM.

See PIRÆUS.

PHANARIOTS, The.

"The reduction of Constantinople, in 1453, was mainly achieved

by the extraordinary exploit of Mahomet II. in transporting

his galleys from the Bosphorus to the interior of the harbour,

by dragging them over land from Dolma Bactche, and again

launching them opposite to the quarter denominated the Phanar,

from a lantern suspended over the gate which there

communicates with the city. The inhabitants of this district,

either from terror or treachery, are said to have subsequently

thrown open a passage to the conqueror; and Mahomet, as a

remuneration, assigned them for their residence this portion

of Constantinople, which has since continued to be occupied by

the Patriarch and the most distinguished families of the

Greeks. It is only, however, within the last century and a

half that the Phanariots have attained any distinction beyond

that of merchants and bankers, or that their name, from merely

designating their residence, has been used to indicate their

diplomatic employments."

Sir J. E. Tennent,

History of Modern Greece,

chapter 12 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

E. A. Freeman,

The Ottoman Power in Europe,

chapter 4.

J. Samuelson,

Roumania, Past and Present,

chapter 13, sections 3-7.

PHARAOH, The title.

The title Pharaoh which was given to the kings of ancient

Egypt, "appears on the monuments as piraa, 'great house,' the

palace in which the king lived being used to denote the king

himself, just as in our own time the 'porte' or gate of the

palace has become synonymous with the Turkish Sultan."

A. H. Sayee,

Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,

chapter 2.

PHARAOHITES.

See GYPSIES.

PHARISEES, The.

See CHASIDIM; and SADDUCEES.

PHARSALIA, Battle of.

See ROME: B. C. 48.

PHELPS' AND GORHAM'S PURCHASE.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

PHERÆ.

A town in ancient Thessaly which acquired an evil fame in

Greek history, during the fourth century, B. C., by the power

and the cruelty of the tyrants who ruled it and who extended

their sway for a time over the greater part of Thessaly. Jason

and Alexander were the most notorious of the brood.

PHILADELPHIA, Asia Minor.

The city of Philadelphia, founded by Attalus Philadelphus of

Pergamum, in eastern Lydia, not far from Sardes, was one in

which Christianity flourished at an early day, and which

prospered for several centuries, notwithstanding repeated

calamities of earthquake. It was the last community of Greeks

in Asia Minor which retained its independence of the Turks. It

stood out for two generations in the midst of the Seljouk

Turks, after all around it had succumbed. The brave city was

finally taken by the Ottoman sultan, Bayezid, or Bajazet,

about 1390. The Turks then gave it the name Alashehr.

G. Finlay,

History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,

book 4, chapter 2, section 4 (volume 2).

----------PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: Start--------

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1641.-

The first settlement, by New Haven colonists.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1682-1685.

Penn's founding of the city.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682-1685.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1686-1692.

Bradford's Press.

See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1515-1709.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1701.

Chartered as a city.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1701-1718.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1719-1729.

The first newspapers.

Franklin's advent.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1704-1729.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1765.

Patriotic self-denials.

Non-importation agreements.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1774.

The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (SEPTEMBER)

and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1775.

Reception of the news of Lexington and Concord.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-JUNE).

{2529}

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1775.

The Second Continental Congress.

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

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1777.

The British army in the city.

Removal of Congress to York.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1777-1778.

The gay winter with the British in the city.

The Battle of the Kegs.

The Mischianza.

"The year 1778 found the British at Philadelphia in snug

quarters, unembarrassed by the cares of the field, and, except

for occasional detachments, free from other military duties

than the necessary details of garrison life. The trifling

affairs that occurred during the remainder of the season

served rather as a zest to the pleasures which engaged them

than as a serious occupation. … No sooner were they settled in

their winter-quarters than the English set on foot scenes of

gayety that were long remembered, and often with regret, by

the younger part of the local gentry. … Of all the band, no

one seems to have created such a pleasing impression or to

have been so long admiringly remembered as André. His name in

our own days lingered on the lips of every aged woman whose

youth had seen her a belle in the royal lines. … The military

feats about Philadelphia, in the earlier part of 1778, were

neither numerous or important. Howe aimed at little more than

keeping a passage clear for the country-people, within certain

bounds, to come in with marketing. The incident known as the

Battle of the Kegs was celebrated by Hopkinson in a very

amusing song that, wedded to the air of Maggy Lander, was long

the favorite of the American military vocalists; but it hardly

seems to have been noticed at Philadelphia until the Whig

version came in. The local newspapers say that, in January,

1778, a barrel floating down the Delaware being taken up by

some boys exploded in their hands, and killed or maimed one of

them. A few days after, some of the transports fired a few

guns at several other kegs that appeared on the tide; but no

particular notice of the occurrence was taken. These torpedoes

were sent down in the hope that they would damage the

shipping." When Howe was displaced from the command and

recalled, his officers, among whom he was very popular,

resolved "to commemorate their esteem for him by an

entertainment not less novel than splendid. This was the

famous Mischianza [or Meschianza] of the 18th of May, 1778;

the various nature of which is expressed by its name, while

its conception is evidently taken from Lord Derby's fête

champêtre at The Oaks, June 9th, 1774, on occasion of Lord

Stanley's marriage to the Duke of Hamilton's daughter. … The

regatta, or aquatic procession, in the Mischianza was

suggested by a like pageant on the Thames, June 23rd, 1775. …

A mock tournament—perhaps the first in America—was a part of

the play."

W. Sargent,

Life of Major John André,

chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,

History of Philadelphia,

chapter 17 (volume 1).

A. H. Wharton,

Through Colonial Doorways,

chapter 2.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1778.

Evacuation by the British.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE).

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1780-1784.

Founding of the Pennsylvania Bank

and the Bank of North America.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1787.

The sitting of the Federal Constitutional Convention.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1876.

The Centennial Exhibition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.

----------PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: End--------

PHILADELPHIA, Tenn., Battle at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

PHILADELPHIA LIBRARY COMPANY.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

PHILIP,

Roman Emperor, A. D. 244-249.

Philip, King of Macedon,

The ascendancy in Greece of.

See GREECE: B. C. 359-358, and 357-336.

Philip, King of the Pokanokets,

and his war with the English.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D.1674-1675, to 1676-1678.

Philip, King of Sweden, 1112-1118.

Philip (called The Bold), Duke of Burgundy, 1363-1404.

Philip (called The Good), Duke of Burgundy, 1418-1467.

Philip I. King of France, 1060-1108.

Philip II. (called Augustus), King of France, 1180-1223.

Philip II., King of the Two Sicilies, 1554-1598;

Duke of Burgundy, 1555-1598;

King of Spain, 1556-1598;

King of Portugal, 1580-1598.

Philip III. (called The Bold), King of France, 1270-1285.

Philip III., King of Spain, Portugal and the Two Sicilies,

and Duke of Burgundy, 1598-1621.

Philip IV. (called The Fair), King of France, 1285-1314.

Philip IV., King of Spain, 1621-1665;

King of Portugal, 1621-1640.

Philip V., King of France and Navarre, 1316-1322.

Philip V., King of Spain (first of the Spanish-Bourbon line),

1700-1746.

Philip VI., King of France

(the first king of the House of Valois), 1328-1350.

PHILIPHAUGH, Battle of (1645).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

PHILIPPI, The founding of.

Philip of Macedonia in 356 B. C. took from the Thasians the

rich gold-mining district of Pangæus, on the left bank of the

Strymon on the border of Thrace, and settled a colony there in

what afterwards became the important city of Philippi.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 42.

PHILIPPI, Battles of (B. C. 42).

See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

PHILIPPI, West Virginia, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

PHILIPPICS OF DEMOSTHENES, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336, and 351-348.

PHILIPPICUS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 711-713.

PHILIPPOPOLIS, Capture of, by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.

----------PHILIPSBURG: Start--------

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1644.

Taken by the French.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1648.

Right of garrisoning secured to France.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1676.

Taken from France by the Imperialists.

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

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1679.

Given up by France.

See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1734.

Siege and reduction by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

----------PHILIPSBURG: End--------

{2530}

PHILISTINES, The.

"One small nation alone, of all which dwelt on the land

claimed by Israel, permanently refused to amalgamate itself

with the circumcised peoples,—namely the uncircumcised

Philistines. They occupied the lots which ought to have been

conquered by Dan and Simeon, and had five principal cities,

Gaza, Askelon, Ashdod, Gath and Ekron, of which the three

first are on the sea-coast. Ashdod and Gaza were places of

great strength, capable of long resisting the efforts of

Egyptian and Greek warfare. The Philistines cannot have been a

populous nation, but they were far more advanced in the arts

of peace and war than the Hebrews. Their position commanded

the land traffic between Egypt and Canaan, and gave them

access to the sea; hence perhaps their wealth and

comparatively advanced civilization. Some learned men give

credit to an account in Sanchoniathon, that they came from

Crete." They gave their name to Palestine.

F. W. Newman,

History of the Hebrew Monarchy,

chapter 2.

"Where the Philistines came from, and what they originally

were, is not clear. That they moved up the coast from Egypt is

certain; that they came from Kaphtor is also certain. But it

by no means follows, as some argue, that Kaphtor and Egypt are

the same region. … It appears more safe to identify Kaphtor

with" Crete. "But to have traced the Philistines to Crete is

not to have cleared up their origin, for early Crete was full

of tribes from both east and west. … Take them as a whole, and

the Philistines appear a Semitic people."

George Adam Smith,

Historical Geography of the Holy Land,

chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

Dean Stanley,

Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,

lecture 16.

H. Ewald,

History of Israel,

book 2, section 3.

See, also,

JEWS: THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN, and after.

PHILOCRATES, The Peace of.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

PHLIUS, Siege of.

Phlius, the chief city of the small mountain state of

Phliasia, in the northeastern corner of Peloponnesus,

adjoining Argos and Arcadia, made an heroic effort, B. C. 380,

to maintain its liberties against Sparta. Under a valiant

leader, Delphion, it endured a siege which lasted more than an

entire year. When forced to surrender, in the end, it was

treated with terrible severity by the Spartan king, Agesilaus.

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 5, chapter 5.

PHOCÆANS, OR PHOKÆANS, The.

"The citizens of Phocæa had been the last on the coast-line of

Ionia [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES] to settle down to a

condition of tranquillity. They had no building-ground but a

rocky peninsula, where they found so little space over which

to spread at their ease that this very circumstance made them

a thorough people of sailors. In accordance with their local

situation they had turned to the waters of the Pontus,

established settlements on the Dardanelles and the Black Sea,

and taken part in the trade with Egypt. Here however they were

unable to hold their own by the side of the Milesians, … and

the Phocæans accordingly saw themselves obliged to look

westward and to follow the direction of Chalcidian navigation.

… It was thus that the Ionian Phocæans came into the western

sea. Being forced from the first to accustom themselves to

long and distant voyages, instead of the easy summer trips of

the other maritime cities, they became notably bold and heroic

sailors. They began where the rest left off; they made voyages

of discovery into regions avoided by others; they remained at

sea even when the skies already showed signs of approaching

winter and the observation of the stars became difficult. They

built their ships long and slim, in order to increase their

agility; their merchant vessels were at the same time

men-of-war. … They entered those parts of the Adriatic which

most abound in rocks, and circumnavigated the islands of the

Tyrrhenian sea in spite of the Carthaginian guard–ships; they

sought out the bays of Campania and the mouths of the Tiber

and Arnus; they proceeded farther, past the Alpine ranges,

along the coast as far as the mouth of the Rhodanus, and

finally reached Iberia, with whose rich treasures of precious

metals they had first become acquainted on the coast of Italy.

… During the period when Ionia began to be hard pressed by the

Lydians, the Phocæans, who had hitherto contented themselves

with small commercial settlements, in their turn proceeded to

the foundation of cities in Gaul and Iberia. The month of the

Rhodanus [the Rhone] was of especial importance to them for

the purposes of land and sea trade. … Massalia [modern

Marseilles], from the forty-fifth Olympiad [B. C. 600] became

a fixed seat of Hellenic culture in the land of the Celts,

despite the hostility of the piratical tribes of Liguria and

the Punic fleet. Large fisheries were established on the

shore; and the stony soil in the immediate vicinity of the

city itself was converted into vine and olive plantations. The

roads leading inland were made level, which brought the

products of the country to the mouth of the Rhone; and in the

Celtic towns were set up mercantile establishments, which

collected at Massalia the loads of British tin, of inestimable

value for the manufacture of copper, while wine and oil, as

well as works of art, particularly copper utensils, were

supplied to the interior. A totally new horizon opened for

Hellenic inquiry."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 2, chapter 3.

See, also,

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.

PHOCAS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 602-610.

PHOCIANS, The.

See PHOKIANS.

PHOCION, Execution of.

See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

PHOCIS: B. C. 357-346.

Seizure of Delphi.

The Ten Years Sacred War with Thebes.

Intervention of Philip of Macedon.

Heavy punishment by his hand.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

----------PHŒNICIANS: Start--------

PHŒNICIANS:

Origin and early history.

Commerce.

Colonies.

"The traditions of the Phœnicians collected at Tyre itself by

Herodotus …; those of the inhabitants of Southern Arabia

preserved by Strabo; and, finally, those still current in

Babylonia during the first centuries of the Christian era,

when the Syro-Chaldee original of the book of 'Nabathæan

Agriculture' was revised—all agree in stating that the

Canaanites at first lived near the Cushites, their brethren in

race, on the banks of the Erythræan Sea, or Persian Gulf, on

that portion of the coast of Bahrein designated El Katif on

our modern maps of Arabia. Pliny speaks of a land of Canaan in

this neighbourhood, in his time. … According to Tragus

Pompeius, the Canaanites were driven from their first

settlements by earthquakes, and then journeyed towards

Southern Syria.

{2531}

The traditions preserved in 'Nabathæan Agriculture' state, on

the contrary, that they were violently expelled, in

consequence of a quarrel with the Cushite monarchs of Babylon

of the dynasty of Nimrod; and this is also the account given

by the Arabian historians. … The entry of the Canaanites into

Palestine, and their settlement in the entire country situated

between the sea and the valley of Jordan, must … be placed

between the period when the twelfth dynasty governed Egypt and

that when the Elamite king, Chedorlaomer, reigned as suzerain

over all the Tigro-Euphrates basin. This brings us

approximately between 2400 and 2300 B. C. … The Sidonians

formed the first settlement, and always remained at the head

of the Phœnician nation, which, at all periods of its history,

even when joined by other peoples of the same race, called

itself both 'Canaanite' and 'Sidonian.' … The Greek name,

Phœnicians, of unknown origin, must not be applied to the

whole of the nations of the race of Canaan who settled in

Southern Syria; it belongs to the Canaanites of the sea coast

only, who were always widely separated from the others.

Phœnicia, in both classical history and geography, is merely

that very narrow tract of land, hemmed in by mountains and

sea, extending from Aradus on the north to the town of Acco on

the south."

F. Lenormant,

Manual of Ancient History of the East,

book 6, chapter 1.

"Renan sums up the evidence when he says: 'The greater number

of modern critics admit it as demonstrated, that the primitive

abode of the Phœnicians must be placed on the Lower Euphrates,

in the centre of the great commercial and maritime

establishments of the Persian Gulf, conformably to the

unanimous witness of antiquity.' The date, the causes, and the

circumstances of the migration are involved in equal

obscurity. The motive for it assigned by Justin is absurd,

since no nation ever undertook a long and difficult migration

on account of an earthquake. If we may resort to conjecture we

should b inclined to suggest that the spirit of adventure gave

the first impulse, and that afterwards the unexampled

facilities for trade, which the Mediterranean coast was found

to possess, attracted a continuous flow of immigrants from the

sea of the Rising to that of the Setting Sun."

G. Rawlinson,

The Story of Phœnicia,

chapter 2.

G. Rawlinson,

History of Phœnicia,

chapter 3.

"The campaigns which the Pharaohs undertook against Syria and

the land of the Euphrates after the expulsion of the Shepherds

could not leave these cities [Sidon and others] unmoved. If

the Zemar of the inscriptions of Tuthmosis III. is Zemar

(Simyra) near Aradus, and Arathutu is Aradus itself, the

territories of these cities were laid waste by this king in

his sixth campaign (about the year 1580 B. C.); if Arkatu is

Arka, south of Aradus, this place must have been destroyed in

his fifteenth campaign (about the year 1570 B. C.). Sethos I.

(1440-1400 B. C.) subdued the land of Limanon (i. e. the

region of Lebanon). and caused cedars to be felled there. One

of his inscriptions mentions Zor, i. e. Tyre, among the cities

conquered by him. The son and successor of Sethos I., Ramses

II., also forced his way in the first decades of the

fourteenth century as far as the coasts of the Phenicians. At

the mouth of the Nahr el Kelb, between Sidon and Berytus, the

rocks on the coast display the memorial which he caused to be

set up in the second and third year of his reign in honour of

the successes obtained in this region. In the fifth year of

his reign Ramses, with the king of the Cheta, defeats the king

of Arathu in the neighbourhood of Kadeshu on the Orontes, and

Ramses III., about the year 1310 B. C., mentions beside the

Cheta who attack Egypt the people of Arathu, by which name in

the one case as in the other, may be meant the warriors of

Aradus. If Arathu, like Arathutu, is Aradus, it follows, from

the position which Ramses II. and III. give to the princes of

Arathu, that beside the power to which the kingdom of the

Hittites had risen about the middle of the fifteenth century

B. C., and which it maintained to the end of the fourteenth,

the Phenician cities had assumed an independent position. The

successes of the Pharaohs in Syria come to an end in the first

decades of the fourteenth century. Egypt makes peace and

enters into a contract of marriage with the royal house of the

Cheta. … The overthrow of the kingdom of the Hittites, which

succumbed to the attack of the Amorites soon after the year

1300 B. C., must have had a reaction on the cities of the

Phenicians. Expelled Hittites must have been driven to the

coast-land, or have fled thither, and in the middle of the

thirteenth century the successes gained by the Hebrews who

broke in from the East, over the Amorites, the settlement of

the Hebrews on the mountains of the Amorites [see JEWS:

CONQUEST OF CANAAN], must again have thrown the vanquished, i.

e. the fugitives of this nation, towards the coast. With this

retirement of the older strata of the population of Canaan to

the coast is connected the movement which from this period

emanates from the coasts of the Phenicians, and is directed

towards the islands of the Mediterranean and the Ægean. It is

true that on this subject only the most scanty statements and

traces, only the most legendary traditions have come down to

us, so that we can ascertain these advances only in the most

wavering outlines. One hundred miles to the west off the coast

of Phenicia lies the island of Cyprus. … The western writers

state that before the time of the Trojan war Belus had

conquered and subjugated the island of Cyprus, and that Citium

belonged to Belus. The victorious Belus is the Baal of the

Phenicians. The date of the Trojan war is of no importance for

the settlement of the Phenicians in Cyprus, for this statement

is found in Virgil only. More important is the fact that the

settlers brought the Babylonian cuneiform writing to Cyprus. …

The settlement of the Sidonians in Cyprus must therefore have

taken place before the time in which the alphabetic writing,

i. e. the writing specially known as Phenician, was in use in

Syria, and hence at the latest before 1100 B. C. … In the

beginning of the tenth century B. C. the cities of Cyprus

stood under the supremacy of the king of Tyre. The island was

of extraordinary fertility. The forests furnished wood for

ship-building; the mountains concealed rich veins of the metal

which has obtained the name of copper from this island. Hence

it was a very valuable acquisition, an essential strengthening

of the power of Sidon in the older, and Tyre in the later

period. …

{2532}

As early as the fifteenth century B. C., we may regard the

Phenician cities as the central points of a trade branching

east and west, which must have been augmented by the fact that

they conveyed not only products of the Syrian land to the

Euphrates and the Nile, but could also carry the goods which

they obtained in exchange in Egypt to Babylonia, and what they

obtained beyond the Euphrates to Egypt. At the same time the

fabrics of Babylon and Egypt roused them to emulation, and

called forth an industry among the Phenicians which we see

producing woven stuffs, vessels of clay and metal, ornaments

and weapons, and becoming preeminent in the colouring of

stuffs with the liquor of the purple-fish which are found on

the Phenician coasts. This industry required above all things

metals, of which Babylonia and Egypt were no less in need, and

when the purple-fish of their own coasts were no longer

sufficient for their extensive dyeing, colouring-matter had to

be obtained. Large quantities of these fish produced a

proportionately small amount of the dye. Copper-ore was found

in Cyprus, gold in the island of Thasos, and purple-fish on

the coasts of Hellas. When the fall of the kingdom of the

Hittites and the overthrow of the Amorite princes in the south

of Canaan augmented the numbers of the population on the

coast, these cities were no longer content to obtain those

possessions of the islands by merely landing and making

exchanges with the inhabitants. Intercourse with

semi-barbarous tribes must be protected by the sword. Good

harbours were needed. … Thus arose protecting forts on the

distant islands and coasts, which received the ships of the

native land. … In order to obtain the raw material necessary

for their industry no less than to carry off the surplus of

population, the Phenicians were brought to colonise Cyprus,

Rhodes, Crete, Thera, Melos, Oliarus, Samothrace, Imbros,

Lemnos and Thasos. In the bays of Laconia and Argos, in the

straits of Eubœa, purple–fish were found in extraordinary

quantities. … We may conclude that the Phenicians must have

set foot on Cyprus about the year 1250 B. C., and on the

islands and coasts of Hellas about the year 1200 B. C.

Thucydides observes that in ancient times the Phenicians had

occupied the promontories of Sicily and the small islands

lying around Sicily, in order to carry on trade with the

Sicels. Diodorus Siculus tells us that when the Phenicians

extended their trade to the western ocean they settled in the

island of Melite (Malta), owing to its situation in the middle

of the sea and excellent harbours, in order to have a refuge

for their ships. … On Sardinia also, as Diodorus tells us, the

Phenicians planted many colonies. The mountains of Sardinia

contained iron, silver, and lead. … The legend of the Greeks

makes Heracles, i. e. Baal Melkarth, lord of the whole West.

As a fact, the colonies of the Phenicians went beyond Sardinia

in this direction. Their first colonies on the north coast of

Africa appear to have been planted where the shore runs out

nearest Sicily; Hippo was apparently regarded as the oldest

colony. In the legends of the coins mentioned above Hippo is

named beside Tyre and Citium as a daughter of Sidon. … Ityke

(atak, settlement, Utica), on the mouth of the Bagradas

(Medsherda), takes the next place after this Hippo, if indeed

it was not founded before it. Aristotle tells us that the

Phenicians stated that Ityke was built 287 years before

Carthage, and Pliny maintains that Ityke was founded 1,178

years before his time. As Carthage was founded in the year 846

B. C. [see CARTHAGE] Ityke, according to Aristotle's

statement, was built in the year 1133 B. C. With this the

statement of Pliny agrees. He wrote in the years 52-77 A. D.,

and therefore he places the foundation of Ityke in the year

1126 or 1100 B. C. About the same time, i. e. about the year

1100 B. C., the Phenicians had already reached much further to

the west. … When their undertakings succeeded according to

their desire and they had collected great treasures, they

resolved to traverse the sea beyond the pillars of Heracles,

which is called Oceanus. First of all, on their passage

through these pillars, they founded upon a peninsula of Europe

a city which they called Gadeira. … This foundation of Gades,

which on the coins is called Gadir and Agadir, i. e. wall,

fortification, the modern Cadiz, and without doubt the most

ancient city in Europe which has preserved its name, is said

to have taken place in the year 1100 B. C. If Ityke was

founded before 1100 B. C. or about that time, we have no

reason to doubt the founding of Gades soon after that date.

Hence the ships of the Phenicians would have reached the ocean

about the time when Tiglath Pilesar I. left the Tigris with

his army, trod the north of Syria, and looked on the

Mediterranean."

M. Duncker,

The History of Antiquity,

book 3, chapter 3 (volume 3).

"The typical Phœnician colony was only a trading station,

inhabited by dealers, who had not ceased to be counted as

citizens of the parent State. … In Phœnicia itself the chief

object of public interest was the maintenance and extension of

foreign trade. The wealth of the country depended on the

profits of the merchants, and it was therefore the interest of

the Government to encourage and protect the adventures of the

citizens. Unlike the treasures or curiosities imported by the

fleets of royal adventurers, Phœnician imports were not

intended to be consumed within the country, but to be

exchanged for the most part for other commodities. The

products of all lands were brought to market there, and the

market people, after supplying all their own wants in kind,

still had commodities to sell at a profit to the rest of the

world. The Government did not seek to retain a monopoly of

this profit; on the contrary, private enterprise seems to have

been more untrammelled than at any time before the present

century. But individuals and the State were agreed in desiring

to retain a monopoly of foreign traffic as against the rest of

the world, hence the invention of 'Phœnician lies' about the

dangers of the sea, and the real dangers which 'Tyrian seas'

came to possess for navigators of any other nation. …

Phœnician traders were everywhere first in the field, and it

was easy for them to persuade their barbarous customers that

foreigners of any other stock were dangerous and should be

treated as enemies. They themselves relied more on stratagem

than on open warfare to keep the seas, which they considered

their own, free from other navigators. … Silver and gold, wool

and purple, couches inlaid with ivory, Babylonish garments and

carpets, unguents of all sorts, female slaves and musicians,

are indicated by the comic poets as forming part of the

typical cargo of a Phœnician merchantman, the value of which

in many cases would reach a far higher figure than a small

ship-owner or captain could command.

{2533}

As a consequence, a good deal of banking or money-lending

business was done by the wealthy members of the great

Corporation of Merchants and Ship-owners. The Phœnicians had

an evil reputation with the other nations of the Mediterranean

for sharp practices, and the custom of lending money at

interest was considered, of course wrongly, a Phœnician

invention, though it is possible that they led the way in the

general substitution of loans at interest for the more

primitive use of antichretic pledges. … To the Greeks the name

Phœnician seems to have called up the same sort of association

as those which still cling to the name of Jew in circles which

make no boast of tolerance; and it is probable enough that the

first, like the second, great race of wandering traders was

less scrupulous in its dealings with aliens than compatriots.

… So far as the Punic race may be supposed to have merited its

evil reputation, one is tempted to account for the fact by the

character of its principal staples. All the products of all

the countries of the world circulated in Phœnician

merchantmen, but the two most considerable, and most

profitable articles of trade in which they dealt were human

beings and the precious metals. The Phœnicians were the

slave-dealers and the money-changers of the Old World. And it

is evident that a branch of trade, which necessarily follows

the methods of piracy, is less favourable to the growth of the

social virtues than the cultivation of the ground, the

domestication of animals, or the arts and manufactures by

which the products of nature are applied to new and varied

uses. Compared with the trade in slaves, that in metals—gold,

silver, copper and tin—must seem innocent and meritorious; yet

the experience of ages seems to show that, somehow or other,

mining is not a moralizing industry. … Sidon was famous in

Homer's time for copper or bronze, and Tyre in Solomon's for

bronze (the 'brass' of the Authorized Version); and the

Phœnicians retailed the work of all other metallurgists as

well as their own, as they retailed the manufactures of Egypt

and Babylonia, and the gums and spices of Arabia. … Two things

are certain with regard to the continental commerce of Europe

before the written history of its northern countries begins.

Tin and umber were conveyed by more than one route from

Cornwall and the North Sea to Mediterranean ports. In the

latter case the traders proceeded up the Rhine and the Aar,

along the Jura to the Rhone, and thence down to Marseilles;

and also across the Alps, by a track forking off, perhaps at

Grenoble, into the valley of the Po, and so to the Adriatic. …

Apart from the Phœnician sea trade, Cornish tin was conveyed

partly by water to Armorica and to Marseilles through the west

of France; but also to the east of England' (partly overland

by the route known later as the Pilgrims' Way), and from the

east of Kent, possibly to the seat of the amber trade, as well

as to a route through the east of France, starting from the

short Dover crossing."

E. J. Simcox,

Primitive Civilizations,

volume 1, pages 397-402.

"The epigraphic texts left us by the Phœnicians are too short

and dry to give us any of those vivid glimpses into the past

that the historian loves. When we wish to make the men of Tyre

and Sidon live again, when we try to see them as they moved in

those seven or eight centuries during which they were supreme

in the Mediterranean, we have to turn to the Greeks, to

Herodotus and Homer, for the details of our picture; it is in

their pages that we are told how these eastern traders made

themselves indispensable to the half-savage races of Europe. …

The Phœnicians carried on their trade in a leisurely way. It

consisted for the most part in exchanging their manufactured

wares for the natural produce of the countries they visited;

it was in conformity with the spirit of the time, and,

although it inspired distrust, it was regular enough in its

methods. Stories told by both Homer and Herodotus show them to

us as abductors of women and children, but in the then state

of the world even deeds like those described would soon be

forgotten, and after a time the faithless traders would be

readmitted for the sake of the wares they brought. … Seeing

how great their services were to the civilization of Greece

and Rome, and how admirable were those virtues of industry,

activity, and splendid courage that they brought to their

work, how is it that the classic writers speak of the

Phœnicians with so little sympathy? and why does the modern

historian, in spite of his breadth and freedom from bias, find

it difficult to treat them even with justice? It is because,

in spite of their long relations with them, the peoples of

Greece and Italy never learnt to really know the Phœnicians or

to understand their language, and, to answer the second

question, because our modern historians are hardly better

informed. Between Greece and Rome on the one hand and Phœnicia

and Carthage on the other, there was a barrier which was never

beaten down. They traded and fought, but they never concluded

a lasting and cordial peace; they made no effort to comprehend

each other's nature, but retained their mutual, ignorant

antipathy to the very end. … That full justice has never been

done to the Phœnicians is partly their own fault. They were

moved neither by the passion for truth nor by that for beauty;

they cared only for gain, and thanks to the condition of the

world at the time they entered upon the scene, they could

satisfy that lust to the full. In the barter trade they

carried on for so many centuries the advantage must always

have been for the more civilized, and the Phœnicians used and

abused that advantage. Tyre and Sidon acquired prodigious

wealth; the minds of their people were exclusively occupied

with the useful; they were thinking always of the immediate

profit to themselves in every transaction; and to such a

people the world readily denies justice, to say nothing of

indulgence. … No doubt it may be said that it was quite

without their goodwill that the Phœnicians helped other

nations to shake off barbarism and to supply themselves with

the material of civilized life. That, of course, is true, but

it does not diminish the importance of the results obtained

through their means. Phœnicia appropriated for herself all the

inventions and recipes of the old eastern civilizations and by

more than one happy discovery, and especially by the invention

of the alphabet, she added to the value of the treasure thus

accumulated. Whether she meant it or not, she did, as a fact,

devote her energies to the dissemination of all this precious

knowledge from the very day on which she entered into

relations with those tribes on the Grecian islands and on the

continent of Europe which were as yet strangers to political

life. …

{2534}

At the time of their greatest expansion, the true Phœnicians

numbered, at the very most, a few hundreds of thousands. It

was with such scanty numbers that they contrived to be present

everywhere, to construct ports of refuge for their ships,

factories for their merchants and warehouses for their goods.

These 'English of antiquity,' as they have been so well

called, upheld their power by means very similar to those

employed by England, who has succeeded for two centuries in

holding together her vast colonial empire by a handful of

soldiers and a huge fleet of ships. The great difference lies

in the fact that Tyre made no attempt to subjugate and govern

the nations she traded with."

G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,

History of Art in Phœnicia,

volume 2, chapter 6.

The ascendancy among Phœnician cities passed at some early day

from Sidon to Tyre, and the decline of the former has been

ascribed to an attack from the Philistines of Ascalon, which

occurred about 1250 or 1200 B. C. But the explanation seems

questionable.

G. Rawlinson,

History of Phœnicia,

chapter 14.

See TYRE.

PHŒNICIANS:

Coinage and Money.

See MONEY AND BANKING: PHŒNICIA.

PHŒNICIANS: B. C. 850-538.

Subjection to Assyria and Babylonia.

About 850 B. C. "the military expeditions of the Assyrians

began to reach Southern Syria, and Phœnician independence

seems to have been lost. We cannot be sure that the submission

was continuous; but from the middle of the ninth till past the

middle of the eighth century there occur in the contemporary

monuments of Assyria plain indications of Phœnician

subjection, while there is no evidence of resistance or

revolt. … About B. C. 743 the passive submission of Phœnicia

to the Assyrian yoke began to be exchanged for an impatience

of it, and frequent efforts were made, from this date till

Nineveh fell, to re-establish Phœnician independence. These

efforts for the most part failed; but it is not improbable

that finally, amid the troubles under which the Assyrian

empire succumbed, success crowned the nation's patriotic

exertions, and autonomy was recovered. … Scarcely, however,

had Assyria fallen when a new enemy appeared upon the scene.

Nechoh of Egypt, about B. C. 608, conquered the whole tract

between his own borders and the Euphrates. Phœnicia submitted

or was reduced, and remained for three years an Egyptian

dependency. Nebuchadnezzar, in B. C. 605, after his defeat of

Nechoh at Carchemish, added Phœnicia to Babylon; and, though

Tyre revolted from him eight years later, B. C. 598, and

resisted for thirteen years all his attempts to reduce her,

yet at length she was compelled to submit, and the Babylonian

yoke was firmly fixed on the entire Phœnician people. It is

not quite certain that they did not shake it off upon the

death of the great Babylonian king; but, on the whole,

probability is in favour of their having remained subject till

the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, B. C. 538."

G. Rawlinson,

Manual of Ancient History,

book 1, part 1, section 6.

"It appears to have been only a few years after

Nebuchadnezzar's triumphant campaign against Neco that renewed

troubles broke out in Syria. Phœnicia revolted under the

leadership of Tyre; and about the same time Jehoiakim, the

Jewish king, having obtained a promise of aid from the

Egyptians, renounced his allegiance. Upon this, in his seventh

year (B. C. 598), Nebuchadnezzar proceeded once more into

Palestine at the head of a vast army, composed partly of his

allies, the Medes, partly of his own subjects. He first

invested Tyre; but finding that city too strong to be taken by

assault, he left a portion of his army to continue the siege,

while he himself pressed forward against Jerusalem. … The

siege of Tyre was still being pressed at the date of the

second investment of Jerusalem. … Tyre, if it fell at the end

of its thirteen years' siege, must have been taken in the very

year which followed the capture of Jerusalem, B. C. 585. … It

has been questioned whether the real Tyre, the island city,

actually fell on this occasion (Heeren, As. Nat. volume ii.

page 11, E. T.; Kenrick, Phœnicia, page 390), chiefly because

Ezekiel says, about B. C. 570, that Nebuchadnezzar had

'received no wages for the service that he served against it.'

(Ezekiel xxix. 18.) But this passage may be understood to mean

that he had had no sufficient wages. Berosus expressly stated

that Nebuchadnezzar reduced all Phœnicia."

G. Rawlinson,

Five Great Monarchies: Babylonia,

chapter 8, and footnote.

PHŒNICIANS:

Later commerce.

"The commerce of Phœnicia appears to have reached its greatest

height about the time of the rise of the Chaldæan power at

Babylon. Its monopoly may have been more complete in earlier

times, but the range of its traffic was more confined.

Nebuchadnezzar was impelled to attempt its conquest by a

double motive—to possess himself of its riches and to become

master of its harbours and its navy. The prophet Ezekiel

(chapter 27), foretelling his siege of Tyre, has drawn a

picture of its commerce, which is the most valuable document

for its commercial history that has come down to us. …

Directly or indirectly, the commerce of Tyre, in the beginning

of the sixth century before Christ, thus embraced the whole

known world. By means of the Arabian and the Persian gulfs it

communicated with India and the coast of Africa towards the

equator. On the north its vessels found their way along the

Euxine to the frozen borders of Scythia. Beyond the Straits of

Gibraltar, its ships, or those of its colony of Gades, visited

the British isles for tin, if they did not penetrate into the

Baltic to bring back amber. Ezekiel says nothing of the

voyages of the Tyrians in the Atlantic ocean, which lay beyond

the limits of Jewish geography; but it is probable that they

had several centuries before passed the limits of the Desert

on the western coast of Africa, and by the discovery of one of

the Canaries had given rise to the Greek fable of the Islands

of the Blessed."

J. Kenrick,

Phœnicia,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

A. H. L. Heeren,

Historical Researches,

volume 1.

J. Yeats,

Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,

chapter 3.

G. Rawlinson,

History of Phœnicia,

chapters 9, and 14, section 2.

R. Bosworth Smith,

Carthage and the Carthaginians,

chapter 1.

PHŒNICIANS: B. C. 332, and after.

Final history.

See TYRE.

----------PHŒNICIANS: End--------

PHOENIX CLUBS.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867.

PHOENIX PARK MURDERS, The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1882.

{2535}

PHOKIANS, The.

"The Phokians [in ancient Greece] were bounded on the north by

the little territories called Doris and Dryopis, which separated

them from the Malians,—on the northeast, east and south-west

by the different branches of Lokrians,—and on the south-east

by the Bœotians. They touched the Eubœan sea … at Daphnus, the

point where it approaches nearest to their chief town,

Elateia; their territory also comprised most part of the lofty

and bleak range of Parnassus, as far as its southerly

termination, where a lower portion of it, called Kirphis,

projects into the Corinthian Gulf, between the two bays of

Antikyra and Krissa; the latter, with its once fertile plain,

was in proximity to the sacred rock of the Delphian Apollo.

Both Delphi and Krissa originally belonged to the Phokian

race. But the sanctity of the temple, together with

Lacedæmonian aid, enabled the Delphians to set up for

themselves, disavowing their connexion with the Phokian

brotherhood. Territorially speaking, the most valuable part of

Phokis consisted in the valley of the river Kephisus. … It was

on the projecting mountain ledges and rocks on each side of

this river that the numerous little Phokian towns were

situated. Twenty-two of them were destroyed and broken up into

villages by the Amphiktyonic order, after the second Sacred

War."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 3.

See SACRED WARS.

PHORMIO, and the sea victories of.

See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

PHRATRIÆ.

See PHYLÆ:

also, ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

PHRYGIAN CAP OF LIBERTY, The.

See LIBERTY CAP.

PHRYGIAN SIBYL.

See SIBYLS.

PHRYGIANS.

MYSIANS.

"When the Assyrians in the thirteenth century [B. C.] advanced

past the springs of the Euphrates into the western peninsula

[of Asia Minor], they found, on the central table-land, a

mighty body of native population—the Phrygians. The remains of

their language tend to show them to have been the central link

between the Greeks and the elder Aryans. They called their

Zeus Bagalus ('baga' in ancient Persian signifying God;

'bhaga,' in Sanscrit, fortune), or Sabazius, from a verb

common to Indian and Greek, and signifying 'to adore.' They

possessed the vowels of the Greeks, and in the terminations of

words changed the 'm' into 'n.' Kept off from the sea, they,

it is true, lagged behind the coast tribes in civilization,

and were regarded by these as men slow of understanding and

only suited for inferior duties in human society. Yet they too

had a great and independent post of their own, which is

mirrored in the native myths of their kings. The home of these

myths is especially in the northern regions of Phrygia, on the

banks of the springs which feed the Sangarius, flowing in

mighty curves through Bithynia into Pontus. Here traditions

survived of the ancient kings of the land, of Gordius and

Midas."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

volume 1, book 1, chapter 3.

"As far us any positive opinion can be formed respecting

nations of whom we know so little, it would appear that the

Mysians and Phrygians are a sort of connecting link between

Lydians and Karians on one side, and Thracians (European as

well as Asiatic) on the other—a remote ethnical affinity

pervading the whole. Ancient migrations are spoken of in both

directions across the Hellespont and the Thracian Bosphorus.

It was the opinion of some that Phrygians, Mysians and

Thracians had immigrated into Asia from Europe. … On the other

hand, Herodotus speaks of a vast body of Teukrians and Mysians

who, before the Trojan war, had crossed the strait from Asia

into Europe. … The Phrygians also are supposed by some to have

originally occupied an European soil on the borders of

Macedonia, … while the Mysians are said to have come from the

northeastern portions of European Thrace south of the Danube,

known under the Roman empire by the name of Mœsia. But with

respect to the Mysians there was also another story, according

to which they were described as colonists emanating from the

Lydians. … And this last opinion was supported by the

character of the Mysian language, half Lydian and half

Phrygian."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 16.

The Mysians occupied the north-western corner of Asia Minor,

including the region of the Troad. "In the works of the great

Greek writers which have come down to us, notably, in the

histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, the Phrygians figure

but little. To the Greeks generally they were known but as the

race whence most of their slaves were drawn, as a people

branded with the qualities of slaves, idleness, cowardice,

effeminacy. … From the Phrygians came those orgiastic forms of

religious cult which were connected with the worship of

Dionysus and of the Mother of the Gods, orgies which led alike

to sensual excess and to hideous self–mutilations, to

semi-religious frenzy and bestial immoralities, against which

the strong good sense of the better Greeks set itself at all

periods, though it could not deprive them of their attractions

for the lowest of the people. And yet it was to this race sunk

in corruption, except when roused by frenzy, that the warlike

Trojan stock belonged. Hector and Aeneas were Phrygians; and

the most manly race of the ancient world, the Romans, were

proud of their supposed descent from shepherds of Phrygia."

P. Gardner,

New Chapters in Greek History,

chapter 2.

PHUT.

See LIBYANS.

PHYLÆ.

PHRATRIÆ.

GENTES.

"In all Greek states, without exception, the people was

divided into tribes or Phylæ, and those again into the smaller

subdivisions of Phratriæ and gentes, and the distribution so

made was employed to a greater or less extent for the common

organisation of the State."

G. F. Schömann,

Antiquities of Greece: The State,

part 2, chapter 4.

The four Attic tribes were called, during the later period of

that division, the Geleontes, Hopletes, Ægikoreis, and

Argadeis. "It is affirmed, and with some etymological

plausibility, that the denominations of these four tribes must

originally have had reference to the occupations of those who

bore them,—the Hopletes being the warriour-class, the

Ægikoreis goatherds, the Argadeis artisans, and the Geleontes

(Teleontes or Gedeontes) cultivators. Hence some authors have

ascribed to the ancient inhabitants of Attica an actual

primitive distribution into hereditary professions or castes,

similar to that which prevailed in India and Egypt. If we

should even grant that such a division into castes might

originally have prevailed, it must have grown obsolete long

before the time of Solon; but there seem no sufficient grounds

for believing that it ever did prevail. … The four tribes, and

the four names (allowing for some variations of reading), are

therefore historically verified. But neither the time of their

introduction, nor their primitive import, are ascertainable

matters. …

{2536}

These four tribes may be looked at either as religious and

social aggregates, in which capacity each of them comprised

three Phratries and ninety Gentes; or as political aggregates,

in which point of view each included three Trittyes and twelve

Naukraries. Each Phratry contained thirty Gentes; each Trittys

comprised four Naukraries: the total numbers were thus 360

Gentes and 48 Naukraries. Moreover, each gens is said to have

contained thirty heads of families, of whom therefore there

would be a total of 10,800. … That every Phratry contained an

equal number of Gentes, and every Gens an equal number of

families, is a supposition hardly admissible without better

evidence than we possess. But apart from this questionable

precision of numerical scale, the Phratries and Gentes

themselves were real, ancient and durable associations among

the Athenian people, highly important to be understood. The

basis of the whole was the house, hearth or family,—a number

of which, greater or less, composed the Gens, or Genos. This

Gens was therefore a clan, sept, or enlarged, and partly

factitious, brotherhood. … All these phratric and gentile

associations, the larger as well as the smaller, were founded

upon the same principles and tendencies of the Grecian mind—a

coalescence of the idea of worship with that of ancestry, or

of communion in certain special religious rites with communion

of blood, real or supposed. The god, or hero, to whom the

assembled members offered their sacrifices, was conceived as

the primitive ancestor, to whom they owed their origin. … The

revolution of Kleisthenes in 509 B. C. abolished the old

tribes for civil purposes, and created ten new tribes,—leaving

the Phratries and Gentes unaltered, but introducing the local

distribution according to demes or cantons, as the foundation

of his new political tribes. A certain number of demes

belonged to each of the ten Kleisthenean tribes (the demes in

the same tribes were not usually contiguous, so that the tribe

was not coincident with a definite circumscription), and the

deme, in which every individual was then registered, continued

to be that in which his descendants were also registered. …

The different Gentes were very unequal in dignity, arising

chiefly from the religious ceremonies of which each possessed

the hereditary and exclusive administration, and which, being

in some cases considered as of preeminent sanctity in

reference to the whole city, were therefore nationalized. Thus

the Eumolpidæ and Kerykes, who supplied the Hierophant and

superintended the mysteries of the Eleusinian Demeter—and the

Butadæ, who furnished the priestess of Athene Polias as well

as the priest of Poseidon Erechtheus in the acropolis—seem to

have been reverenced above all the other Gentes. When the name

Butadæ was selected in the Kleisthenean arrangement as the

name of a deme, the holy Gens so called adopted the

distinctive denomination of Eteobutadæ, or 'The true Butadæ.'"

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

Fustel de Coulanges,

The Ancient City,

book 3, chapter 1.

PHYLARCH.

See TAXIARCH.

PHYLE.

See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

PHYSICIANS, First English College of.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE, 16TH CENTURY.

PIACENZA.

See PLACENTIA.

PIAGNONI, The.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

PIANKISHAWS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, &c.

PIASTS,

PIASSES, The.

See POLAND: BEGINNINGS, &c.

PIAVE, Battle on the.

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

PI-BESETH.

See BUBASTIS.

PICARDS, The Religions Sect of the.

"The reforming movement of Bohemia [15th century] had drawn

thither persons from other countries whose opinions were

obnoxious to the authorities of the church. Among these, the

most remarkable were known by the name of Picards,—apparently

a form of the word 'beghards' [see BEGUINES], which … was then

widely applied to sectaries. These Picards appear to have come

from the Low Countries."

J. C. Robertson,

History of the Christian Church,

volume 8, page 24.

See, also, PAULICIANS.

PICARDY.

PICARDS.

"Whimsical enough is the origin of the name of Picards, and

from thence of Picardie, which does not date earlier than

A. D. 1200. It was an academical joke, an epithet first

applied to the quarrelsome humour of those students in the

university of Paris who came from the frontier of France and

Flanders."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 58, foot-note 1.

PICENIANS, The.

See SABINES.

PICHEGRU, Campaign and political intrigues of.

See FRANCE; A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY);

1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);

1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER);

1797 (SEPTEMBER);

1804-1805.

PICHINCHA, Battle of (1822).

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.

PICKAWILLANY.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1764.

PICTAVI.

See POITIERS: ORIGINAL NAMES.

PICTONES, The.

"The Pictones [of ancient Gaul], whose name is represented by

Poitou, and the Santones (Saintonge) occupied the coast

between the lower Loire and the great aestuary of the

Garonne."

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 4, chapter 6.

PICTS AND SCOTS.

See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.

PICTURE-WRITING.

See AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING;

also HIEROGLYPHICS.

PIE-POWDER COURT, The.

"There was one special court [in London, during the Middle

Ages], which met to decide disputes arising on market-days, or

among travellers and men of business, and which reminds us of

the old English tendency to decide quickly and definitely,

without entering into any long written or verbal consideration

of the question at issue; and this was known as the Pie-powder

Court, a corruption of the old French words. 'pieds poudres,'

the Latin 'pedes pulverizati,' in which the complainant and

the accused were supposed not to have shaken the dust from off

their feet."

R. Pauli,

Pictures of Old England,

chapter 12.

PIECES OF EIGHT.

See SPANISH COINS.

PIEDMONT: Primitive inhabitants.

See LIGURIANS.

PIEDMONT: History.

See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT.

PIEDMONT, VIRGINIA., Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA)

THE CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.

{2537}

PIEGANS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

PIERCE, Franklin:

Presidential election and administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852, to 1857.

----------PIGNEROL: Start--------

PIGNEROL: A. D. 1630-1631

Siege, capture and purchase by the French.

See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

PIGNEROL: A. D. 1648.

Secured to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

PIGNEROL: A. D. 1659.

Ceded to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

PIGNEROL: A. D. 1697.

Ceded to the Duke of Savoy.

See SAVOY: A. D. 1580-1713.

----------PIGNEROL: End--------

PIGNEROL, Treaty of.

See WALDENSES: A. D. 1655.

PIKE'S PEAK MINING REGION.

See COLORADO: A. D. 1806-1876.

PILATE, Pontius.

See JEWS: B. C. 40-A. D. 44;

and A. D. 26.

PILGRIMAGE OF GRACE, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1535-1539.

PILGRIMS.

PILGRIM FATHERS.

In American history, the familiar designation of the little

company of English colonists who sailed for the New World in

the Mayflower, A. D. 1620, seeking religious freedom, and who

landed at Plymouth Rock.

See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS,

and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

----------PILLOW, Fort: Start--------

PILLOW, Fort: A. D. 1862.

Evacuated by the Confederates.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

PILLOW, Fort: A. D. 1864.

Capture and Massacre.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (APRIL: TENNESSEE).

----------PILLOW, Fort: End--------

PILNITZ, The Declaration of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

PILOT KNOB, Attack on.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

PILSEN, Capture by Count Ernest of Mansfeld (1618).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

PILUM, The.

The Roman spear was called the pilum. "It was, according to

[Polybius], a spear having a very large iron head or blade,

and this was carried by a socket to receive the shaft. … By

the soldiers of the legions, to whom the use of the pilum was

restricted, this weapon was both hurled from the hand as a

javelin, and grasped firmly, as well for the charge as to

resist and beat down hostile attacks."

P. Lacombe,

Arms and Armour,

chapter 4.

PIMAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PIMAN FAMILY.

PIMENTEIRAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK on COCO GROUP.

PINDARIS,

PINDHARIES, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

PINE TREE MONEY.

Between 1652 and 1684 the colony of Massachusetts coined

silver shillings and smaller coins, which bore on their faces

the rude figure of a pine tree, and are called "pine tree

money."

See MONEY AND BANKING: 17TH CENTURY.

PINEROLO.

See PIGNEROL.

PINKIE, Battle of (1547).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.

PIPE ROLLS.

See EXCHEQUER.

PIPPIN, OR PEPIN, of Heristal,

Austrasian Mayor of the Palace, and Duke of the Franks,

A. D. 687-714.

Pippin, or Pepin, the Short,

Duke and Prince of the Franks, 741-752;

King, 752-768.

PIQUETS AND ZINGLINS.

See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.

PIRÆUS, The.

This was the important harbor of Athens, constructed and

fortified during and after the Persian wars; a work which the

Athenians owed to the genius and energy of Themistocles. The

name was sometimes applied to the whole peninsula in which the

Piræus is situated, and which contained two other

harbors—Munychia and Zea. Phalerum, which had previously been

the harbor of Athens, lay to the east. The walls built by

Themistocles "were carried round the whole of the peninsula in

a circumference of seven miles, following the bend of its

rocky rim, and including the three harbour-bays. At the mouths

of each of the harbours a pair of towers rose opposite to one

another at so short a distance that it was possible to connect

them by means of chains: these were the locks of the Piræus.

The walls, about 16 feet thick, were built without mortar, of

rectangular blocks throughout, and were raised to a height of

30 feet by Themistocles, who is said to have originally

intended to give them double that height."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 3, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

W. M. Leake,

Topography of Athens,

section 10.

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

PIRATES OF CILICIA, The.

See CILICIA, PIRATES OF.

PIRMASENS, Battle of (1793).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER) PROGRESS OF TUE WAR.

PIRNA, Saxon Surrender at.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

PIRU,

CHONTAQUIROS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:: ANDESIANS.

PISA, Greece.

See ELIS; and OLYMPIC GAMES.

----------PISA, Italy: Start--------

PISA, Italy:

Origin of the city.

Early growth of its commerce and naval power.

Conquest of Sardinia.

Strabo and others have given Pisa a Grecian origin. "Situated

near the sea upon the triangle formed in past ages, by the

confluence of the two rivers, the Arno and the Serchio; she

was highly adapted to commerce and navigation; particularly in

times when these were carried on with small vessels. We

consequently find that she was rich and mercantile in early

times, and frequented by all the barbarous nations. … Down to

the end of the fifteenth century, almost all the navigation of

the nations of Europe, as well as those of Asia and Africa,

which kept a correspondence and commerce with the former, was

limited to the Mediterranean, Adriatic, Archipelago, and

Euxine seas; and the first three Italian republics, Pisa,

Genoa, and Venice, were for a long time mistresses of it.

Pisa, as far back as the year 925, was the principal city of

Tuscany, according to Luitprand. In the beginning of the

eleventh century, that is, in the year 1004, we find in the

Pisan annals, that the latter waged war with the Lucchese and

beat them; this is the first enterprise of one Italian city

against another, which proves that she already acted for

herself, and was in great part, if not wholly, liberated from

the dominion of the Duke of Tuscany.

{2538}

In the Pisan annals, and in other authors, we meet with a

series of enterprises, many of which are obscurely related, or

perhaps exaggerated. Thus we find that in the year 1005, in an

expedition of the Pisans against the maritime city of Reggio,

Pisa being left unprovided with defenders, Musetto, king, or

head, of the Saracens, who occupied Sardinia, seized the

opportunity of making an invasion; and having sacked the city,

departed, or was driven out of it. … It was very natural for

the Pisans and Genoese, who must have been in continual fear

of the piracies and invasions of the barbarians as long as

they occupied Sardinia, to think seriously of exterminating

them from that country: the pope himself sent the Bishop of

Ostia in haste to the Pisans as legate, to encourage them to

the enterprise: who, joining with the Genoese, conquered

Sardinia [1017] by driving out the Saracens; and the pope, by

the right he thought he possessed over all the kingdoms of the

earth, invested the Pisans with the dominion; not however

without exciting the jealousy of the Genoese, who, as they

were less powerful in those times, were obliged to yield to

force. The mutual necessity of defence from the common enemy

kept them united; the barbarians having disembarked in the

year 1020 in Sardinia under the same leader, they were again

repulsed, and all their treasure which remained a booty of the

conquerors, was conceded to the Genoese as an indemnity for

the expense."

L. Pignotti,

History of Tuscany,

volume 1, chapter 7.

PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

Architectural development.

Disastrous war with Genoa.

The great defeat at Meloria.

Count Ugolino and his fate.

War with Florence and Lucca.

"The republic of Pisa was one of the first to make known to

the world the riches and power which a small state might

acquire by the aid of commerce and liberty. Pisa had

astonished the shores of the Mediterranean by the number of

vessels and galleys that sailed under her flag, by the succor

she had given the crusaders, by the fear she had inspired at

Constantinople, and by the conquest of Sardinia and the

Balearic Isles. Pisa was the first to introduce into Tuscany

the arts that ennoble wealth: her dome, her baptistery, her

leaning tower, and her Campo Santo, which the traveller's eye

embraces at one glance, but does not weary of beholding, had

been successively built from the year 1063 to the end of the

12th century. These chefs-d'œuvre had animated the genius of

the Pisans; the great architects of the 13th century were, for

the most part, pupils of Nicolas di Pisa. But the moment was

come in which the ruin of this glorious republic was at hand;

a deep-rooted jealousy, to be dated from the conquest of

Sardinia, had frequently, during the last two centuries, armed

against each other the republics of Genoa and Pisa: a new war

between them broke out in 1282. It is difficult to comprehend

how two simple cities could put to sea such prodigious fleets

as those of Pisa and Genoa. In 1282, Ginicel Sismondi

commanded 30 Pisan galleys, of which he lost the half in a

tempest, on the 9th of September; the following year, Rosso

Sismondi commanded 64; in 1284, Guido Jacia commanded 24, and

was vanquished. The Pisans had recourse the same year to a

Venetian admiral, Alberto Morosini, to whom they intrusted 103

galleys: but whatever efforts they made, the Genoese

constantly opposed a superior fleet. This year [1284],

however, all the male population of the two republics seemed

assembled on their vessels; they met on the 6th of August,

1284, once more before the Isle of Meloria, rendered famous 43

years before by the victory of the Pisans over the same

enemies [when the Ghibelline friendship of Pisa for the

Emperor Frederick II. induced her to intercept and attack, on

the 3d of May, 1241, a Genoese fleet which conveyed many

prelates to a great council called by Pope Gregory IX. with

hostile intentions towards the Emperor, and which the latter

desired to prevent]. Valor was still the same, but fortune had

changed sides; and a terrible disaster effaced the memory of

an ancient victory. While the two fleets, almost equal in

number, were engaged, a reinforcement of 30 Genoese galleys,

driven impetuously by the wind, struck the Pisan fleet in

flank: 7 of their vessels were instantly sunk, 28 taken. 5,000

citizens perished in the battle, and 11,000 who were taken

prisoners to Genoa preferred death in captivity rather than

their republic should ransom them, by giving up Sardinia to

the Genoese. This prodigious loss ruined the maritime power of

Pisa; the same nautical knowledge, the same spirit of

enterprise, were not transmitted to the next generation. All

the fishermen of the coast quitted the Pisan galleys for those

of Genoa. The vessels diminished in number, with the means of

manning them; and Pisa could no longer pretend to be more than

the third maritime power in Italy. While the republic was thus

exhausted by this great reverse of fortune, it was attacked by

the league of the Tuscan Guelphs; and a powerful citizen, to

whom it had intrusted itself, betrayed his country to enslave

it. Ugolino was count of the Gherardesca, a mountainous

country situated along the coast, between Leghorn and

Piombino: he was of Ghibeline origin, but had married his

sister to Giovan di Gallura, chief of the Guelphs of Pisa and

of Sardinia. From that time he artfully opposed the Guelphs to

the Ghibelines." The Pisans, thinking him to be the person

best able to reconcile Pisa with the Guelph league "named

Ugolino captain-general for ten years: and the new commander

did, indeed, obtain peace with the Guelph league; but not till

he had caused all the fortresses of the Pisan territory to be

opened by his creatures to the Lucchese and Florentines. …

From that time he sought only to strengthen his own

despotism." In July, 1288, there was a rising of the Pisans

against him; his palace was stormed and burned; and he, his

two sons and two grandsons, were dragged out of the flames, to

be locked in a tower and starved to death—as told in the verse

of Dante. "The victory over count Ugolino, achieved by the

most ardent of the Ghibelines,. redoubled the enthusiasm and

audacity of that party; and soon determined them to renew the

war with the Guelphs of Tuscany. … Guido de Montefeltro was

named captain. He had acquired a high reputation in defending

Forli against the French forces of Charles of Anjou; and the

republic had not to repent of its choice. He recovered by

force of arms all the fortresses which Ugolino had given up to

the Lucchese and Florentines. The Pisan militia, whom

Montefeltro armed with cross-bows, which he had trained them

to use with precision, became the terror of Tuscany. The

Guelphs of Florence and Lucca were glad to make peace in

1293."

J. C. L. de Sismondi,

History of the Italian Republics,

chapter 5.

{2539}

In 1290, when Pisa was in her greatest distress, Genoa

suddenly joined again in the attack on her ancient rival. She

sent an expedition under Conrad d'Oria which entered the

harbor of Pisa, pulled down its towers, its bridge and its

forts, and carried away the chain which locked the harbor

entrance. The latter trophy was only restored to Pisa in

recent years.

J. T. Bent,

Genoa,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

H. E. Napier,

Florentine History,

book 1, chapter 12 (volume 1).

PISA: A. D. 1100-1111.

Participation in the first Crusades.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

PISA: A. D. 1135-1137.

Destruction of Amalfi.

See AMALFI.

PISA: 13th Century.

Commercial rivalry with Venice and Genoa at Constantinople.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453.

PISA: A. D. 1311-1313.

Welcome to the Emperor Henry VII.

Aid to his war against Florence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

PISA: A. D. 1313-1328.

Military successes under Uguccione della Faggiuola.

His tyranny and its overthrow.

Subjection to Castruccio Castracani and the deliverance.

See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

PISA: A. D. 1341.

Defeat of the Florentines before Lucca.

Acquisition of that city.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.

PISA: A. D. 1353-1364.

Dealings with the Free Companies.

War with Florence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

PISA: A. D. 1399-1406.

Betrayal to Visconti of Milan.

Sale to the Florentines.

Conquest by them and subsequent decline.

See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

PISA: A. D. 1409.

The General Council of the Church.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.

PISA: A. D. 1494-1509.

Delivered by the French.

The faithlessness of Charles VIII.

Thirteen years of struggle against Florence.

Final surrender.

"The Florentine conquest was the beginning of 90 years of

slavery for Pisa —a terrible slavery, heavy with exaggerated

imports, bitter with the tolerated plunder of private

Florentines, humiliating with continual espionage. … Pisa was

the Ireland of Florence, captive and yet unvanquished. … At

last a favourable chance was offered to the Pisans. … In the

autumn of 1494, the armies of Charles VIII. poured into Italy

[see ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496]. It had been the custom of the

Florentines, in times of war and danger, to call the heads of

every Pisan household into Florence, as hostages for the good

behaviour of their families and fellow citizens. But in the

autumn of 1494, Piero de' Medici who forgot everything, who

had forgotten to garrison his frontier, forgot to call the

Pisan hostages to Florence, although the French were steadily

advancing on Tuscany, and the Pisans eager to rebel. … The

French army and the hope of liberty entered the unhappy city

hand in hand [November 8, 1494]. … That night the Florentines

in Pisa—men in office, judges, merchants, and soldiers of the

garrison—were driven at the sword's point out of the

rebellious city. … Twenty-four hours after the entry of the

French, Pisa was a free republic, governed by a Gonfalonier,

six Priors, and a Balia of Ten, with a new militia of its own,

and, for the first time in eight and eighty years, a Pisan

garrison in the ancient citadel." All this was done with the

assent of the King of France and the promise of his

protection. But when he passed on to Florence, and was faced

there by the resolute Capponi, he signed a treaty in which he

promised to give back Pisa to Florence when he returned from

Naples. He returned from Naples the next summer (1495), hard

pressed and retreating from his recent triumphs, and halted

with his army at Pisa. There the tears and distress of the

friendly Pisans moved even his soldiers to cry out in

protestation against the surrender of the city to its former

bondage. Charles compromised by a new treaty with the

Florentines, again agreeing to deliver Pisa to them, but

stipulating that they should place their old rivals on equal

terms with themselves, in commerce and in civil rights. But

Entragues, the French governor whom Charles had left in

command at Pisa, with a small garrison, refused to carry out

the treaty. He assisted the Pisans in expelling a force with

which the Duke of Milan attempted to secure the city, and

then, on the 1st of January, 1496, he delivered the citadel

which he held into the hands of the Pisan signory. "During

thirteen years from this date the shifting fortunes, the

greeds and jealousies of the great Italian cities, fostered an

artificial liberty in Pisa. Thrown like a ball from Milan to

Venice, Venice to Maximilian, Max again to Venice, and thence

to Cæsar Borgia, the unhappy Republic described the whole

circle of desperate hope, agonized courage, misery, poverty,

cunning, and betrayal."

A. M. F. Robinson,

The End of the Middle Ages: The French at Pisa.

In 1509 the Pisans, reduced to the last extremity by the

obstinate siege which the Florentines had maintained, and sold

by the French and Spaniards, who took pay from Florence (see

VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509) for abandoning their cause, opened

their gates to the Florentine army.

H. E. Napier,

Florentine History,

book 2, chapter 8 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

T. A. Trollope,

History of the Commonwealth of Florence,

book 8, chapter 6 and book 9, chapters 1-10.

PISA: A. D. 1512.

The attempted convocation of a Council by Louis XII. of France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

----------PISA: End--------

PISISTRATIDÆ, The.

See ATHENS: B. C. 560-510.

PISTICS.

See GNOSTICS.

PIT RIVER INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

PITHECUSA.

The ancient name of the island of Ischia.

PITHOM, the store city.

See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

PITT, William (Lord Chatham).

The administration of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1760; 1760-1763;

and 1765-1768.

PITT, William (Lord Chatham).

The American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH).

PITT, William (the Younger).

The Administration of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1783-1787, to 1801-1806.

PITTI PALACE, The building of the.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1458-1469.

PITTSBURG LANDING, OR SHILOH, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

{2540}

----------PITTSBURGH: Start--------

PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1754.

Fort Duquesne built by the French.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1758.

Fort Duquesne abandoned by the French, occupied by the

English, and named in honor of Pitt.

See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1763.

Siege of Fort Pitt by the Indians.

Bouquet's relieving expedition.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1794.

The Whiskey Insurrection.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1794.

----------PITTSBURGH: End--------

PIUS II., Pope, A. D. 1458-1464.

Pius III., Pope, 1503, September to October.

Pius IV., Pope, 1559-1565.

Pius V., Pope, 1566-1572.

Pius VI., Pope, 1775-1799.

Pius VII., Pope, 1800-1823.

Pius VIII., Pope, 1829-1830.

Pius IX., Pope, 1846-1878.

PIUTES, PAH UTES, &c.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

PIZARRO, Francisco: Discovery and conquest of Peru.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528;

and PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, and 1531-1533.

PLACARDS OF CHARLES V., The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555.

----------PLACENTIA: Start--------

PLACENTIA (modern Piacenza):

The Roman colony.

Its capture by the Gauls.

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

PLACENTIA: B. C. 49.

Mutiny of Cæsar's Legions.

See ROME: B. C. 49.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 270.

Defeat of the Alemanni.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

PLACENTIA: 14th Century.

Under the tyranny of the Visconti.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1513.

Conquest by Pope Julius II.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1515.

Restored to the duchy of Milan,

and with it to the king of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1521.

Retaken by the Pope.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1545-1592.

Union with Parma in the duchy created for the House of Farnese.

See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1725.

Reversion of the duchy pledged to the Infant of Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1735.

Restored to Austria.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1746.

Given up by the Spaniards.

See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1805.

The duchy declared a dependency of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1814.

The duchy conferred on Marie Louise,

the ex-empress of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL).

----------PLACENTIA: Start--------

PLACILLA, Battle of (1891).

See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.

PLACITUM.

PLAID.

See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

----------PLAGUE: Start--------

PLAGUE.

PESTILENCE.

EPIDEMICS:

PLAGUE: B. C. 466-463. At Rome.

See ROME: B. C. 466-463.

PLAGUE: B. C. 431-429. At Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 430-429.

PLAGUE: B. C. 405-375.

Among the Carthaginians.

"Within the space of less than thirty years [from B. C. 405]

we read of four distinct epidemic distempers, each of

frightful severity, as having afflicted Carthage and her

armies in Sicily, without touching either Syracuse or the

Sicilian Greeks. Such epidemics were the most irresistible of

all enemies to the Carthaginians. … Upon what physical

conditions the frequent repetition of such a calamity

depended, together with the remarkable fact that it was

confined to Carthage and her armies—we know partially in

respect to the third of the four cases [when it was

attributable in some degree to the situation of the

Carthaginian camp on low, marshy ground, at a season when hot

days alternated with chill nights] but not at all in regard to

the others."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 83.

PLAGUE: A. D. 78-266.

Plague after the destruction of Herculaneum and Pompeii.

Plagues of Orosius, Antoninus, and Cyprian.

"On the cessation of the eruption of Vesuvius, which began on

the 23d of August, A. D. 78, and which buried Herculaneum,

Stabiæ and Pompeii in ashes, there arose … a destructive

plague, which for many days in succession slew 10,000 men

daily." The plague of Orosius (so called because Orosius, who

wrote in the 5th century, described it most fully) began in

the year A. D. 125. It was attributed to immense masses of

grasshoppers which were swept by the winds, that year, from

Africa into the Mediterranean Sea, and which were cast back by

the waves to putrefy in heaps on the shore. "'In Numidia,

where at that time Micipsa was king, 800,000 men perished,

while in the region which lies most contiguous to the

sea-shore of Carthage and Utica, more than 200,000 are said to

have been cut down. In the city of Utica itself, 80,000

soldiers, who had been ordered here for the defence of all

Africa, were destroyed.' … The plague of Antoninus (A. D.

164-180) visited the whole Roman Empire, from its most eastern

to its extreme western boundaries, beginning at the former,

and spreading thence by means of the troops who returned from

putting down a rebellion in Syria. In the year 166 it broke

out for the first time in Rome, and returned again in the year

168. … The plague depopulated entire cities and districts, so

that forests sprung up in places before inhabited. … In its

last year it appears to have raged again with especial fury,

so that in Rome … 2,000 men often died in a single day. With

regard to the character of this plague, it has been considered

sometimes smallpox, sometimes petechial typhus, and again the

bubo-plague. The third so-called plague, that of Cyprian,

raged about A. D. 251-266. … For a long time 500 died a day in

Rome. … After its disappearance Italy was almost deserted. …

It has been assumed that this plague should be considered

either a true bubo-plague, or smallpox."

J. H. Baas,

Outlines of the History of Medicine,

pages 189-190.

"Niebuhr has expressed the opinion that 'the ancient world

never recovered from the blow inflicted upon it by the plague

which visited it in the reign of M. Aurelius.'"

O. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 68, footnote.

ALSO IN:

P. B. Watson,

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,

chapter 4.

{2541}

PLAGUE: A. D. 542-594.

During the reign of Justinian.

"The fatal disease which depopulated the earth in the time of

Justinian and his successors first appeared in the

neighbourhood of Pelusium, between the Serbonian bog and the

eastern channel of the Nile. From thence, tracing as it were a

double path, it spread to the east, over Syria, Persia, and

the Indies, and penetrated to the west, along the coast of

Africa, and over the continent of Europe. In the spring of the

second year, Constantinople, during three or four months, was

visited by the pestilence; and Procopius, who observed its

progress and symptoms with the eyes of a physician, has

emulated the skill and diligence of Thucydides in the

description of the plague of Athens. … The fever was often

accompanied with lethargy or delirium; the bodies of the sick

were covered with black pustules or carbuncles, the symptoms

of immediate death; and in the constitutions too feeble to

produce an eruption, the vomiting of blood was followed by a

mortification of the bowels. … Youth was the most perilous

season; and the female sex was less susceptible than the male.

… It was not till the end of a calamitous period of fifty-two

years [A. D. 542-594] that mankind recovered their health, or

the air resumed its pure and salubrious quality. … During

three months, five and at length ten thousand persons died

each day at Constantinople; … many cities of the east were

left vacant; … in several districts of Italy the harvest and

the vintage withered on the ground. The triple scourge of war,

pestilence, and famine, afflicted the subjects of Justinian;

and his reign is disgraced by a visible decrease of the human

species, which has never been repaired in some of the fairest

countries of the globe."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 43.

ALSO IN:

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 5, chapter 17.

J. B. Bury,

History of the Later Roman Empire,

book 4, chapter 6 (volume 1).

PLAGUE: 6-13th Centuries.

Spread of Small-pox.

"Nothing is known of the origin of small-pox; but it appears

to have come originally from the East, and to have been known

in China and Hindostan from time immemorial. … 'It seems to

have reached Constantinople by way of Egypt about the year

569.' From Constantinople it spread gradually over the whole

of Europe, reaching England about the middle of the 13th

century."

R. Rollo,

Epidemics, Plagues, and Fevers,

page 271.

PLAGUE: A. D. 744-748.

The world-wide pestilence.

"One great calamity in the age of Constantine [the Byzantine

emperor Constantine V., called Copronymus], appears to have

travelled over the whole habitable world; this was the great

pestilence, which made its appearance in the Byzantine empire

as early as 745. It had previously carried off a considerable

portion of the population of Syria, and the Caliph Yezid III.

perished of the disease in 744. From Syria it visited Egypt

and Africa, from whence it passed into Sicily. After making

great ravages in Sicily and Calabria, it spread to Greece; and

at last, in the year 747, it broke out with terrible violence

in Constantinople, then probably the most populous city in the

universe. It was supposed to have been introduced, and

dispersed through Christian countries, by the Venetian and

Greek ships employed in carrying on a contraband trade in

slaves with the Mohammedan nations, and it spread wherever

commerce extended. … This plague threatened to exterminate the

Hellenic race." After it had disappeared, at the end of a

year, "the capital required an immense influx of new

inhabitants. To fill up the void caused by the scourge,

Constantine induced many Greek families from the continent and

the islands to emigrate to Constantinople."

G. Finlay,

History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,

book 1, chapter 1, section 3.

PLAGUE: A. D. 1348-1351.

The Black Death.

See BLACK DEATH;

also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1348-1349.

PLAGUE: A. D. 1360-1363.

The Children's Plague.

"The peace of Bretigni [England and France, A. D. 1360], like

the capture of Calais, was followed by a pestilence that

turned the national rejoicings into mourning. But the

'Children's Plague,' as it was called, from the fact that it

was most deadly to the young, was fortunately not a return of

the Black Death, and did not approach it in its effects. It

numbered, however, three prelates and the Duke of Lancaster

among its victims, and caused such anxiety in London that the

courts of law were adjourned from May to October. France felt

the scourge more severely. It ravaged the country for three

years, and was especially fatal at Paris and at Avignon. In

Ireland, where the pestilence lingered on into the next year,

and proved very deadly, it was mistaken for scrofula, a

circumstance which probably shows that it attacked the glands

and the throat."

C. H. Pearson,

English History in the 14th Century,

chapter 7.

PLAGUE: A. D. 1374.

The Dancing Mania.

"The effects of the Black Death had not yet subsided, and the

graves of millions of its victims were scarcely closed, when a

strange delusion arose in Germany. … It was a convulsion which

in the most extraordinary manner infuriated the human frame,

and excited the astonishment of contemporaries for more than

two centuries, since which time it has never reappeared. It

was called the dance of St. John or of St. Vitus, on account

of the Bacchantic leaps by which it was characterized, and

which gave to those affected, whilst performing their wild

dance, and screaming and foaming with fury, all the appearance

of persons possessed. It did not remain confined to particular

localities, but was propagated by the sight of the sufferers,

like a demoniacal epidemic, over the whole of Germany and the

neighbouring countries to the north-west, which were already

prepared for its reception by the prevailing opinions of the

times. So early as the year 1374, assemblages of men and women

were seen at Aix-la–Chapelle who had come out of Germany, and

who, united by one common delusion, exhibited to the public

both in the streets and in the churches the following strange

spectacle. They formed circles hand in hand, and appearing to

have lost all control over their senses, continued dancing,

regardless of the by-standers, for hours together in wild

delirium, until at length they fell to the ground in a state

of exhaustion. They then complained of extreme oppression, and

groaned as if in the agonies of death, until they were swathed

in cloths, bound tightly round their waists, upon which they

again recovered, and remained free from complaint until the

next attack. This practice of swathing was resorted to on

account of the tympany which followed these spasmodic ravings,

but the by-standers frequently relieved patients in a less

artificial manner, by thumping and trampling upon the parts

affected.

{2542}

While dancing they neither saw nor heard, being insensible to

external impressions through the senses, but were haunted by

visions, their fancies conjuring up spirits whose names they

shrieked out; and some of them afterwards asserted that they

felt as if they had been immersed in a stream of blood, which

obliged them to leap so high. … Where the disease was

completely developed, the attack commenced with epileptic

convulsions. Those affected fell to the ground senseless,

panting and labouring for breath. They foamed at the mouth,

and suddenly springing up began their dance amidst strange

contortions. Yet the malady doubtless made its appearance very

variously, and was modified by temporary or local

circumstances. … It was but a few months ere this demoniacal

disease had spread from Aix-Ia-Chapelle, where it appeared in

July, over the neighbouring Netherlands. In Liege, Utrecht,

Tongres, and many other towns of Belgium, the dancers appeared

with garlands in their hair, and their waists girt with

cloths, that they might, as soon as the paroxysm was over,

receive immediate relief on the attack of the tympany. This

bandage was, by the insertion of a stick, easily twisted

tight: many, however, obtained more relief from kicks and

blows, which they found numbers of persons ready to

administer. … A few months after this dancing malady had made

its appearance at Aix-la-Chapelle, it broke out at Cologne,

where the number of those possessed amounted to more than five

hundred, and about the same time at Metz, the streets of which

place are said to have been filled with eleven hundred

dancers. Peasants left their ploughs, mechanics their

workshops, housewives their domestic duties, to join the wild

revels, and this rich commercial city became the scene of the

most ruinous disorder. … The dancing mania of the year 1374

was, in fact, no new disease, but a phenomenon well known in

the middle ages, of which many wondrous stories were

traditionally current among the people."

J. F. C. Hecker,

Epidemics of the Middle Ages: The Dancing Mania,

chapter 1.

PLAGUE: A. D. 1485-1593.

The Sweating Sickness in England.

Plague, Small-pox and Grippe in Europe.

"For centuries no infection had visited England, which in

fearful rapidity and malignancy could be compared with the

'sudor Anglicus,' as it was at first called, from the notion

that its attacks were confined to Englishmen. People sitting

at dinner, in the full enjoyment of health and spirits, were

seized with it and died before the next morning. An open

window, accidental contact in the streets, children playing

before the door, a beggar knocking at the rich man's gate,

might disseminate the infection, and a whole family would be

decimated in a few hours without hope or remedy. Houses and

villages were deserted. … Dr. Caius, a physician who had

studied the disease under its various aspects, gives the

following account of its appearance: 'In the year of our Lord

God 1485, shortly after the 7th day of August, at which time

King Henry VII. arrived at Milford in Wales out of France, and

in the first year of his reign, there chanced a disease among

the people lasting the rest of that month and all September,

which for the sudden sharpness and unwont cruelness passed the

pestilence. For this commonly giveth in four, often seven,

sometime nine, sometime eleven and sometime fourteen days,

respite to whom it vexeth. But that immediately killed some in

opening their windows, some in playing with children in their

street doors, some in one hour, many in two, it destroyed. …

This disease, because it most did stand in sweating from the

beginning until the ending, was called here The Sweating

Sickness; and because it first began in England, it was named

in other countries The English Sweat.' From the same authority

we learn that it appeared in 1506, again in 1517 from July to

the middle of December, then in 1528. It commenced with a

fever, followed by strong internal struggles of nature,

causing sweat. … It was attended with sharp pains in the back,

shoulders and extremities, and then attacked the liver. … It

never entered Scotland. In Calais, Antwerp and Brabant it

generally singled out English residents and visitors. … In

consequence of the peculiarity of the disease in thus singling

out Englishmen, and those of a richer diet and more sanguine

temperament, various speculations were set afloat as to its

origin and its best mode of cure. Erasmus attributed it to bad

houses and bad ventilation, to the clay floors, the unchanged

and festering rushes with which the rooms were strewn, and the

putrid offal, bones and filth which reeked and rotted together

in the unswept and unwashed dining halls and chambers."

J. S. Brewer,

Reign of Henry VIII.,

volume 1, chapter 8.

See, also, SWEATING SICKNESS.

"In the middle of the 16th century the English sweating

sickness disappeared from the list of epidemic diseases. On

the other hand, the plague, during the whole 16th century,

prevailed more generally, and in places more fatally, than

ever before. … In 1500-1507 it raged in Germany, Italy, and

Holland, in 1528 in Upper Italy, 1534 in Southern France,

1562-1568 pretty generally throughout Europe. … The disease

prevailed again in 1591. It is characteristic of the

improvement in the art of observation of this century that the

plague was declared contagious and portable, and accordingly

measures of isolation and disinfection were put in force

against it, though without proving in any degree effectual.

With a view to disinfection, horn, gunpowder, arsenic with

sulphur or straw moistened with wine, etc., were burned in the

streets. … Small-pox (first observed or described in Germany

in 1493) and measles, whose specific nature was still unknown

to the physicians of the West, likewise appeared in the 16th

century. … The Grippe (influenza), for the first time

recognizable with certainty as such, showed itself in the year

1510, and spread over all Europe. A second epidemic, beginning

in 1557, was less widely extended. On the other hand, in 1580

and 1593 it became again pandemic, while in 1591 Germany alone

was visited."

J. H. Baas,

Outlines of the History of Medicine,

pages 438-439.

ALSO IN:

J. F. Hecker,

Epidemics of the Middle Ages.

PLAGUE: A. D. 1665.

In London.

See LONDON: A. D. 1665.

{2543}

PLAGUE: 18th Century.

The more serious epidemics.

"The bubo–plague, 'the disease of barbarism' and especially of

declining nations, in the 18th century still often reached the

north of Europe, though it maintained its chief focus and

head-quarters in the south-west [south-east?]. Thus from 1703

forward, as the result of the Russo-Swedish war, it spread

from Turkey to Sweden, Denmark, Poland and Prussia, so that in

1709, the coldest year of the 18th century, more than 300,000

human beings died in East Prussia in spite of the intense

cold, and in Dantzic alone more than 30,000. Obliquing to the

west, the plague reached Styria and Bohemia, and was carried

by a ship to Regensburg in 1714, but by means of strict

quarantine regulations was prevented from spreading to the

rest of Germany. A hurricane swept the disease, as it were,

out of all Europe. Yet six years later it appeared anew with

devastating force in southern France" and was recurrent at

intervals, in different parts of the continent, throughout the

century. "Epidemics of typhus fever … showed themselves at the

beginning of the century in small numbers, but disappeared

before the plague. … The first description of typhoid

fever—under the designation of 'Schleimfieber' (morbus

mucosus)—appeared in the 18th century. … Malaria in the last

century still gave rise to great epidemics. Of course all the

conditions of life favored its prevalence. … La Grippe

(influenza) appeared as a pandemic throughout almost all

Europe in the years 1709, 1729, 1732, 1742, and 1788; in

almost all America in 1732, 1737, 1751, 1772, 1781, and 1798;

throughout the eastern hemisphere in 1781, and in the entire

western hemisphere in 1761 and 1789; throughout Europe and

America in 1767. It prevailed as an epidemic in France in the

years 1737, 1775, and 1779; in England in 1758 and 1775, and

in Germany in 1800. … Diphtheria, which in the 17th century

had showed itself almost exclusively in Spain and Italy, was

observed during the 18th in all parts of the world. …

Small-pox had attained general diffusion. … Scarlet fever,

first observed in the 17th century, had already gained wide

diffusion. … Yellow fever, first recognized in the 16th

century, and mentioned occasionally in the 17th, appeared with

great frequency in the 18th century, but was mostly confined,

as at a later period, to America."

J. H. Baas,

Outlines of the History of Medicine,

pages 727-730.

PLAGUE: 19th Century.

The visitations of Asiatic Cholera.

Cholera "has its origin in Asia, where its ravages are as

great as those of yellow fever in America. It is endemic or

permanent in the Ganges delta, whence it generally spreads

every year over India. It was not known in Europe until the

beginning of the century; but since that time we have had six

successive visitations. … In 1817 there was a violent outbreak

of cholera at Jessore, India. Thence it spread to the Malay

Islands, and to Bourbon (1819); to China and Persia (1821); to

Russia in Europe, and especially to St. Petersburg and Moscow

(1830). In the following year it overran Poland, Germany, and

England [thence in 1832 to Ireland and America], and first

appeared in Paris on January 6, 1832. … In 1849, the cholera

pursued the same route. Coming overland from India through

Russia, it appeared in Paris on March 17, and lasted until

October. In 1853, cholera, again coming by this route, was

less fatal in Paris, although it lasted for a longer time—from

November, 1853, to December, 1854. The three last epidemics,

1865, 1873, and 1884, … came by the Mediterranean Sea."

E. L. Trouessart,

Microbes, Ferments and Moulds,

chapter 5, section 8.

A seventh visitation of cholera in Europe occurred in 1892.

Its route on this occasion was from the Punjab, through

Afghanistan and Persia into Russia and across the

Mediterranean to Southern France. Late in the summer the

epidemic appeared in various parts of Austria and Germany and

was frightfully virulent in the city of Hamburg. In England it

was confined by excellent regulations to narrow limits.

Crossing the Atlantic late in August, it was arrested at the

harbor of New York, by half-barbarous but effectual measures

of quarantine, and gained no footing in America.

Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1892.

ALSO IN:

C. Macnamara,

History of Asiatic Cholera.

A. Stillé,

Cholera,

pages 15-31.

----------PLAGUE: End--------

PLAID.

PLACITUM.

See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

PLAIN OR MARAIS, The Party of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

PLAINS OF ABRAHAM.

See ABRAHAM, PLAINS OF.

PLAN OF CAMPAIGN, The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1886.

PLANTAGENETS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189;

and ANJOU; CREATION OF THE COUNTY.

PLASSEY, Battle of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1757.

----------PLATÆA: Start--------

PLATÆA.

Platæa, one of the cities of the Bœotian federation in ancient

Greece, under the headship of Thebes, was ill–used by the

latter and claimed and received the protection of Athens. This

provoked the deep-seated and enduring enmity of Thebes and

Bœotia in general towards Athens, while the alliance of the

Athenians and Platæans was lasting and faithful.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 31.

PLATÆA: B. C. 490.

Help to Athens at Marathon.

See GREECE: B. C. 490.

PLATÆA: B. C. 479.

Decisive overthrow of the Persians.

See GREECE: B. C. 479.

PLATÆA: B. C. 431.

Surprise of.

The first act in the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 431) was the

surprising of the city of Platæa, the one ally of Athens in

Bœotia, by a small force from her near neighbor and deadly

enemy, Thebes. The Thebans were admitted by treachery at night

and thought themselves in possession of the town. But the

Platæans rallied before daybreak and turned the tables upon

the foe. Not one of the Thebans escaped.

See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.

PLATÆA: B. C. 429-427.

Siege, capture, and destruction by the Peloponnesians.

See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

PLATÆA: B. C. 335.

Restoration by Alexander.

See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

----------PLATÆA: End--------

PLATE RIVER, Discovery of the.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

PLATE RIVER, Provinces of the.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

PLATO, and the Schools of Athens.

See ACADEMY;

also EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREEK.

PLATTSBURG, Battle of.

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

PLAUTIO-PAPIRIAN LAW, The.

See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

PLEASANT HILL, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

----------PLEBEIANS: Start--------

{2544}

PLEBEIANS, OR PLEBS, Roman.

"We are now prepared to understand the origin of a distinct

body of people which grew up alongside of the patricians of

the Roman state during the latter part of the regal period and

after its close. These were the plebeians (plebs, 'the crowd,'

cf. 'pleo,' to fill) who dwelt in the Roman territory both

within and without the walls of the city. They did not belong

to the old clans which formed the three original tribes, nor

did they have any real or pretended kinship with them, nor,

for that matter, with one another, except within the ordinary

limits of nature. They were, at the outset, simply an

ill–assorted mass of residents, entirely outside of the

orderly arrangement which we have described. There were three

sources of this multitude:

I. When the city grew strong enough, it began to extend its

boundaries, and first at the expense of the cantons nearest

it, between the Tiber and the Anio. When Rome conquered a

canton, she destroyed the walls of its citadel. Its

inhabitants were sometimes permitted to occupy their villages

as before, and sometimes were removed to Rome. In either

case, Rome was henceforth to be their place of meeting and

refuge, and they themselves, instead of being reduced to the

condition of slaves, were attached to the state as

non-citizens.

II. The relation of guest-friendship so called, in ancient

times, could be entered into between individuals with their

families and descendants, and also between individuals and a

state, or between two states. Provision for such

guest–friendship was undoubtedly made in the treaties which

bound together Rome on the one side and the various

independent cities of its neighborhood on the other. … The

commercial advantages of Rome's situation attracted to it, in

the course of time, a great many men from the Latin cities in

the vicinity, who remained permanently settled there without

acquiring Roman citizenship.

III. A third constituent element of the 'plebs' was formed by

the clients ('the listeners,' 'cluere') [see CLIENTES]. … In

the beginning of the long struggle between the patricians and

plebeians, the clients are represented as having sided with

the former. … Afterward, when the lapse of time had weakened

their sense of dependence on their patrons, they became, as a

body, identified with the plebeians."

A. Tighe,

Development of the Roman Constitution,

chapter 3.

Originally having no political rights, the Roman plebeians

were forced to content themselves with the privilege they

enjoyed of engaging in trade at Rome and acquiring property of

their own. But as in time they grew to outnumber the

patricians, while they rivalled the latter in wealth, they

struggled with success for a share in the government and for

other rights of citizenship. In the end, political power

passed over to them entirely, and the Roman constitution

became almost purely democratic, before it perished in anarchy

and revolution, giving way to imperialism.

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

chapters 7, 8, 10, 35.

ALSO IN:

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on History of Rome,

book 4, chapter 2.

PLEBEIANS:

Secessions of the Plebs.

See SECESSIONS OF THE ROMAN PLEBS.

----------PLEBEIANS: End--------

PLEBISCITA.

Resolutions passed by the Roman plebeians in their Comitia

Tributa, or Assembly of the Tribes, were called "plebiscita."

See ROME: B. C. 472-471.

In modern France the term "plebiscite" has been applied to a

general vote of the people, taken upon some single question,

like that of the establishment of the Second Empire.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852;

also, REFERENDUM.

PLESWITZ, Armistice of.

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

PLEVNA, Siege and capture of.

See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

PLOW PATENT, The.

See MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631; and 1643-1677.

PLOWDEN'S COUNTY PALATINE.

See NEW ALBION.

PLUVIÔSE, The month.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)

THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

PLYMOUTH, Massachusetts: A. D. 1605.

Visited by Champlain, and the harbor named Port St. Louis.

See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

PLYMOUTH, Massachusetts: A. D. 1620.

Landing of the Pilgrims.

Founding of the Colony.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and after.

PLYMOUTH, North Carolina: A. D. 1864.

Capture and recapture.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (APRIL-MAY: NORTH CAROLINA),

and (OCTOBER: NORTH CAROLINA).

----------PLYMOUTH COMPANY: Start--------

PLYMOUTH COMPANY:

Formation.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607;

and MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

PLYMOUTH COMPANY: A. D. 1615.

Unsuccessful undertakings with Captain John Smith.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.

PLYMOUTH COMPANY: A. D. 1620.

Merged in the Council for New England.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

----------PLYMOUTH COMPANY: End--------

PLYMOUTH ROCK.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

PNYX, The.

"The place of meeting [of the general assemblies of the people

in ancient Athens] in earlier times is stated to have been in

the market; in the historical period the people met there only

to vote on proposals of ostracism, at other times assembling

in the so-called Pnyx. As regards the position of this latter,

a point which quite recently has become a matter of

considerable dispute, the indications given by the ancient

authorities appear to settle this much at any rate with

certainty, that it was in the neighbourhood of the market, and

that of the streets running out of the market one led only

into the Pnyx."

G. F. Schömann,

Antiquities of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapter 3.

"The Pnyx was an artificial platform on the north-eastern side

of one of the rocky heights which encircled Athens on the

west, and along the crest of which is still traced the ancient

enclosure of the Asty. In shape this platform differed only

from a circular sector of about 155 degrees, inasmuch as the

radii forming the angle were about 200 feet in length, while

the distance from the angle to the middle of the curve was

about 240 feet. On this latter side, or towards the Agora, the

platform was bounded by a wall of support, which is about

sixteen feet high in the middle or highest part, and is

composed of large blocks, of various sizes, and for the most

part quadrangular. In the opposite direction the platform was

bounded by a vertical excavation in the rock, which, in the

parts best preserved, is from twelve to fifteen feet high.

{2545}

The foot of this wall inclines towards the angle of the

sector, thereby showing that originally the entire platform

sloped towards this point as a centre, such being obviously

the construction most adapted to an assembly which stood or

sat to hear an orator placed in the angle. At this angle rose

the celebrated [bema], or pulpit, often called the rock. … It

was a quadrangular projection of the rock, eleven feet broad,

rising from a graduated basis. The summit is broken; its

present height is about twenty feet. On the right and left of

the orator there was an access to the summit of the bema by a

flight of steps, and from behind by two or three steps from an

inclosure, in which are several chambers cut in the rock,

which served doubtless for purposes connected with that of the

Pnyx itself. … The area of the platform was capable of

containing between seven and eight thousand persons, allowing

a square yard to each."

W. M. Leake,

Topography of Athens,

appendix 11.

ALSO IN:

G. F. Schömann,

The Assemblies of the Athenians,

pages 48-51.

See, also, AGORA.

POCKET BOROUGHS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.

PODESTAS.

"About the end of the 12th century a new and singular species

of magistracy was introduced into the Lombard cities. During

the tyranny of Frederic I. [Frederick Barbarossa] he had

appointed officers of his own, called podestas, instead of the

elective consuls. It is remarkable that this memorial of

despotic power should not have excited insuperable alarm and

disgust in the free republics. But, on the contrary, they

almost universally, after the peace of Constance, revived an

office which had been abrogated when they first rose in

rebellion against Frederic. From experience, as we must

presume, of the partiality which their domestic factions

carried into the administration of justice, it became a

general practice to elect, by the name of podesta, a citizen

of some neighbouring state as their general, their criminal

judge, and preserver of the peace. … The podesta was sometimes

chosen in a general assembly, sometimes by a select number of

citizens. His office was annual, though prolonged in peculiar

emergencies. He was invariably a man of noble family, even in

those cities which excluded their own nobility from any share

in the government. He received a fixed salary, and was

compelled to remain in the city after the expiration of his

office for the purpose of answering such charges as might be

adduced against his conduct. He could neither marry a native

of the city, nor have any relation resident within the

district, nor even, so great was their jealousy, eat or drink

in the house of any citizen. The authority of these foreign

magistrates was not by any means alike in all cities. In some

he seems to have superseded the consuls, and commanded the

armies in war. In others, as Milan and Florence, his authority

was merely judicial."

H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 69.

PODIEBRAD, George, King of Bohemia, A. D. 1458-1471.

POINT PLEASANT, Battle of.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

POISSY, The Colloquy at.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

POITIERS:

Original names.

Limonum, a town of the Gauls, acquired later the name of

Pictavi, which has become in modern times Poitiers.

POITIERS:A. D. 1569.

Siege by the Huguenots.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

POITIERS, Battle of.

A battle was fought September 19, 1356, near the city of

Poitiers, in France, by the English, under the "Black Prince,"

the famous son of Edward III., with the French commanded

personally by their king, John II. The advantage in numbers

was on the side of the French, but the position of the English

was in their favor, inasmuch as it gave little opportunity to

the cavalry of the French, which was their strongest arm. The

English archers won the day, as in so many other battles of

that age. The French were sorely beaten and their king was

taken prisoner.

Froissart,

Chronicles,

(translated by Johnes),

book 1, chapters 157-166.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.

POITIERS, Edict of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.

POITOU:

Origin of the name.

See PICTONES.

POITOU:

The rise of the Counts.

See TOULOUSE: 10-11th CENTURIES.

POITOU:

The Counts become Dukes of Aquitaine or Guienne.

See AQUITAINE: A. D. 884-1151.

POKANOKETS,

WAMPANOAGS, The.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636;

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675, 1675, 1676-1678.

POLA, Naval battle of (1379).

See VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.

----------POLAND: Start--------

POLAND.

The Name.

"The word Pole is not older than the tenth century, and seems

to have been originally applied, not so much to the people as

to the region they inhabited; 'polska' in the Slavonic tongue

signifying a level field or plain."

S. A. Dunham,

History of Poland,

introduction.

POLAND:

The ancestors of the race.

See LYGIANS.

POLAND:

Beginnings of national existence.

"The Poles were a nation whose name does not occur in history

before the middle of the tenth century; and we owe to

Christianity the first intimations that we have regarding this

people. Mieczislaus [or Miceslaus] I., the first duke or

prince of the Poles of whom we possess any authentic accounts,

embraced Christianity (966) at the solicitation of his spouse,

Dambrowka, sister of Boleslaus II., duke of Bohemia. Shortly

after, the first bishopric in Poland, that of Posen, was

founded by Otho the Great. Christianity did not, however, tame

the ferocious habits of the Poles, who remained for a long

time without the least progress in mental cultivation. Their

government, as wretched as that of Bohemia, subjected the

great body of the nation to the most debasing servitude.

{2546}

The ancient sovereigns of Poland were hereditary. They ruled

most despotically, and with a rod of iron; and, although they

acknowledged themselves vassals and tributaries of the German

emperors, they repeatedly broke out into open rebellion,

asserted their absolute independence, and waged a successful

war against their masters. Boleslaus, son of Mieczislaus I.,

took advantage of the troubles which rose in Germany on the

death of Otho III., to possess himself of the Marches of

Lusatia and Budissin, or Bautzen, which the Emperor Henry II.

afterwards granted him as fiefs. This same prince, in despite

of the Germans, on the death of Henry II. (1025), assumed the

royal dignity. Mieczislaus II., son of Boleslaus, after having

cruelly ravaged the country situate between the Oder, the

Elbe, and the Saal, was compelled to abdicate the throne, and

also to restore those provinces which his father had wrested

from the Empire. The male descendants of Mieczislaus I.

reigned in Poland until the death of Casimir the Great (1370).

This dynasty of kings is known by the name of the Piasts, or

Piasses, so called from one Piast, alleged to have been its

founder."

W. Koch,

History of Revolutions in Europe,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

S. A. Dunham,

History of Poland,

chapters 1-2.

POLAND: A. D. 1096.

The refuge of the Jews.

See JEWS: 11-17th CENTURIES.

POLAND: A. D. 1240-1241.

Mongol invasion.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

POLAND: 13-14th Centuries.

Growing power and increasing dominion.

Encroachments on Russia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

The union with Lithuania and the reign of the Jagellon dynasty.

Conquest of Prussia and its grant to Grandmaster Albert.

Casimir III., or Casimir the Great, the last Polish king of

the Piast line, ascended the throne in 1333. "Polish

historians celebrate the good deeds of this king for the

internal prosperity of Poland—his introduction of a legal

code, his just administration, his encouragement of learning,

and his munificence in founding churches, schools, and

hospitals. The great external question of his reign was that

of the relations of Poland to the two contiguous powers of

Lithuania and the Teutonic Knights of Prussia and the Baltic

provinces. On the one hand, Poland, as a Christian country,

had stronger ties of connexion with the Teutonic Knights than

with Lithuania. On the other hand, ties of race and tradition

connected Poland with Lithuania; and the ambitious policy of

the Teutonic Knights, who aimed at the extension of their rule

at the expense of Poland and Lithuania, and also jealously

shut out both countries from the Baltic coast, and so from the

advantages of commerce, tended to increase the sympathy

between the Poles and the Lithuanians. A happy solution was at

length given to this question. Casimir, dying in 1370, left no

issue but a daughter, named Hedvige; and the Crown of Poland

passed to his nephew Louis of Anjou, at that time also King of

Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

Louis, occupied with the affairs of Hungary, neglected those

of Poland, and left it exposed to the attacks of the

Lithuanians. He became excessively unpopular among the Poles;

and, after his death in 1384, they proclaimed Hedvige Queen of

Poland. In 1386, a marriage was arranged between this princess

and Jagellon, Duke of Lithuania—Jagellon agreeing to be

baptized, and to establish Christianity among his hitherto

heathen subjects. Thus Poland and Lithuania were united; and a

new dynasty of Polish kings was founded, called the dynasty of

the Jagellons. The rule of this dynasty, under seven

successive kings (1386-1572) constitutes the flourishing epoch

of Polish history, to which at the present day the Poles look

fondly back when they would exalt the glory and greatness of

their country. … The effect of the union of Poland and

Lithuania was at once felt in Europe. The first Jagellon, who

on his baptism took the name of Uladislav II., and whom one

fancies as still a sort of rough half-heathen by the side of

the beautiful Polish Hedvige, spent his whole reign

(1386-1434) in consolidating the union and turning it to

account. He defended Lithuania against the Tartar hordes then

moving westward before the impulse of the conquering

Tamerlane. But his chief activity was against the Teutonic

Knights. … He engaged in a series of wars against the knights,

which ended in a great victory gained over them at Tannenburg

in 1410. By this victory the power of the knights was broken

for the time, and their territories placed at the mercy of the

Poles. During the reign of Uladislav III., the second of the

Jagellons (1434-1444), the knights remained submissive, and

that monarch was able to turn his arms, in conjunction with

the Hungarians, against a more formidable enemy—the Turks—then

beginning their invasions of Europe. Uladislav III. having

been slain in battle against the Turks at Varna, the Teutonic

Knights availed themselves of the confusion which followed, to

try to recover their power. By this time, however, their

Prussian subjects were tired of their rule; Dantzic, Elbing,

Thorn, and other towns, as well as the landed proprietors and

the clergy of various districts, formed a league against them;

and, on the accession of Casimir IV., the third of the

Jagellons, to the Polish throne (1447), all Western Prussia

revolted from the knights and placed itself under his

protection. A terrific war ensued, which was brought to a

close in 1466 by the peace of Thorn. By this notable treaty,

the independent sovereignty of the Teutonic order in the

countries they had held for two centuries was extinguished—the

whole of Western Prussia, with the city of Marienburg, and

other districts, being annexed to the Polish crown, with

guarantees for the preservation of their own forms of

administration; and the knights being allowed to retain

certain districts of Eastern Prussia, only as vassals of

Poland. Thus Poland was once more in possession of that

necessity of its existence as a great European state—a

seaboard on the Baltic. Exulting in an acquisition for which

they had so long struggled, the Poles are said to have danced

with joy as they looked on the blue waves and could call them

their own. Casimir IV., the hero of this important passage in

Polish history, died in 1492; and, though during the reigns of

his successors—John Albertus (1492-1501), and Alexander

(1501-1506)—the Polish territories suffered some diminution in

the direction of Russia, the fruits of the treaty of Thorn

were enjoyed in peace. In the reign of the sixth of the

Jagellonidæ, however—Sigismund I. (1506-1547)—the Teutonic

Knights made an attempt to throw off their allegiance to

Poland.

{2547}

The attempt was made in singular circumstances, and led to a

singular conclusion. The grand-master of the Teutonic order at

this time was Albert of Brandenburg …, a descendant [in the

Anspach branch] of that astute Hohenzollern family which in

1411 had possessed itself of the Marquisate of Brandenburg.

Albert, carrying out a scheme entertained by the preceding

grand-master, refused homage for the Prussian territories of

his order to the Polish king Sigismund, and even prepared to

win back what the order had lost by the treaty of Thorn.

Sigismund, who was uncle to Albert, defeated his schemes, and

proved the superiority of the Polish armies over the forces of

the once great but now effete order. Albert found it his best

policy to submit, and this he did in no ordinary fashion. The

Reformation was then in the first flush of its progress over

the Continent, and the Teutonic Order of Knights, long a

practical anachronism in Europe, was losing even the slight

support it still had in surrounding public opinion, as the new

doctrines changed men's ideas. What was more, the grand-master

himself imbibed Protestant opinions and was a disciple of

Luther and Melancthon. He resolved to bring down the fabric of

the order about his ears and construct for himself a secular

principality out of its ruins. Many of the knights shared or

were gained over to his views; so he married a princess, and

they took themselves wives—all becoming Protestants together,

with the exception of a few tough old knights who transferred

their chapter to Mergentheim in Würtemberg, where it remained,

a curious relic, till the time of Napoleon. The secularization

was formally completed at Cracow in April, 1525. There, in a

square before the royal palace, on a throne emblazoned with

the arms of Poland and Lithuania—a white eagle for the one,

and a mounted knight for the other—the Polish king Sigismund

received … the banner of the order, the knights standing by

and agreeing to the surrender. In return, Sigismund embraced

the late grand-master as Duke of Prussia, granting to him and

the knights the former possessions of the order, as secular

vassals of the Polish crown. The remainder of Sigismund's

reign was worthy of this beginning; and at no time was Poland

more flourishing than when his son, Sigismund II., the seventh

of the Jagellonidæ, succeeded him on the throne. During the

wise reign of this prince (1547-1572), whose tolerant policy

in the matter of the great religious controversy then

agitating Europe is not his least title to credit, Poland lost

nothing of her prosperity or her greatness; and one of its

last transactions was the consummation of the union between

the two nations of Poland and Lithuania by their formal

incorporation into one kingdom at the Diet of Lublin (July 1,

1569). But, alas for Poland, this seventh of the Jagellonidæ

was also the last, and, on his death in 1572, Poland entered

on that career of misery and decline, with the reminiscences

of which her name is now associated."

Poland: her History and Prospects

(Westminster Review, January, 1855).

ALSO IN:

H. Tuttle,

History of Prussia, to Frederick the Great,

chapter 4.

S. A. Dunham,

History of Poland,

book 1, chapter 3.

POLAND: A. D. 1439.

Election of Ladislaus III. to the throne of Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

POLAND: A. D. 1471-1479.

War with Matthias of Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

POLAND: A. D. 1505-1588.

Enslavement of the peasantry.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: POLAND.

POLAND: A. D. 1573.

Election of Henry of Valois to the throne.

The Pacta Conventa.

On the election of Henry of Valois, Duke of Anjou, to the

Polish throne (see FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576), he was required

to subscribe to a series of articles, known as the Pacta

Conventa (and sometimes called the Articles of Henry), which

were intended to be the basis of all future covenants between

the Poles and their elective sovereigns. The chief articles of

the Pacta Conventa were the following:

"1. That the king should not in the remotest degree attempt to

influence the senate in the choice of a successor; but should

leave inviolable to the Polish nobles the right of electing

one at his decease.

2. That he should not assume the title of 'master' and 'heir'

of the monarchy, as borne by all preceding kings.

3. That he should observe the treaty of peace made with the

dissidents.

4. That he should not declare war, or dispatch the nobles on

any expedition, without the previous sanction of the diet.

5. That he should not impose taxes or contributions of any

description.

6. That he should not have any authority to appoint

ambassadors to foreign courts.

7. That in case of different opinions prevailing among the

senators, he should espouse such only as were in accordance

with the laws, and clearly advantageous to the nation.

8. That he should be furnished with a permanent council, the

members of which (16 in number; viz. 4 bishops, 4 palatines,

and 8 castellans) should be changed every half year, and

should be selected by the ordinary diets.

9. That a general diet should be convoked every two years, or

oftener, if required.

10. That the duration of each diet should not exceed six

weeks.

11. That no dignities or benefices should be conferred on

other than natives.

12. That the king should neither marry nor divorce a wife

without the permission of the diet.

The violation of any one of these articles, even in spirit,

was to be considered by the Poles as absolving them from their

oaths of allegiance, and as empowering them to elect another

ruler."

S. A. Dunham,

History of Poland,

book 2, chapter 1.

POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.

Disgraceful abandonment of the throne by Henry of Valois.

Election of Stephen Batory.

His successful wars with Russia, and his death.

Election of Sigismund III., of Sweden.

The worthless French prince, Henry of Valois, whom the Poles

had chosen to be their king, and whom they crowned at Cracow,

on the 21st of February, 1574, "soon sighed for the banks of

the Seine: amidst the ferocious people whose authority he was

constrained to recognize, and who despised him for his

imbecility, he had no hope of enjoyment. To escape their

factions, their mutinies, their studied insults, he shut

himself up within his palace, and, with the few countrymen

whom he had been permitted to retain near his person, he

abandoned himself to idleness and dissipation. … By the death

of his brother [Charles IX. king of France], who died on the

30th of May, 1574, he was become heir to the crown of the

Valois. His first object was to conceal the letters which

announced that event, and to flee before the Poles could have

any suspicion of his intention. The intelligence, however,

transpired through another channel.

{2548}

His senators advised him to convoke a diet, and, in conformity

with the laws, to solicit permission of a short absence while

he settled the affairs of his new heritage. Such permission

would willingly have been granted him, more willingly still

had he proposed an eternal separation; but he feared the

ambition of his brother the duke of Alençon, who secretly

aspired to the throne; and he resolved to depart without it.

He concealed his extraordinary purpose with great art," and

achieved a most contemptible success in carrying it

out,—stealing away from his kingdom like a thief, on the night

of the 18th of June. "Some letters found on a table in his

apartment attempted to account for his precipitate departure

by the urgency of the troubles in his hereditary kingdom; yet

he did not reach Lyons till the following year. In a diet

assembled at Warsaw, it was resolved that if the king did not

return by the 12th of May, 1575, the throne should be declared

vacant. Deputies were sent to acquaint him with the decree. …

After the expiration of the term, the interregnum was

proclaimed in the diet of Stenzyca, and a day appointed for a

new election. After the deposition of Henry [now become Henry

III. of France], no less than five foreign and two native

princes were proposed as candidates for the crown. The latter,

however, refused to divide the suffrages of the republic,

wisely preferring the privilege of electing kings to the

honour of being elected themselves. The primate, many of the

bishops, and several palatines, declared in favour of an

Austrian prince; but the greater portion of the diet

(assembled on the plains opposite to Warsaw) were for the

princess Anne, sister of Sigismund Augustus, whose hand they

resolved to confer on Stephen Batory, duke of Transylvania.

Accordingly, Stephen was proclaimed king by Zamoyski, starost

of Beltz, whose name was soon to prove famous in the annals of

Poland. On the other hand, Uchanski the primate nominated the

emperor Maximilian, who was proclaimed by the marshal of the

crown: this party, however, being too feeble to contend with

the great body of the equestrian order, despatched messengers

to hasten the arrival of the emperor; but Zamoyski acted with

still greater celerity. While his rival was busied about

certain conditions, which the party of the primate forced on

Maximilian, Batory arrived in Poland, married the princess,

subscribed to every thing required from him, and was solemnly

crowned. A civil war appeared inevitable, but the death of

Maximilian happily averted the disaster. … But though Poland

and Lithuania thus acknowledged the new king, Prussia, which

had espoused the interests of the Austrian, was less

tractable. The country, however, was speedily reduced to

submission, with the exception of Dantzic, which not only

refused to own him, but insisted on its recognition by the

diet as a free and independent republic. … Had the Dantzickers

sought no other glory than that of defending their city, had

they resolutely kept within their entrenchments, they might

have beheld the power of their king shattered against the

bulwarks below them; but the principles which moved them

pushed them on to temerity. … Their rashness cost them dear;

the loss of 8,000 men compelled them again to seek the shelter

of their walls, and annihilated their hope of ultimate

success. Fortunately they had to deal with a monarch of

extraordinary moderation. … Their submission [1577] disarmed

his resentment, and left him at liberty to march against other

enemies. During this struggle of Stephen with his rebellious

subjects, the Muscovites had laid waste Livonia. To punish

their audacity, and wrest from their grasp the conquests they

had made during the reign of his immediate predecessors, was

now his object. … Success every where accompanied him.

Polotsk, Sakol, Turowla, and many other places, submitted to

his arms. The investiture of the duchy (Polotsk, which the

Muscovites had reduced in the time of Sigismund I.) he

conferred on Gottard duke of Courland. On the approach of

winter he returned, to obtain more liberal supplies for the

ensuing campaign. Nothing can more strongly exhibit the

different characters of the Poles and Lithuanians than the

reception he met from each. At Wilna his splendid successes

procured him the most enthusiastic welcome; at Warsaw they

caused him to be received with sullen discontent. The Polish

nobles were less alive to the glory of their country than to

the preservation of their monstrous privileges, which, they

apprehended, might be endangered under so vigilant and able a

ruler. With the aid, however, of Zamoyski and some other

leading barons, he again wrung a few supplies from that most

jealous of bodies, a diet. … Stephen now directed his course

towards the province of Novogorod: neither the innumerable

marshes, nor the vast forests of these steppes, which had been

untrodden by soldier's foot since the days of Witold, could

stop his progress; he triumphed over every obstacle, and, with

amazing rapidity, reduced the chief fortified towns between

Livonia and that ancient mistress of the North. But his troops

were thinned by fatigue, and even victory; reinforcements were

peremptorily necessary; and though in an enfeebled state of

health, he again returned to collect them. … The succeeding

campaign promised to be equally glorious, when the tsar, by

adroitly insinuating his inclination to unite the Greek with

the Latin church, prevailed on the pope to interpose for

peace. To the wishes of the papal see the king was ever ready

to pay the utmost deference. The conditions were advantageous

to the republic. If she surrendered her recent conquests—which

she could not possibly have retained—she obtained an

acknowledgment of her rights of sovereignty over Livonia; and

Polotsk, with several surrounding fortresses, was annexed to

Lithuania." Stephen Batory died in 1586, having vainly advised

the diet to make the crown hereditary, and avert the ruin of

the nation. The interregnum which ensued afforded opportunity

for a fierce private war between the factions of the

Zborowskis and the Zamoyskis. Then followed a disputed

election of king, one party proclaiming the archduke

Maximilian of Austria, the other Sigismund, prince royal of

Sweden—a scion of the Jagellonic family—and both sides

resorting to arms. Maximilian was defeated and taken prisoner,

and only regained his freedom by relinquishing his claims to

the Polish crown.

S. A. Dunham,

History of Poland,

book 2, chapter 1.

{2549}

POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.

Anarchy organized by the Nobles.

The extraordinary Constitution imposed by them on the country.

The Liberum Veto and its effects.

"On the death of the last Jagellon, 1573, at a time when

Bohemia and Hungary were deprived of the power of electing

their kings, when Sweden renounced this right in favour of its

monarchs, Poland renewed its privilege in its most

comprehensive form. At a time when European monarchs gradually

deprived the great feudal barons of all share in the

administration of the law, … the Polish nobles destroyed the

last vestiges of the royal prerogative. … In the year 1578 the

kings lost the right of bestowing the patent of nobility,

which was made over to the diet. The kings had no share in the

legislation, as the laws were made in every interregnum. As

soon as the throne became vacant by the death of a king, and

before the diet appointed a successor, the nobles of the

provinces assembled to examine into the administration of the

late king and his senate. Any law that was not approved of

could be repealed and new arrangements proposed, which became

law if the votes of the diet were unanimous. This unanimity

was most easily obtained when a law threatened the individual

or when the royal prerogative was to be decreased. … The king

had no share in the administration, and even the most urgent

circumstances did not justify his acting without the

co-operation of the senate [which consisted of 17 archbishops

and bishops, 33 palatines or woiwodes—'war-leaders'—who were

governors of provinces or palatinates, and 85 castellans, who

were originally commanders in the royal cities and fortresses,

but who had become, like the woiwodes, quite independent of

the king]. The senate deprived the king of the power of making

peace or war. … If there was a hostile invasion, war became a

matter of course, but it was carried on, on their own account,

by the palatines most nearly concerned, and often without the

assistance of the king. … Bribery, intrigue and party spirit

were the only means of influence that could be employed by a

king, who was excluded from the administration, who was

without domains, without private property or settled revenue,

who was surrounded by officers he could not depose and by

judges who could be deposed, and who was, in short, without

real power of any sort. The senate itself was deprived of its

power, and the representatives of the nobles seized upon the

highest authority. … They alone held the public offices and

the highest ecclesiastical benefices. They filled the seats of

the judges exclusively, and enjoyed perfect immunity from

taxes, duties, &c. … Another great evil from which the

republic suffered was the abuse of the liberum veto, which,

dangerous as it was in itself, had become law in 1652." This

gave the power of veto to every single voice in the assemblies

of the nobles, or in the meetings of the deputies who

represented them. Nothing could be adopted without entire

unanimity; and yet deputies to the diet were allowed no

discretion. "They received definite instructions as to the

demands they were to bring forward and the concessions they

were to make. … One step only was wanting before unanimity of

votes became an impossibility, and anarchy was completely

organized. This step was taken when individual palatines

enjoined their deputies to oppose every discussion at the

diet, till their own proposals had been heard and acceded to.

Before long, several deputies received the same instructions,

and thus the diet was in fact dissolved before it was opened.

Other deputies refused to consent to any proposals, if those

of their own province were not accepted; so that the veto of

one deputy in a single transaction could bring about the

dissolution of the entire diet, and the exercise of the royal

authority was thus suspended for two years [since the diet

could only be held every other year, to last no longer than a

fortnight, and to sit during daylight, only]. … No law could

be passed, nothing could be resolved upon. The army received

no pay. Provinces were desolated by enemies, and none came to

their aid. Justice was delayed, the coinage was debased; in

short, Poland ceased for the next two years to exist as a

state. Every time that a rupture occurred in the diet it was

looked on as a national calamity. The curse of posterity was

invoked on that deputy who had occasioned it, and on his

family. In order to save themselves from popular fury, these

deputies were accustomed to hand in their protest in writing,

and then to wander about, unknown and without rest, cursed by

the nation."

Count Moltke,

Poland: an Historical Sketch,

chapter 3.

"It was not till 1652 … that this principle of equality, or

the free consent of every individual Pole of the privileged

class to every act done in the name of the nation, reached its

last logical excess. In that year, the king John Casimir

having embroiled himself with Sweden, a deputy in the Diet was

bold enough to use the right which by theory belonged to him,

and by his single veto, not only arrest the preparations for a

war with Sweden, but also quash all the proceedings of the

Diet. Such was the first case of the exercise of that liberum

veto of which we hear so much in subsequent Polish history,

and which is certainly the greatest curiosity, in the shape of

a political institution, with which the records of any nation

present us. From that time every Pole walked over the earth a

conscious incarnation of a power such as no mortal man out of

Poland possessed—that of putting a spoke into the whole

legislative machinery of his country, and bringing it to a

dead lock by his own single obstinacy; and, though the

exercise of the power was a different thing from its

possession, yet every now and then a man was found with nerve

enough to put it in practice. … There were, of course, various

remedies for this among an inventive people. One, and the most

obvious and most frequent, was to knock the vetoist down and

throttle him; another, in cases where he had a party at his

back, was to bring soldiers round the Diet and coerce it into

unanimity. There was also the device of what were called

confederations; that is, associations of the nobles

independent of the Diet, adopting decrees with the sanction of

the king, and imposing them by force on the country. These

confederations acquired a kind of legal existence in the

intervals between the Diets."

Poland: her History and Prospects

(Westminster Review, January, 1855).

POLAND: A. D. 1586-1629.

Election of Sigismund of Sweden to the throne.

His succession to the Swedish crown and his deposition.

His claims and the consequent war.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES(SWEDEN): A. D. 1523-1604;

and 1611-1629.

{2550}

POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.

Reigns of Sigismund III. and Ladislaus IV.

Wars with the Muscovites, the Turks and the Swedes.

Domestic discord in the kingdom.

"The new king, who was elected out of respect for the memory

of the house of Jaguello (being the son of the sister of

Sigismond Augustus), was not the kind of monarch Poland at

that time required. … He was too indolent to take the reins of

government into his own hands, but placed them in those of the

Jesuits and his German favourites. Not only did he thereby

lose the affections of his people, but he also lost the crown

of Sweden, to which, at his father's death, he was the

rightful heir. This throne was wrested from him by his uncle

Charles, the brother of the late king.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1523-1604.

This usurpation by Charles was the cause of a war between

Sweden and Poland, which, although conducted with great skill

by the illustrious generals Zamoyski and Chodkiewicz,

terminated disastrously for Poland, for, after this war, a

part of Livonia remained in the hands of the Swedes." During

the troubled state of affairs at Moscow which followed the

death, in 1584, of Ivan the Terrible, Sigismond interfered and

sent an army which took possession of the Russian capital and

remained in occupation of it for some time.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

"As a consequence … the Muscovites offered the throne of the

Czar to Ladislas, the eldest son of the King of Poland, on

condition that he would change his religion and become a

member of 'the Orthodox Church.' Sigismond III., who was a

zealous Catholic, and under the influence of the Jesuits,

wishing rather to convert the Muscovites to the Catholic

Church, would not permit Ladislas to change his faith—refused

the throne of the Czar for his son. … By the peace concluded

at Moscow, 1619, the fortress of Smolenski and a considerable

part of Muscovy remained in the hands of the Poles. …

Sigismond III., whose reign was so disastrous to Poland, kept

up intimate relations with the house of Austria. The Emperor

invited him to take part with him … in what is historically

termed 'the Thirty Years' War.' Sigismond complied with this

request, and sent the Emperor of Austria some of his Cossack

regiments. … Whilst the Emperor was on the one hand engaged in

'the Thirty Years' War,' he was on the other embroiled with

Turkey. The Sultan, in revenge for the aid which the Poles had

afforded the Austrians, entered Moldavia with a considerable

force. Sigismond III. sent his able general Zolkiewski against

the Turks, but as the Polish army was much smaller than that

of the Turks, it was defeated on the battlefield of Cecora

[1621], in Moldavia, [its] general killed, and many of his

soldiers taken prisoners. After this unfortunate campaign …

the Sultan Osman, at the head of 300,000 Mussulmans, confident

in the number and valour of his army, marched towards the

frontier of Poland with the intention of subjugating the

entire kingdom. At this alarming news a Diet was convoked in

all haste, at which it was determined that there should be a

'levée en masse,' in order to drive away the terrible

Mussulman scourge. But before this levée en masse could be

organized, the Hetman Chodkiewicz, who had succeeded

Zolkiewski as commander-in-chief, crossed the river Dniester

with 35,000 soldiers and 30,000 Cossacks, camped under the

walls of the fortress of Chocim [or Kotzim, or Khotzim, or

Choczim] and there awaited the enemy, to whom, on his

appearance, he gave battle [September 28, 1622], and,

notwithstanding the disproportion of the two armies, the Turks

were utterly routed. The Moslems left on the battlefield,

besides the dead, guns, tents, and provisions. … After this

brilliant victory a peace was concluded with Turkey; and I

think I am justified in saying that, by this victory, the

whole of Western Europe was saved from Mussulman invasion. …

The successful Polish general unhappily did not long survive

his brilliant victory. … While these events were taking place

in the southern provinces, Gustavus Adolphus, who had

succeeded to the throne of Sweden, marched into the northern

province of Livonia, where there were no Polish troops to

resist him (all having been sent against the Turks), and took

possession of this Polish province.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

Gustavus Adolphus, however, proposed to restore it to Poland

on condition that Sigismond III. would renounce all claim to

the crown of Sweden, to which the Polish sovereign was the

rightful heir. But in this matter, as in all previous ones,

the Polish king acted with the same obstinacy, and the same

disregard for the interests of the kingdom. He would not

accept the terms offered by Gustavus Adolphus, and by his

refusal Poland lost the entire province of Livonia with the

exception of the city of Dynabourg." Sigismond III. died in

1632, and his eldest son, Ladislas IV., "was immediately

elected King of Poland, a proceeding which spared the kingdom

all the miseries attendant on an interregnum. In 1633, after

the successful campaign against the Muscovites, in which the

important fortified city of Smolensk, as well as other

territory, was taken, a treaty advantageous to Poland was

concluded. Soon afterwards, through the intervention of

England and France, another treaty was made between Poland and

Sweden by which the King of Sweden restored to Poland a part

of Prussia which had been annexed by Sweden. Thus the reign of

Ladislas IV, commenced auspiciously with regard to external

matters. … Unhappily the bitter quarrels of the nobles were

incessant; their only unanimity consisted in trying to foil

the good intentions of their kings." Ladislas IV. died in

1648, and was succeeded by his brother, John Casimir, who had

entered the Order of the Jesuits some years before, and had

been made a cardinal by the Pope, but who was now absolved

from his vows and permitted to marry.

K. Wolski,

Poland,

lectures 11-12.

POLAND: A. D. 1610-1612.

Intervention in Russia.

Occupation of and expulsion from Moscow.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.

The great revolt of the Cossacks.

Their allegiance transferred to the Russian Czar.

Since 1320, the Cossacks of the Ukraine had acknowledged

allegiance, first, to the Grand Duke of Lithuania, and

afterwards to the king of Poland on the two crowns becoming

united in the Jagellon family [see COSSACKS]. They had long

been treated by the Poles with harshness and insolence, and in

the time of the hetman Bogdan Khmelnitski, who had personally

suffered grievous wrongs at the hands of the Poles, they were

ripe for revolt (1648). "His standard was joined by hordes of

Tatars from Bessarabia and the struggle partook to a large

extent of the nature of a holy war, as the Cossacks and

Malo-Russians generally were of the Greek faith, and their

violence was directed against the Roman Catholics and Jews.

{2551}

It would be useless to encumber our pages with the details of

the brutal massacres inflicted by the infuriated peasants in

this jacquerie; unfortunately their atrocities had been

provoked by the cruelties of their masters. Bogdan succeeded

in taking Lemberg, and became master of all the palatinate,

with the exception of Zamosc, a fortress into which the Polish

authorities retreated. On the election of John Casimir as king

of Poland, he at once opened negotiations with the successful

Cossack, and matters were about to be arranged peacefully.

Khmelnitski accepted the 'bulava' of a hetman which was

offered him by the king. The Cossacks demanded the restoration

of their ancient privileges, the removal of the detested

Union—as the attempt to amalgamate the Greek and Latin

Churches was called—the banishment of the Jesuits from the

Ukraine, and the expulsion of the Jews, with other conditions.

They were rejected, however, as impossible, and Prince

Wisniowiecki, taking advantage of the security into which the

Cossacks were lulled, fell upon them treacherously and

defeated them with great slaughter. All compromise now seemed

hopeless, but the desertion of his Tatar allies made Bogdan

again listen to terms at Zborow. The peace, however, was of

short duration, and on the 28th of June, 1651, at the battle

of Beresteczko in Galicia, the hosts of Bogdan were defeated

with great slaughter. After this engagement Bogdan saw that he

had no chance of withstanding the Poles by his own resources,

and accordingly sent an embassy to Moscow in 1652, offering to

transfer himself and his confederates to the allegiance of the

Tsar. The negotiations were protracted for some time, and were

concluded at Pereiaslavl, when Bogdan and seventeen,

Malo-Russian regiments took the oath to Buturlin, the Tsar's

commissioner. Quite recently a monument has been erected to

the Cossack chief at Kiev, but he seems, to say the least, to

have been a man of doubtful honesty. Since this time the

Cossacks have formed an integral part of the Russian Empire."

W. R. Morfill,

The Story of Russia,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

Count H. Krasinski,

The Cossacks of the Ukraine,

chapter 1.

POLAND: A. D. 1652.

First exercise of the Liberum Veto.

See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.

POLAND: A. D. 1656-1657.

Rapid and ephemeral conquest by Charles X. of Sweden.

Loss of the Feudal overlordship of Prussia.

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

and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696.

Abdication of John Casimir.

War with the Turks.

Election and reign of John Sobieski.

"In 1668, John Casimir, whose disposition had always been that

of a monk rather than that of a king, resigned his throne, and

retired to France, where he died as Abbe de St. Germain in

1672. He left the kingdom shorn of a considerable part of its

ancient dominions; for, besides that portion of it which had

been annexed to Muscovy, Poland sustained another loss in this

reign by the erection of the Polish dependency of Brandenburg

[Prussia] into an independent state—the germ of the present

Prussian kingdom. For two years after the abdication of John

Casimir, the country was in a state of turmoil and confusion,

caused partly by the recent calamities, and partly by

intrigues regarding the succession; but in 1670, a powerful

faction of the inferior nobles secured the election of Michael

Wisniowiecki, an amiable but silly young man. His election

gave rise to great dissatisfaction among the Polish grandees;

and it is probable that a civil war would have broken out, had

not the Poles been called upon to use all their energies

against their old enemies the Turks. Crossing the

south-eastern frontier of Poland with an immense army, these

formidable foes swept all before them. Polish valour, even

when commanded by the greatest of Polish geniuses, was unable

to check their progress; and in 1672 a dishonourable treaty

was concluded, by which Poland ceded to Turkey a section of

her territories, and engaged to pay to the sultan an annual

tribute of 22,000 ducats. No sooner was this ignominious

treaty concluded, than the Polish nobles became ashamed of it;

and it was resolved to break the peace, and challenge Turkey

once more to a decisive death-grapple. Luckily, at this moment

Wisniowiecki died; and on the 20th of April 1674, the Polish

diet elected, as his successor, John Sobieski—a name

illustrious in the history of Poland. … He was of a noble

family, his father being castellan of Cracow, and the

proprietor of princely estates; and his mother being descended

from Zalkiewski, one of the most celebrated generals that

Poland had produced. … In the year 1660, he was one of the

commanders of the Polish army sent to repel the Russians, who

were ravaging the eastern provinces of the kingdom. A great

victory which he gained at Slobadyssa over the Muscovite

general Sheremetoff, established his military reputation, and

from that time the name of Sobieski was known over all Eastern

Europe. His fame increased during the six years which

followed, till he outshone all his contemporaries. He was

created by his sovereign, John Casimir, first the

Grand-marshal, and afterwards the Grand-hetman of the kingdom;

the first being the highest civil, and the second the highest

military, dignity in Poland, and the two having never before

been held in conjunction by the same individual. These

dignities, having once been conferred on Sobieski, could not

be revoked; for, by the Polish constitution, the king, though

he had the power, to confer honours, was not permitted to

resume them. … When John Casimir abdicated the throne,

Sobieski, retaining his office of Grand-hetman under his

successor, the feeble Wisniowiecki, was commander-in-chief of

the Polish forces against the Turks. In the campaigns of 1671

and 1672, his successes against this powerful enemy were

almost miraculous. But all his exertions were insufficient, in

the existing condition of the republic, to deliver it from the

terror of the impetuous Mussulmans. In 1672, as we have

already informed our readers, a disgraceful truce was

concluded between the Polish diet and the sultan. … When …

Sobieski, as Grand-hetman, advised the immediate rupture of

the dishonourable treaty with the Turks, [the] approval was

unanimous and enthusiastic. Raising an army of 30,000 men, not

without difficulty, Sobieski marched against the Turks. He

laid siege to the fortress of Kotzim, garrisoned by a strong

Turkish force, and hitherto deemed impregnable. The fortress

was taken; the provinces of Moldavia and Walachia yielded; the

Turks hastily retreated across the Danube; and 'Europe thanked

God for the most signal success which, for three centuries,

Christendom had gained over the Infidel.'

{2552}

While the Poles were preparing to follow up their victory,

intelligence reached the camp that Wisniowiecki was dead. He

had died of a surfeit of apples sent him from Danzig. The army

returned home, to be present at the assembling of the diet for

the election of the new sovereign. The diet had already met

when Sobieski, and those of the Polish nobles who had been

with him, reached Warsaw. The electors were divided respecting

the claims of two candidates, both foreigners—Charles of

Lorraine, who was supported by Austria; and Philip of Neuburg,

who was supported by Louis XIV. of France. Many of the Polish

nobility had become so corrupt, that foreign gold and foreign

influence ruled the diet. In this case, the Austrian candidate

seemed to be most favourably received; but, as the diet was

engaged in the discussion, Sobieski entered, and taking his

place in the diet, proposed the Prince of Condé. A stormy

discussion ensued, in the midst of which the cry of 'Let a

Pole rule over Poland,' was raised by one of the nobles, who

further proposed that John Sobieski should be elected. The

proposition went with the humour of the assembly, and

Sobieski, under the title of John III., was proclaimed king of

Poland (1674). Sobieski accepted the proffered honour, and

immediately set about improving the national affairs, founding

an institution for the education of Polish nobles, and

increasing the army. … After several battles of lesser moment

with his Turkish foes, Sobieski prepared for a grand effort;

but before he could mature his plans, the Pasha of Damascus

appeared with an army of 300,000 men on the Polish frontier,

and threatened the national subjugation. With the small force

he could immediately collect, amounting to not more than

10,000 soldiers, Sobieski opposed this enormous force, taking

up his position in two small villages on the banks of the

Dniester, where he withstood a bombardment of 20 days. Food

and ammunition had failed, but still the Poles held out.

Gathering the balls and shells which the enemy threw within

their entrenchments, they thrust them into their own cannons

and mortars, and dashed them back against the faces of the

Turks, who surrounded them on all sides at the distance of a

musket–shot. The besiegers were surprised, and slackened their

fire. At length, early in the morning of the 14th of October

1676, they saw the Poles issue slowly out of their

entrenchments in order of battle, and apparently confident of

victory. A superstitious fear came over them at such a strange

sight. No ordinary mortal, they thought, could dare such a

thing; and the Tartars cried out that it was useless to fight

against the wizard king. The pasha himself was superior to the

fears of his men; but knowing that succours were approaching

from Poland, he offered an honourable peace, which was

accepted, and Sobieski returned home in triumph. Seven years

of peace followed. These were spent by Sobieski in performing

his ordinary duties as king of Poland—duties which the

constant jealousies and discords of the nobles rendered by no

means easy. … It was almost a relief to the hero when, in

1683, a threatened invasion of Christendom by the Turks called

him again to the field. … After completely clearing Austria of

the Turks, Sobieski returned to Poland, again to be harassed

with political and domestic annoyances.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

… Clogged and confined by an absurd system of government, to

which the nobles tenaciously clung, his genius was prevented

from employing itself with effect upon great national objects.

He died suddenly on Corpus Christi Day, in the year 1696; and

'with him,' says the historian, 'the glory of Poland descended

to the tomb.' On the death of Sobieski, the crown of Poland

was disposed of to the highest bidder. The competitors were

James Sobieski, the son of John; the Prince of Conti; the

Elector of Bavaria; and Frederick Augustus, Elector of Saxony.

The last was the successful candidate, having bought over one

half of the Polish nobility, and terrified the other half by

the approach of his Saxon troops. He had just succeeded to the

electorate of Saxony, and was already celebrated as one of the

strongest and most handsome men in Europe. Augustus

entertained a great ambition to be a conqueror, and the

particular province which he wished to annex to Poland was

Livonia, on the Baltic—a province which had originally

belonged to the Teutonic Knights, for which the Swedes, Poles,

and Russians had long contended; but which had now, for nearly

a century, been in the possession of Sweden."

History of Poland

(Chambers's Miscellany, number 29 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

A. T. Palmer,

Life of John Sobieski.

POLAND: A. D. 1683.

Sobieski's deliverance of Vienna from the Turks.

See HUNGARY; A. D. 1668-1683.

POLAND: A. D. 1684-1696.

War of the Holy League against the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

POLAND: A. D. 1696-1698.

Disputed Election of a King.

The crown gained by Augustus of Saxony.

On the death of Sobieski, Louis XIV., of France, put forward

the Prince of Conti as a candidate for the vacant Polish

throne. "The Emperor, the Pope, the Jesuits and Russia united

in supporting the Elector Augustus of Saxony. The Elector had

just abjured, in view of the throne of Poland, and the Pope

found it quite natural to recompense the hereditary chief of

the Lutheran party for having reëntered the Roman Church. The

Jesuits, who were only too powerful in Poland, feared the

Jansenist relations of Conti. As to the young Czar Peter, he

wished to have Poland remain his ally, his instrument against

the Turk and the Swede, and feared lest the French spirit

should come to reorganize that country. He had chosen his

candidate wisely: the Saxon king was to begin the ruin of

Poland! The financial distress of France did not permit the

necessary sacrifices, in an affair wherein money was to play

an important part, to be made in time. The Elector of Saxony,

on the contrary, exhausted his States to purchase partisans

and soldiers. The Prince de Conti had, nevertheless, the

majority, and was proclaimed King at Warsaw, June 27, 1697;

but the minority proclaimed and called the Elector, who

hastened with Saxon troops, and was consecrated King of Poland

at Cracow (September 15). Conti, retarded by an English fleet

that had obstructed his passage, did not arrive by sea till

September 26 at Dantzic, which refused to receive him. The

prince took with him neither troops nor money. The Elector had

had, on the contrary, all the time necessary to organize his

resources. The Russians were threatening Lithuania. Conti,

abandoned by a great part of his adherents, abandoned the

undertaking, and returned to France in the month of November.

… In the following year Augustus of Saxony was recognized as

King of Poland by all Europe, even by France."

H. Martin,

History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,

volume 2, chapter 4.

{2553}

POLAND: A. D. 1699.

The Peace of Carlowitz with the Sultan.

See HUNGARY:. A. D. 1683-1699.

POLAND: A. D. 1700.

Aggressive league with Russia and Denmark

against Charles XII. of Sweden.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

POLAND: A. D. 1701-1707.

Subjugation by Charles XII. of Sweden.

Deposition of Augustus from the throne.

Election of Stanislaus Leczinski.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

POLAND: A. D. 1709.

Restoration of Augustus to the throne.

Expulsion of Stanislaus Leczinski.

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

POLAND: A. D. 1720.

Peace with Sweden.

Recognition of Augustus.

Stanislaus allowed to call himself king.

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

POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.

The election to the throne a European question.

France against Russia, Austria and Prussia.

Triumph of the three powers.

The crown renewed to the House of Saxony.

"It became clear that before long a struggle would take place

for the Crown of Poland, in which the powers of Europe must

interest themselves very closely. Two parties will compete for

that uneasy throne: on the one side will stand the northern

powers, supporting the claims of the House of Saxony, which

was endeavouring to make the Crown hereditary and to restrict

it to the Saxon line; on the other side we shall find France

alone, desiring to retain the old elective system, and to

place on the throne some prince, who, much beholden to her,

should cherish French influences, and form a centre of

resistance against the dominance of the northern powers.

England stands neutral: the other powers are indifferent or

exhausted. With a view to the coming difficulty, Russia,

Austria, and Prussia, made a secret agreement in 1732, by

which they bound themselves to resist all French influences in

Poland. With this pact begins that system of nursing and

interferences with which the three powers pushed the 'sick man

of the North' to its ruin; it is the first stage towards the

Partition-treaties. Early in 1733 Augustus II of Poland died:

the Poles dreading these powerful neighbours, and drawn, as

ever, by a subtle sympathy towards France, at once took steps

to resist dictation, declared that they would elect none but a

native prince, sent envoys to demand French help, and summoned

Stanislaus Leczinski to Warsaw. Leczinski had been the protege

of Charles XII, who had set him on the Polish throne in 1704;

with the fall of the great Swede the little Pole also fell

(1712); after some vicissitudes he quietly settled at

Weissenburg, whence his daughter Marie went to ascend the

throne of France as spouse of Louis XV (1725). Now in 1733 the

national party in Poland re-elected him their king, by a vast

majority of votes: there was, however, an Austro-Russian

faction among the nobles, and these, supported by strong

armies of Germans and Russians, nominated Augustus III of

Saxony to the throne: he had promised the Empress Anne to cede

Courland to Russia, and Charles VI he had won over by

acknowledging the Pragmatic Sanction. War thus became

inevitable: the French majority had no strength with which to

maintain their candidate against the forces of Russia and

Austria; and France, instead of affording Stanislaus effective

support at Warsaw, declared war against Austria. The luckless

King was obliged to escape from Warsaw, and took refuge in

Danzig, expecting French help: all that came was a single ship

and 1,500 men, who, landing at the mouth of the Vistula, tried

in vain to break the Russian lines. Their aid thus proving

vain, Danzig capitulated, and Stanislaus, a broken refugee,

found his way, with many adventures, back to France; Poland

submitted to Augustus III."

G. W. Kitchin,

History of France,

book 6, chapter 2 (volume 3).

POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

The First Partition and the events which led to it.

The respective shares of Russia, Austria and Prussia.

"In 1762, Catherine II. ascended the throne of Russia.

Everybody knows what ambition filled the mind of this woman;

how she longed to bring two quarters of the globe under her

rule, or under her influence; and how, above all, she was bent

on playing a great part in the affairs of Western Europe.

Poland lay between Europe and her empire; she was bound,

therefore, to get a firm footing in Poland. … On the death of

Augustus III., therefore, she would permit no foreign prince

to mount the throne of Poland, but selected a native Polish

nobleman, from the numerous class of Russian hirelings, and

cast her eye upon a nephew of the Czartoriskys, Stanislaus

Poniatowsky, a former lover of her own. Above all things she

desired to perpetuate the chronic anarchy of Poland, so as to

ensure the weakness of that kingdom. … A further desire in

Catherine's mind arose from her own peculiar position in

Russia at that time. She had deposed her Imperial Consort,

deprived her son of the succession, and ascended the throne

without the shadow of a title. During the first years of her

reign, therefore, her situation was extremely critical." She

desired to render herself popular, and "she could find nothing

more in accordance with the disposition of the Russians … than

the protection of the Greek Catholics in Poland. Incredible as

it may seem, the frantic fanaticism of the Polish rulers had

begun, in the preceding twenty or thirty years, to limit and

partially to destroy, by harsh enactments, the ancient rights

of the Nonconformists. … In the year 1763 a complaint was

addressed to Catherine by Konisky, the Greek Bishop of

Mohilev, that 150 parishes of his diocese had been forcibly

Romanised by the Polish authorities. The Empress resolved to

recover for the dissenters in Poland at least some of their

ancient rights, and thus secure their eternal devotion to

herself, and inspire the Russian people with grateful

enthusiasm. At this time, however, King Augustus III. was

attacked by his last illness. A new king must soon be elected

at Warsaw, upon which occasion all the European Powers would

make their voices heard. Catherine, therefore, in the spring

of 1763, first sounded the Cabinets of Vienna and Berlin, in

order, if possible, to gain common ground and their support

for her diplomatic action.

{2554}

The reception which her overtures met with at the two courts

was such as to influence the next ten years of the history of

Poland and Europe. … At Vienna, ever since Peter III. had

renounced the Austrian alliance, a very unfavourable feeling

towards Russia prevailed. … The result was that Austria came

to no definite resolution, but returned a sullen and evasive

reply. It was far otherwise with Frederick II. of Prussia.

That energetic and clear-sighted statesman had his faults, but

indecision had never been one of them. He agreed with

Catherine in desiring that Poland should remain weak. On the

other hand, he failed not to perceive that an excessive growth

of Russia, and an abiding Russian occupation of Poland, might

seriously threaten him. Nevertheless, he did not waver a

moment. … He needed a powerful ally. … Russia alone was left,

and he unhesitatingly seized her offered hand. … It was

proposed to him that six articles should be signed, with

certain secret provisions, by which were secured the election

of a native for the throne of Poland, the maintenance of the

Liberum Veto (i. e., of the anarchy of the nobles), and the

support of the Nonconformists; while it was determined to

prevent in Sweden all constitutional reforms. Frederick, who

was called upon to protect the West Prussian Lutherans, just

as the aid of Catherine had been sought by the Greek Bishop of

Mohilev, made no objection. After the death of King Augustus

III. of Poland, in October, 1763, Frederick signed the above

treaty, April 11th, 1764. This understanding between the two

Northern Powers caused no small degree of excitement at

Vienna. It was immediately feared that Prussia and Russia

would at once seize on Polish provinces. … This anxiety,

however, was altogether premature. No one at St. Petersburg

wished for a partition of Poland, but for increased influence

over the entire Polish realm, Frederick II., for his part, did

not aim at any territorial extension, but would abandon Poland

for the time to Russia, that he might secure peace for his

country by a Russian alliance. … Meanwhile, matters in Poland

proceeded according to the wishes of Catherine. Her path was

opened to her by the Poles themselves. It was at the call of

the Czartoriskys [a wealthy and powerful Polish family], that

a Russian army corps of 10,000 men entered the country,

occupied Warsaw, and put down the opposing party. It was under

the same protection that Stanislaus Poniatowsky was

unanimously elected King, on September 1st, 1764. But the

Czartoriskys were too clever. They intended, after having

become masters of Poland by the help of Russia, to reform the

constitution, to establish a regular administration, to

strengthen the Crown, and finally to bow the Russians out of

the kingdom." The Czartoriskys were soon at issue with the

Russian envoy, who commanded the support of all their

political opponents, together with that of all the religious

Nonconformists, both in the Greek Church and among the

Protestants. The King, too, went over to the latter, bought by

a Russian subsidy. But this Russian confederation was speedily

broken up, when the question of granting civil equality to the

Nonconformists came up for settlement. The Russians carried

the measure through by force and the act embodying it was

signed March 5, 1768. "It was just here that the conflagration

arose which first brought fearful evils upon the country

itself, and then threatened all Europe with incalculable

dangers. At Bar, in Podolia, two courageous men, Pulawski and

Krasinski, who were deeply revolted at the concession of civil

rights to heretics, set on foot a new Confederation to wage a

holy war for the unity and purity of the Church. … The Roman

Catholic population of every district joined the

Confederation. … A terrible war began in the southern

provinces. … The war on both sides was carried on with savage

cruelty; prisoners were tortured to death; neither person nor

property was spared. Other complications soon arose. … When …

the Russians, in eager pursuit of a defeated band of

Confederates, crossed the Turkish frontier, and the little

town of Balta was burnt during an obstinate fight, … the

Sultan, in an unexpected access [excess?] of fury, declared

war against Russia in October, 1768, because, as he stated in

his manifesto, he could no longer endure the wrong done to

Poland.

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

Thus, by a sudden turn of affairs, this Polish question had

become a European question of the first importance; and no one

felt the change more deeply than King Frederick II. He knew

Catherine well enough to be sure that she would not end the

war now begun with Turkey, without some material gain to

herself. It was equally plain that Austria would never leave

to Russia territorial conquests of any great extent in Turkey.

… The slightest occurrence might divide all Europe into two

hostile camps; and Germany would, as usual, from her central

position, have to suffer the worst evils of a general war.

Frederick II. was thrown into the greatest anxiety by this

danger, and he meditated continually how to prevent the

outbreak of war. The main question in his mind was how to

prevent a breach between Austria and Russia. Catherine wanted

to gain more territory, while Austria could not allow her to

make any conquests in Turkey. Frederick was led to inquire

whether greater compliance might not be shown at Vienna, if

Catherine, instead of a Turkish, were to take a Polish

province, and were also to agree, on her part, to an

annexation of Polish territory by Austria?" When this

scheme—put forward as one originating with Count Lynar, a

Saxon diplomatist—was broached at St. Petersburg, it met with

no encouragement; but subsequently the same plan took shape in

the mind of the young Emperor Joseph II., and he persuaded his

mother, Maria Theresa, to consent to it. Negotiations to that

end were opened with the Russian court. "After the foregoing

proceedings, it was easy for Russia and Prussia to come to a

speedy agreement. On February 17, 1772, a treaty was signed

allotting West Prussia to the King, and the Polish territories

east of the Dneiper and Duna to the Empress. The case of

Austria was a more difficult one. … The treaty of partition

was not signed by the three Powers until August, 1772. … The

Prussian and Austrian troops now entered Poland on every side,

simultaneously with the Russians. The bands of the

Confederates, which had hitherto kept the Russians on the

alert, now dispersed without further attempt at resistance. As

soon as external tranquillity had been restored, a Diet was

convened, in order at once to legalise the cession of the

provinces to the three Powers by a formal compact, and to

regulate the constitutional questions which had been unsettled

since the revolt of the Confederation of Bar.

{2555}

It took some time to arrive at this result, and many a bold

speech was uttered by the Poles; but it is sad to think that

the real object of every discussion was the fixing the amount

of donations and pensions which the individual senators and

deputies were to receive from the Powers for their votes.

Hereupon the act of cession was unanimously passed. … The

Liberum Veto, the anarchy of the nobles, and the impotence of

the Sovereign, were continued."

H. von Sybel,

The First Partition of Poland

(Fortnightly Review, July, 1874, volume 22).

"One's clear belief … is of two things: First, that, as

everybody admits, Friedrich had no real hand in starting the

notion of Partitioning Poland;—but that he grasped at it with

eagerness as the one way of saving Europe from War: Second,

what has been much less noticed, that, under any other hand,

it would have led Europe to War; and that to Friedrich is due

the fact that it got effected without such accompaniment.

Friedrich's share of Territory is counted to be in all, 9,465

English square miles; Austria's, 62,500; Russia's, 87,500,

between nine and ten times the amount of Friedrich's,—which

latter, however, as an anciently Teutonic Country, and as

filling-up the always dangerous gap between his Ost-Preussen

and him, has, under Prussian administration, proved much the

most valuable of the Three; and, next to Silesia, is

Friedrich's most important acquisition. September 13th, 1772,

it was at last entered upon,—through such waste-weltering

confusions, and on terms never yet unquestionable. Consent of

Polish Diet was not had for a year more; but that is worth

little record."

T. Carlyle,

History of Frederick the Great,

book 21, chapter 4 (volume 6).

ALSO IN:

W. Coxe,

History of the House of Austria,

chapter. 119 (volume 3).

EASTERN EUROPE IN 1768 A. D.

SHOWING SUBSEQUENT CHANGES DURING THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

PARTITION OF POLAND ETC.

HOHENZOLLERN (PRUSSIA).

HABSBURG(AUSTRIA).

RUSSIAN.

POLISH.

TURKISH.

VENETIAN.

THE TERRITORY WON BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE

CENTURY BY THE THREE POWERS PRUSSIA.

AUSTRIA AND RUSSIA SHOWN IN BORDER

LINES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COLORS.]

CENTRAL EUROPE

AT THE PEACE OF CAMPO FORMIO (1797).

AUSTRIAN

PRUSSIAN

RUSSIAN

FRENCH

SWEDISH

DANISH

PAPAL STATES

ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE.

THE BOUNDARY OF THE EMPIRE SHOWN BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.

POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.

The reformed Constitution of 1791

and its Russian strangulation.

"After the first Partition of Poland was completed in 1776,

that devoted country was suffered for sixteen years to enjoy

an interval of more undisturbed tranquillity than it had known

for a century. Russian armies ceased to vex it. The

dispositions of other foreign powers became more favourable.

Frederic II now entered on that spotless and honourable

portion of his reign, in which he made a just war for the

defence of the integrity of Bavaria, and of the independence

of Germany. … Attempts were not wanting to seduce him into new

enterprises against Poland. … As soon as Frederic returned to

counsels worthy of himself, he became unfit for the purposes

of the Empress, who, in 1780, refused to renew her alliance

with him, and found a more suitable instrument of her designs

in the restless character, and shallow understanding, of

Joseph II, whose unprincipled ambition was now released from

the restraint which his mother's scruples had imposed on it. …

Other powers now adopted a policy, of which the influence was

favourable to the Poles. Prussia, as she receded from Russia,

became gradually connected with England, Holland, and Sweden;

and her honest policy in the care of Bavaria placed her at the

head of all the independent members of the Germanic

Confederacy. Turkey declared war against Russia; and the

Austrian Government was disturbed by the discontent and

revolts which the precipitate innovations of Joseph had

excited in various provinces of the monarchy. A formidable

combination against the power of Russia was in process of time

formed. … In the treaty between Prussia and the Porte,

concluded at Constantinople in January, 1790, the contracting

parties bound themselves to endeavour to obtain from Austria

the restitution of those Polish provinces to which she had

given the name of Galicia. During the progress of these

auspicious changes, the Polish nation began to entertain the

hope that they might at length be suffered to reform their

institutions, to provide for their own quiet and safety, and

to adopt that policy which might one day enable them to resume

their ancient station among European nations. From 1778 to

1788, no great measures had been adopted; but no tumults

disturbed the country: reasonable opinions made some progress,

and a national spirit was slowly reviving. The nobility

patiently listened to plans for the establishment of a

productive revenue and a regular army; a disposition to

renounce their dangerous right of electing a king made

perceptible advances; and the fatal law of unanimity had been

so branded as an instrument of Russian policy, that in the

Diets of these ten years no nuncio was found bold enough to

employ his negative. … In the midst of these excellent

symptoms of public sense and temper, a Diet assembled at

Warsaw in October 1788, from whom the restoration of the

republic was hoped, and by whom it would have been

accomplished, if their prudent and honest measures had not

been defeated by one of the blackest acts of treachery

recorded in the annals of mankind. … The Diet applied itself

with the utmost diligence and caution to reform the State.

They watched the progress of popular opinion, and proposed no

reformation till the public seemed ripe for its reception." On

the 3d of May, 1791, a new Constitution, which had been

outlined and discussed in the greater part of its provisions,

during most of the previous two years, was reported to the

Diet. That body had been doubled, a few months before, by the

election of new representatives from every Dietine, who united

with the older members, in accordance with a law framed for

the occasion. By this double Diet, the new Constitution was

adopted on the day of its presentation, with only twelve

dissentient voices. "Never were debates and votes more free:

these men, the most hateful of apostates, were neither

attacked, nor threatened, nor insulted." The new Constitution

"confirmed the rights of the Established Church, together with

religious liberty, as dictated by the charity which religion

inculcates and inspires. It established an hereditary monarchy

in the Electoral House of Saxony; reserving to the nation the

right of choosing a new race of Kings, in case of the

extinction of that family. The executive power was vested in

the King, whose ministers were responsible for its exercise.

The Legislature was divided into two Houses, the Senate and

the House of Nuncios, with respect to whom the ancient

constitutional language and forms were preserved. The

necessity of unanimity [the Liberum Veto] was taken away, and,

with it, those dangerous remedies of Confederation and

Confederate Diets which it had rendered necessary.

{2556}

Each considerable town received new rights, with a restoration

of all their ancient privileges. The burgesses recovered the

right of electing their own magistrates. … All the offices of

the State, the law, the church, and the army, were thrown open

to them. The larger towns were empowered to send deputies to

the Diet, with a right to vote on all local and commercial

subjects, and to speak on all questions whatsoever. An these

deputies became noble, as did every officer of the rank of

captain, and every lawyer who filled the humblest office of

magistracy, and every burgess who acquired a property in land

paying £5 of yearly taxes. … Industry was perfectly

unfettered. … Numerous paths to nobility were thus thrown

open. Every art was employed to make the ascent easy. … Having

thus communicated political privileges to hitherto disregarded

freemen, … the constitution extended to all serfs the full

protection of law, which before was enjoyed by those of the

Royal demesnes; and it facilitated and encouraged voluntary

manumission. … The storm which demolished this noble edifice

came from abroad. … The remaining part of the year 1791 passed

in quiet, but not without apprehension. On the 9th of January,

1792, Catharine concluded a peace with Turkey at Jassy; and,

being thus delivered from all foreign enemies, began once more

to manifest intentions of interfering in the affairs of

Poland. … A small number of Polish nobles furnished her with

that very slender pretext with which she was always content.

Their chiefs were Rzewuski … and Felix Potocki. … These

unnatural apostates deserted their long-suffering country at

the moment when, for the first time, hope dawned on her. …

They were received by Catharine with the honours due from her

to the betrayers of their country. On the 12th of May, 1792,

they formed a Confederation at Targowitz. On the 18th, the

Russian minister at Warsaw declared that the Empress, 'called

on by many distinguished Poles who had confederated against

the pretended constitution of 1791, would, in virtue of her

guarantee, march an army into Poland to restore the liberties

of the Republic.'" The hope, meantime, of help from Prussia,

which had been pledged to Poland by a treaty of alliance in

March, 1790, was speedily and cruelly deceived. "Assured of

the connivance of Prussia, Catharine now poured an immense

army into Poland, along the whole line of frontier, from the

Baltic to the neighbourhood of the Euxine. The spirit of the

Polish nation was unbroken. … A series of brilliant actions

[especially at Polonna and Dubienka] occupied the summer of

1792, in which the Polish army [under Poniatowski and

Kosciusko], alternately victorious and vanquished, gave equal

proofs of unavailing gallantry. Meantime Stanislaus … on the

4th of July published a proclamation declaring that he would

not survive his country. But, on the 22d of the same month …

[he] declared his accession to the Confederation of Targowitz;

and thus threw the legal authority of the republic into the

hands of that band of conspirators. The gallant army, over

whom the Diet had intrusted their unworthy King with absolute

authority, were now compelled, by his treacherous orders, to

lay down their arms. … Such was the unhappy state of Poland

during the remainder of the year 1792," while the Empress of

Russia and the King of Prussia were secretly arranging the

terms of a new Treaty of Partition.

Sir J. Mackintosh,

Account of the Partition of Poland

(Edinburgh Review, November, 1822;

reprinted in Miscellaneous Works).

ALSO IN:

H. Von Sybel,

History of the French Revolution,

book 2, chapters 1 and 6,

book 4, chapter 1, and book 6 (volumes 1-2).

A. Gielgud,

The Centenary of the Polish Constitution

(Westminster Review, volume 135, page 547).

F. C. Schlosser,

History of the 18th Century,

volume 6, division 1, chapter 2, section 4.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1791-1792.

POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

The Second and Third Partitions.

Extinction of Polish nationality.

"The Polish patriots, remaining in ignorance of the treaty of

partition, were unconscious of half their misfortunes. The

King of Prussia in his turn crossed the western frontier

[January, 1793], announcing in his manifesto that the troubles

of Poland compromised the safety of his own States, that

Dantzig had sent corn to the French revolutionaries, and that

Great Poland was infested by Jacobin clubs, whose intrigues

were rendered doubly dangerous by the continuation of the war

with France. The King of Prussia affected to see Jacobins

whenever it was his interest to find them. The part of each of

the powers was marked out in advance. Russia was to have the

eastern provinces, with a population of 3,000,000, as far as a

line drawn from the eastern frontier of Courland, which,

passing Pinsk, ended in Gallicia, and included Borissof,

Minsk, Sloutsk, Volhynia, Podolia, and Little Russia. Prussia

had the long-coveted cities of Thorn and Dantzig, as well as

Great Poland, Posen, Gnezen, Kalisch, and Czenstochovo. If

Russia still only annexed Russian or Lithuanian territory,

Prussia for the second time cut Poland to the quick, and

another million and a half of Slavs passed under the yoke of

the Germans. It was not enough to despoil Poland, now reduced

to a territory less extensive than that occupied by Russia; it

was necessary that she should consent to the spoliation—that

she should legalise the partition. A diet was convoked at

Grodno, under the pressure of the Russian bayonets," and by

bribery as well as by coercion, after long resistance, the

desired treaty of cession was obtained. "The Polish troops who

were encamped on the provinces ceded to the Empress, received

orders to swear allegiance to her; the army that remained to

the republic consisted only of 15,000 men." Meantime,

Kosciuszko, who had won reputation in the war of the American

Revolution, and enhanced it in the brief Polish struggle of

1792, was organizing throughout Poland a great revolt,

directing the work from Dresden, to which city he had retired.

"The order to disband the army hastened the explosion.

Madalinski refused to allow the brigade that he commanded to

be disarmed, crossed the Bug, threw himself on the Prussian

Provinces, and then fell back on Cracow. At his approach, this

city, the second in Poland, the capital of the ancient kings,

rose and expelled the Russian garrison. Kosciuszko hastened to

the scene of action, and put forth the 'act of insurrection,'

in which the hateful conduct of the co-partitioners was

branded, and the population called to arms. Five thousand

scythes were made for the peasants, the voluntary offerings of

patriots were collected, and those of obstinate and lukewarm

people were extracted by force." On the 17th of April, 1794,

the inhabitants of Warsaw rose and expelled the Russian

troops, who left behind, on retreating, 4,000 killed and

wounded, 2,000 prisoners, and 12 cannon.

{2557}

"A provisional government installed itself at Warsaw, and sent

a courier to Kosciuszko." But Russian, Prussian and Austrian

armies were fast closing in upon the ill-armed and outnumbered

patriots. The Prussians took Cracow; the Russians mastered

Wilna; the Austrians entered Lublin; and Kosciuszko, forced to

give battle to the Russians, at Macciowice, October 10, was

beaten, and, half dead from many wounds, was left a prisoner

in the hands of his enemies. Then the victorious Russian army,

under Souvorof, made haste to Warsaw and carried the suburb of

Praga by storm. "The dead numbered 12,000; the prisoners only

one." Warsaw, in terror, surrendered, and Poland, as an

independent state, was extinguished. "The third treaty of

partition, forced on the Empress by the importunity of

Prussia, and in which Austria also took part, was put in

execution [1705-1706]. Russia took the rest of Lithuania as

far as the Niemen (Wilna, Grodno, Kovno, Novogrodek, Slonim),

and the rest of Volhynia to the Bug (Vladimir, Loutsk, and

Kremenetz). … Besides the Russian territory, Russia also

annexed the old Lithuania of the Jagellons, and finally

acquired Courland and Samogitia. Prussia had all Eastern

Poland, with Warsaw; Austria had Cracow, Sandomir, Lublin, and

Chelm."

A. Rambaud,

History of Russia,

volume 2, chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

R. N. Bain,

The Second Partition of Poland

(English Historical Review, April, 1801).

H. von Sybel,

History of the French Revolution,

book 7, chapter 5,

book 9, chapter 3 (volume 3);

and book 10, chapters 2-4 (volume 4).

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

POLAND: A. D. 1806.

False hopes of national restoration raised by Napoleon.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER); and 1806-1807.

POLAND: A. D. 1807.

Prussian provinces formed into the grand duchy of Warsaw,

and given to the king of Saxony.

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

POLAND: A. D. 1809.

Cession of part of Bohemia, Cracow, and western Galicia,

by Austria, to the grand duchy of Warsaw.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

POLAND: A. D. 1812.

Fresh attempt to re-establish the kingdom,

not encouraged by Napoleon.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

POLAND: A. D. 1814-1815.

The Polish question in the Congress of Vienna.

The grand duchy of Warsaw given to Russia.

Constitution granted by the Czar.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

Rising against the Russian oppressor.

Courageous struggle for independence.

Early victories and final defeat.

Barbarity of the conqueror.

"Poland, like Belgium and the Romagna, had felt the

invigorating influence of the Revolution of July [in France].

The partition of Poland had been accomplished in a dark period

of the preceding century. It was almost universally regarded

in Western Europe as a mistake and a crime. It was a mistake

to have removed the barrier which separated Russia from the

West; it was a crime to have sacrificed a free and brave

people to the ambition of a relentless autocrat. … The cause

of freedom was identified with the cause of Poland, 'and

freedom shrieked' when Poland's champion 'fell.' The

statesmen, however, who parcelled out Europe amongst the

victorious autocrats in 1815 were incapable of appreciating

the feelings which had inspired the Scotch poet. Castlereagh,

indeed, endeavoured to make terms for Poland. But he did not

lay much stress on his demands. He contented himself with

obtaining the forms of constitutional government for the

Poles. Poland, constituted a kingdom, whose crown was to pass

by hereditary succession to the Emperors of Russia, was to be

governed by a resident Viceroy, assisted by a Polish Diet.

Constantine, who had abdicated the crown of Russia in his

brother's favour, was Viceroy of Poland. … He was residing at

Warsaw when the news of the glorious days of July reached

Poland. The Poles were naturally affected by the tidings of a

revolution which had expelled autocracy from France.

Kosciusko—the hero of 1794—was their favourite patriot. The

cadets at the Military School in Warsaw, excited at the news,

drank to his memory. Constantine thought that young men who

dared to drink to Kosciusko deserved to be flogged. The

cadets, learning his decision, determined on resisting it.

Their determination precipitated a revolution which, perhaps,

under any circumstances, would have occurred. Every

circumstance which could justify revolt existed in Poland. The

Constitution provided for the regular assembly of the Diet:

the Diet had not been assembled for five years. The

Constitution declared that taxes should not be imposed on the

Poles without the consent of their representatives: for

fifteen years no budget had been submitted to the Diet. The

Constitution provided for the personal liberty of every Pole:

the Grand Duke seized and imprisoned the wretched Poles at his

pleasure. The Constitution had given Poland a representative

government; and Constantine, in defiance of it, had played the

part of an autocrat. The threat of punishment, which

Constantine pronounced against the military cadets, merely

lighted the torch which was already prepared. Eighteen young

men, armed to the teeth, entered the Grand Duke's palace and

forced their way into his apartments. Constantine had just

time to escape by a back staircase. His flight saved his life.

… The insurrection, commenced in the Archduke's palace, soon

spread. Some of the Polish regiments passed over to the

insurgents. Constantine, who displayed little courage or

ability, withdrew from the city; and, on the morning of the

30th of November [1830], the Poles were in complete possession

of Warsaw. They persuaded Chlopicki, a general who had served

with distinction under Suchet in Spain, to place himself at

their head. … Raised to the first position in the State, his

warmest counsellors urged him to attack the few thousand men

whom Constantine still commanded. Chlopicki preferred

negotiating with the Russians. The negotiation, of course,

failed. … Chlopicki—his own well-intentioned effort having

failed—resigned his office; and his fellow countrymen invested

Radziwil with the command of their army, and placed Adam

Czartoryski at the head of the Government. In the meanwhile

Nicholas was steadily preparing for the contest which was

before him. Diebitsch, who had brought the campaign of 1820 to

a victorious conclusion, was entrusted with the command of the

Russian army. … Three great military roads converge from the

east upon Warsaw.

{2558}

The most northerly of these enters Poland at Kovno, crosses

the Narew, a tributary of the Bug, at Ostrolenka, and runs

down the right bank of the first of these rivers; the central

road crosses the Bug at Brzesc and proceeds almost due west

upon Warsaw; the most southerly of the three enters Poland

from the Austrian frontier, crosses the Vistula at Gora, and

proceeds along its west bank to the capital. Diebitsch decided

on advancing by all three routes on Warsaw. … Diebitsch, on

the 20th of February, 1831, attacked the Poles; on the 25th he

renewed the attack. The battle on the 20th raged round the

village of Grochow; it raged on the 25th round the village of

Praga. Fought with extreme obstinacy, neither side was able to

claim any decided advantage. The Russians could boast that the

Poles had withdrawn across the Vistula. The Poles could

declare that their retreat had been conducted at leisure, and

that the Russians were unable or unwilling to renew the

attack. Diebitsch himself, seriously alarmed at the situation

into which he had fallen, remained for a month in inaction at

Grochow. Before the month was over Radziwil, who had proved

unequal to the duties of his post, was superseded in the

command of the Polish army by Skrzynecki. On the 30th of

March, Skrzynecki crossed the Vistula at Praga, and attacked

the division of the Russian army which occupied the forest of

Waver, near Grochow. The attack was made in the middle of the

night. The Russians were totally defeated; they experienced a

loss of 5,000 in killed and wounded, and 6,000 prisoners.

Crippled by this disaster, Diebitsch fell back before the

Polish army. Encouraged by his success, Skrzynecki pressed

forward in pursuit. The great central road by which Warsaw is

approached crosses the Kostczyn, a tributary of the Bug, near

the little village of Iganie, about half-way between Russia

and Warsaw. Eleven days after the victory of the 30th of March

the Russians were again attacked by the Poles at Iganie. The

Poles won a second victory. The Russians, disheartened at a

succession of reverses, scattered before the attack; and the

cause of Poland seemed to have been already won by the

gallantry of her children and the skill of their generals.

Diebitsch, however, defeated at Grochow and Iganie, was not

destroyed. … Foregoing his original intention of advancing by

three roads on Warsaw, he determined to concentrate his right

on the northern road at Ostrolenka, his left, on the direct

road at Siedlice. It was open to Skrzynecki to renew the

attack, where Diebitsch expected it, and throw himself on the

defeated remnants of the Russian army at Siedlice. Instead of

doing so he took advantage of his central situation to cross

the Bug and throw himself upon the Russian right at

Ostrolenka. … Skrzynecki had reason to hope that he might

obtain a complete success before Diebitsch could by any

possibility march to the rescue. He failed. Diebitsch

succeeded in concentrating his entire force before the

destruction of his right wing had been consummated. On the

26th of May, Skrzynecki found himself opposed to the whole

Russian army. Throughout the whole of that day the Polish

levies gallantly struggled for the victory. When evening came

they remained masters of the field which had been the scene of

the contest. A negative victory of this character, however,

was not the object of the great movement upon the Russian

right. The Polish general, his army weakened by heavy losses,

resolved on retiring upon Warsaw. Offensive operations were

over: the defensive campaign had begun. Victory with the Poles

had, in fact, proved as fatal as defeat. The Russians, relying

upon their almost illimitable resources, could afford to lose

two men for every one whom Poland could spare. … It happened,

too, that a more fatal enemy than even war fell upon Poland in

the hour of her necessity. The cholera, which had been rapidly

advancing through Russia during 1830, broke out in the Russian

army in the spring of 1831. The prisoners taken at Iganie

communicated the seeds of infection to the Polish troops. Both

armies suffered severely from the disease; but the effects of

it were much more serious to the cause of Poland than to the

cause of Russia. … A fortnight after the battle of Ostrolenka,

Diebitsch, who had advanced his head-quarters to Pultusk,

succumbed to the malady. In the same week Constantine, the

Viceroy of Poland, and his Polish wife, also died. … Diebitsch

was at once succeeded in the command by Paskievitsch, an

officer who had gained distinction in Asia Minor. … On the 7th

of July, Paskievitsch crossed the Vistula at Plock, and

threatened Warsaw from the rear. … Slowly and steadily he

advanced against the capital. On the 6th of September he

attacked the devoted city. Inch by inch the Russians made

their way over the earthworks which had been constructed in

its defence. On the evening of the 7th the town was at their

mercy; on the 8th it capitulated. … The news of its fall

reached Paris on the 15th of September. The news of Waterloo

had not created so much consternation in the French capital.

Business was suspended; the theatres were closed. The cause of

Poland was in every mind, the name of Poland on every tongue.

… On the 26th of February, 1832, Nicholas, promulgated a new

organic statute for the government of Poland, which he had the

insolence to claim for Russia by the right of conquest of

1815. A draft of the statute reached Western Europe in the

spring of 1832. About the same time stories were received of

the treatment which the Russians were systematically applying

to the ill-fated country. Her schools were closed; her

national libraries and public collections removed; the

children of the Poles were carried into Russia; their fathers

Were swept into the Russian army; whole families accused of

participation in the rebellion were marched into the interior

of the empire; columns of Poles, it was stated, could be seen

on the Russian roads linked man to man by bars of iron; and

little children, unable to bear the fatigues of a long

journey, were included among them; the dead bodies of those

who had perished on the way could be seen on the sides of the

Russian roads. The wail of their wretched mothers—"Oh, that

the Czar could be drowned in our tears!'—resounded throughout

Europe."

S. Walpole,

History of England,

chapter 16 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

J. Hordynski,

History of the late Polish Revolution.

A. Rambaud,

History of Russia,

volume 2, chapter 14.

Sir A. Alison,

History of Europe, 1815-52,

chapter 26.

POLAND: A. D. 1846.

Insurrection in Galicia suppressed.

Extinction of the republic of Cracow.

Its annexation to Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

{2559}

POLAND: A. D. 1860-1864.

The last insurrection.

"In 1860 broke out the last great Polish insurrection, in all

respects a very ill–advised attempt. On the 29th of November

of that year, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the

revolution of 1830, national manifestations, taking a

religious form, took place in the Warsaw churches. … On the

25th of February, 1861, on the anniversary of the battle of

Grochow, the Agricultural Society of that city, presided over

by Count Zamojski, held a meeting for the purpose of

presenting a petition to the Emperor to grant a constitution.

Although the Tsar did not concede this demand, he decreed by

an ukase of the 26th of March a council of state for the

kingdom, elective councils in each government, and municipal

councils in Warsaw and the chief cities. Moreover, the Polish

language was to be adopted in all the schools of the kingdom.

… On the 8th of April the people appeared in crowds in front

of the castle of the Viceroy, and when they refused to

disperse, were fired upon by the soldiers. About 200 persons

were killed in this unfortunate affair, and many more wounded.

The viceroyalty of Count Lambert was not successful in

conciliating the people; he was succeeded by Count Lüders, who

was reactionary in his policy. An attempt was made in June,

1862, on the life of the Count in the Saxon Garden (Saksonski

Sad), and he was soon afterwards recalled; his place being

taken by the Grand Duke Constantine, who was chiefly guided by

the Marquis Wielopolski, an unpopular but able man. Two

attempts were made upon the life of the Grand Duke, the latter

of which was nearly successful; the life of Wielopolski was

also several times in danger. … On the night of June 15, 1863,

a secret conscription was held, and the persons considered to

be most hostile to the Government were taken in their beds and

forcibly enlisted. Out of a population of 180,000 the number

thus seized at Warsaw was 2,000; soon after this the

insurrection broke out. Its proceedings were directed by a

secret committee, styled Rzad (Government), and were as

mysterious as the movements of the celebrated Fehmgerichte.

The Poles fought under enormous difficulties. Most of the

bands consisted of undisciplined men, unfamiliar with military

tactics, and they had to contend with well–organised troops.

Few of them had muskets; the generality were armed only with

pikes, scythes, and sticks. … The bands of the insurgents were

chiefly composed of priests, the smaller landowners, lower

officials, and peasants who had no land, but those peasants

who possessed any land refused to join. Many showed but a

languid patriotism on account of the oppressive laws relating

to the poorer classes, formerly in vigour in Poland, of which

the tradition was still strong. The war was only guerilla

fighting, in which the dense forests surrounding the towns

were of great assistance to the insurgents. The secret

emissaries of the revolutionary Government were called

stiletcziki, from the daggers which they carried. They

succeeded in killing many persons who had made themselves

obnoxious to the national party. … No quarter was given to the

chiefs of the insurgents; when captured they were shot or

hanged. … When the Grand Duke Constantine resigned the

viceroyalty at Warsaw he was succeeded by Count Berg. … By

May, 1864, the insurrection was suppressed, but it had cost

Poland dear. All its old privileges were now taken away;

henceforth all teaching, both in the universities and schools,

must be in the Russian language. Russia was triumphant, and

paid no attention to the demands of the three Great Powers,

England, France, and Austria. Prussia had long been silently

and successfully carrying on her plan for the Germanisation of

Posen, and on the 8th of February, 1863, she had concluded a

convention with Russia with a view of putting a stop to the

insurrection. Her method throughout has been more drastic; she

has slowly eliminated or weakened the Polish element,

carefully avoiding any of those reprisals which would cause a

European scandal."

W. R. Morfill,

The Story of Poland,

chapter 12.

POLAND: A. D. 1868.

Complete incorporation with Russia.

By an imperial ukase, February 23, 1868, the government of

Poland was absolutely incorporated with that of Russia.

----------POLAND: End--------

POLAR STAR, The Order of the.

A Swedish order of knighthood, the date of the founding of

which is uncertain.

POLEMARCH.

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

POLETÆ.

POLETERIUM.

"Every thing which the state (Athens) sold, or leased;

revenues, real property, mines, confiscated estates, in which

is to be included also the property of public debtors, who

were in arrear after the last term of respite, and the bodies

of the aliens under the protection of the state, who had not

paid the sum required for protection, and of foreigners who

had been guilty of assuming the rights of citizenship, or of

the crime called apostasion; all these, I say, together with

the making of contracts for the public works, at least in

certain cases and periods, were under the charge of the ten

poletæ, although not always without the coöperation of other

boards of officers. Each of the tribes appointed one of the

members of this branch of the government, and their sessions

were held in the edifice called the Poleterium."

A. Boeckh,

Public Economy of Athens (Lamb's translation),

book 2, chapter 3.

POLITIQUES, The Party of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

POLK, James K.:

Presidential election and administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AM.:A. D. 1844, to 1848.

POLKOS, The.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

POLLENTIA, Battle of.

See GOTHS: A. D. 400-403.

POLLICES.

See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

POLO, Marco, The travels of.

"This celebrated personage was not, in the strict sense of the

word, a traveller. He was one of those professional

politicians of the Middle Ages who are familiar to the student

of Italian history. The son of a travelling Venetian merchant,

who had already passed many years in Tartary, and been

regarded with welcome and consideration by the Grand Khan

himself, he was taken at an early age to the Grand Khan's

court, and apprenticed, as it were, to the Grand Khan's

service. The young adventurer possessed in a high degree that

subtlety and versatility which opinion attributes to his

nation. Profiting by his opportunities, he soon succeeded in

transmuting himself into a Tartar.

{2560}

He adopted the Tartar dress, studied the Tartar manners, and

mastered the four languages spoken in the Grand Khan's

dominions. Kublai appears first to have employed him as a

secretary, and then to have sent him on confidential missions:

and during a service of seventeen years Marco was engaged in

this way, in journeys by land and sea, in every part of the

Grand Khan's empire and dependencies. More than this, he

travelled on his own account, everywhere, it would appear,

recording his notes and observations, partly for his own use,

and partly for the information or entertainment of his master.

These notes and observations were given to the world of Europe

under the following circumstances. After a residence of

seventeen years, Marco obtained permission to revisit Venice,

accompanied by his father and uncle. Not long after his

return, he was taken in a sea-fight with the Genoese, and

committed to prison. To relieve the ennui of his confinement,

he procured his rough notes from Venice, and dictated to a

fellow–prisoner the narrative which passes under his name.

This narrative soon became known to the world: and from its

publication may be dated that intense and active interest in

the East which has gone on steadily increasing ever since. The

rank and dignified character of this famous adventurer, the

romance of his career, the wealth which he amassed, the extent

of his observations, the long series of years they had

occupied, the strange and striking facts which he reported,

and the completeness and perspicuity of his narrative,

combined to produce a marked effect on the Italian world.

Marco Polo was the true predecessor of Columbus. From an early

time we find direct evidence of his influence on the process

of exploration. … Wherever the Italian captains went, the fame

of the great Venetian's explorations was noised abroad: and,

as we shall presently see, the Italian captains were the chief

directors of navigation and discovery in every seaport of

Western Europe. The work dictated by Marco Polo to his

fellow-captive, though based upon his travels both in form and

matter, is no mere journal or narrative of adventure. A brief

account of his career in the East is indeed prefixed, and the

route over which he carries his reader is substantially that

chronologically followed by himself; for he takes his reader

successively overland to China, by way of the Black Sea,

Armenia, and Tartary, backwards and forwards by land and sea,

throughout the vast dominions of the Grand Khan, and finally

homeward by the Indian Ocean, touching by the way at most of

those famous countries which bordered thereon. Yet the book is

no book of travels. It is rather a Handbook to the East for

the use of other European travellers, and was clearly compiled

as such and nothing more. Perhaps no compiler has ever laid

down a clearer or more practical plan, adopted a more

judicious selection of facts, or relieved it by a more

attractive embroidery of historical anecdote. … It is not here

to the purpose to dwell on his notices of Armenia, Turcomania,

and Persia: his descriptions of the cities of Bagdad, Ormus,

Tabriz, and many others, or to follow him to Kashmir,

Kashghar, and Samarkhand, and across the steppes of Tartary.

The main interest of Marco Polo lies in his description of the

Grand Khan's Empire, and of those wide-spread shores, all

washed by the Indian Ocean, which from Zanzibar to Japan went

by the general name of India. … The Pope alone, among European

potentates of the 15th century, could be ranked as approaching

in state and dignity to the Tartar sovereign of China. For any

fair parallel, recourse must be had to the Great Basileus of

Persia: and in the eyes of his Venetian secretary the Grand

Khan appeared much as Darius or Cyrus may have appeared to the

Greek adventurers who crowded his court, and competed for the

favour of a mighty barbarian whom they at once flattered and

despised."

E. J. Payne,

History of the New World,

book 1.

ALSO IN:

The Book of Ser Marco Polo;

edited by Colonel H. Yule.

T. W. Knox,

Travels of Marco Polo for Boys and Girls.

G. M. Towle,

Marco Polo.

See, also, CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

POLONNA, Battle of (1792).

See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.

POLYNESIANS, The.

See MALAYAN RACE.

POLYPOTAMIA, The proposed State of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

POMERANIANS, The.

"Adam of Bremen first mentions these Pomeranians [east of the

Oder], and he mentions them as Slavonians, the Oder being

their boundary to the West. On the east they were conterminous

with the Prussians. Their name is Slavonic, 'po'='on' and

'more'='sea,'='coastmen.' All their antiquities and traditions

are equally so; in other words there is neither evidence, nor

shadow of evidence, of their ever having dispossessed an older

Germanic population. Nor are they wholly extinct at the

present moment. On the promontories which project into the

Gulf of Dantzig we find the Slavonic Kassub, Cassubitæ, or

Kaszeb. Their language approaches the Polish."

R. G. Latham,

The Germania of Tacitus, Prolegomena,

section 7.

POMERIUM, The Roman.

"The pomerium was a hallowed space, along the whole circuit of

the city, behind the wall, where the city auspices were taken,

over which the augurs had full right, and which could never be

moved without their first consulting the will of the gods. The

pomerium which encircled the Palatine appears to have been the

space between the wall and the foot of the hill."

H. M. Westropp,

Early and Imperial Rome,

page 40.

POMPADOUR, Madame de, Ascendancy of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1723-1774.

POMPÆ.

The solemn processions of the ancient Athenians, on which they

expended great sums of money, were so called.

A. Boeckh,

Public Economy of Athens,

book 2, chapter 12.

POMPEII.

"Pompeii was a maritime city at the mouth of the river Sarnus,

the most sheltered recess of the Neapolitan Crater. Its origin

was lost in antiquity, and the tradition that it was founded

by Hercules, together with the other spot [Herculaneum] which

bore the name of the demigod, was derived perhaps from the

warm springs with which the region abounded. The Greek

plantations on the Campanian coast had been overrun by the

Oscans and Samnites; nevertheless the graceful features of

Grecian civilization were still everywhere conspicuous, and

though Pompeii received a Latin name, and though Sulla,

Augustus, and Nero had successively endowed it with Roman

colonists, it retained the manners and to a great extent the

language of the settlers from beyond the sea."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 60.

{2561}

Pompeii, and the neighboring city of Herculaneum, were

overwhelmed by a volcanic eruption from Mount Vesuvius, on the

23rd of August, A. D. 79. They were buried, but did not

perish; they were death-stricken, but not destroyed; and by

excavations, which began at Pompeii A. D. 1748, they have been

extensively uncovered, and made to exhibit to modern times the

very privacies and secrets of life in a Roman city of the age

of Titus.

Pliny the Younger, Letters,

book 6, epistles 16 and 20.

ALSO IN:

T. H. Dyer,

Pompeii.

POMPEII AND HERCULANEUM, Exhumed Libraries of.

See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: HERCULANEUM.

POMPEIUS, the Great, and the first Triumvirate.

See ROME: B. C. 78-68, to B. C. 48;

and ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

PONCAS,

PONKAS,

PUNCAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,

and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

----------PONDICHERRY: Start--------

PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1674-1697.

Founded by the French.

Taken by the Dutch.

Restored to France.

See INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.

PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1746.

Siege by the English.

See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1761.

Capture by the English.

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

----------PONDICHERRY: End--------

PONIATOWSKY, Stanislaus Augustus,

King of Poland, A. D. 1764-1795.

PONKAS.

See PONCAS.

PONS ÆLII.

A Roman bridge and military station on the Tyne, where

Newcastle is now situated.

H. M. Scarth,

Roman Britain,

chapter 8.

PONS SUBLICIUS, The.

See SUBLICIAN BRIDGE.

PONT ACHIN, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

PONTCHARRA, Battle of (1591).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

PONTE NUOVO, Battle of (1769).

See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

PONTIAC'S WAR (A. D. 1763-1764).

"With the conquest of Canada and the expulsion of France as a

military power from the continent, the English colonists were

abounding in loyalty to the mother country, were exultant in

the expectation of peace, and in the assurance of immunity

from Indian wars in the future; for it did not seem possible

that, with the loose system of organization and government

common to the Indians, they could plan and execute a general

campaign without the co–operation of the French as leaders.

This feeling of security among the English settlements was of

short duration. A general discontent pervaded all the Indian

tribes from the frontier settlements to the Mississippi, and

from the great lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. The extent of this

disquietude was not suspected, and hence no attempt was made

to gain the goodwill of the Indians. There were many real

causes for this discontent. The French had been politic and

sagacious in their intercourse with the Indian. They gained

his friendship by treating him with respect and justice. They

came to him with presents, and, as a rule, dealt with him

fairly in trade. They came with missionaries, unarmed, heroic,

self-denying men. … Many Frenchmen married Indian wives, dwelt

with the native tribes, and adopted their customs. To the

average Englishman, on the other hand, Indians were disgusting

objects; he would show them no respect, nor treat them with

justice except under compulsion. … The French had shown little

disposition to make permanent settlements; but the English,

when they appeared, came to stay, and they occupied large

tracts of the best land for agricultural purposes. The French

hunters and traders, who were widely dispersed among the

native tribes, kept the Indians in a state of disquietude by

misrepresenting the English, exaggerating their faults, and

making the prediction that the French would soon recapture

Canada and expel the English from the Western territories.

Pontiac, the chief of the Ottawas [see CANADA: A. D. 1760],

was the Indian who had the motive, the ambition, and capacity

for organization which enabled him to concentrate and use all

these elements of discontent for his own malignant and selfish

purposes. After the defeat of the French, be professed for a

time to be friendly with the English, expecting that, under

the acknowledged supremacy of Great Britain, he would be

recognized as a mighty Indian prince, and be assigned to rule

over his own, and perhaps a confederacy of other tribes.

Finding that the English government had no use for him, he was

indignant, and he devoted all the energies of his vigorous

mind to a secret conspiracy of uniting the tribes west of the

Alleghanies to engage in a general war against the English

settlements ['The tribes thus banded together against the

English comprised, with a few unimportant exceptions, the

whole Algonquin stock, to whom were united the Wyandots, the

Senecas, and several tribes of the lower Mississippi. The

Senecas were the only members of the Iroquois confederacy who

joined in the league, the rest being kept quiet by the

influence of Sir William Johnson.'

F. Parkman,

Conspiracy of Pontiac,

volume 1, page 187.

… His scheme was to make a simultaneous attack on all the

Western posts in the month of May, 1763; and each attack was

assigned to the neighboring tribes. His summer home was on a

small island at the entrance of Lake St. Clair; and being near

Detroit, he was to conduct in person the capture of that fort.

On the 6th of May, 1763, Major Gladwin, in command at Detroit,

had warning from an Indian girl that the next day an attempt

would be made to capture the fort by treachery. When Pontiac,

on the appointed morning, accompanied by 60 of his chiefs,

with short guns concealed under their blankets, appeared at

the fort, and, as usual, asked for admission, he was startled

at seeing the whole garrison under arms, and that his scheme

of treachery had miscarried. For two months the savages

assailed the fort, and the sleepless garrison gallantly

defended it, when they were relieved by the arrival of a

schooner from Fort Niagara, with 60 men, provisions, and

ammunition. Fort Pitt, on the present site of Pittsburg,

Pennsylvania, was in command of Captain Ecuyer, another

trained soldier, who had been warned of the Indian conspiracy

by Major Gladwin in a letter written May 5th. Captain Ecuyer,

having a garrison of 330 soldiers and backwoodsmen,

immediately made every preparation for defence. On May 27th, a

party of Indians appeared at the fort under the pretence of

wishing to trade, and were treated as spies.

{2562}

Active operations against Fort Pitt were postponed until the

smaller forts had been taken. Fort Sandusky was captured May

16th; Fort St. Joseph (on the St. Joseph River, Michigan), May

25th; Fort Ouatanon (now Lafayette, Indiana), May 31st; Fort

Michillimaekinac (now Mackinaw, Michigan), June 2d; Fort

Presqu' Isle (now Erie, Pennsylvania), June 17th; Fort Le Bœuf

(Erie County, Pennsylvania), June 18th; Fort Venango (Venango

County, Pennsylvania), June 18th; and the posts at Carlisle

and Bedford, Pennsylvania, on the same day. No garrison except

that at Presqu' Is]e had warning of danger. The same method of

capture was adopted in each instance. A small party of Indians

came to the fort with the pretence of friendship, and were

admitted. Others soon joined them, when the visitors rose upon

the small garrisons, butchered them, or took them captive. At

Presqu' Isle the Indians laid siege to the fort for two days,

when they set it on fire. At Venango no one of the garrison

survived to give an account of the capture. On June 22d, a

large body of Indians surrounded Fort Pitt and opened fire on

all sides, but were easily repulsed. … The Indians departed

next day and did not return until July 26th," when they laid

siege to the fort for five days and nights, with more loss to

themselves than to the garrison. They "then disappeared, in

order to intercept the expedition of Colonel Bouquet, which

was approaching from the east with a convoy of provisions for

the relief of Fort Pitt. It was fortunate for the country that

there was an officer stationed at Philadelphia who fully

understood the meaning of the alarming reports which were

coming in from the Western posts. Colonel Henry Bouquet was a

gallant Swiss officer who had been trained in war from his

youth, and whose personal accomplishments gave an additional

charm to his bravery and heroic energy. He had served seven

years in fighting American Indians, and was more cunning than

they in the practice of their own artifices. General Amherst,

the commander-in–chief, was slow in appreciating the

importance and extent of the Western conspiracy; yet he did

good service in directing Colonel Bouquet to organize an

expedition for the relief of Fort Pitt. The promptness and

energy with which this duty was performed, under the most

embarrassing conditions, make the expedition one of the most

brilliant episodes in American warfare. The only troops

available for the service were about 500 regulars recently

arrived from the siege of Havana, broken in health." At Bushy

Run, 25 miles east of Fort Pitt, Bouquet fought a desperate

battle with the savages, and defeated them by the stratagem of

a pretended retreat, which drew them into an ambuscade. Fort

Pitt was then reached in safety. "On the 29th of July Detroit

was reinforced by 280 men under Captain Dalzell, who in June

had left Fort Niagara in 22 barges, with several cannon and a

supply of provisions and ammunition. The day after his

arrival, Captain Dalzell proposed, with 250 men, to make a

night attack on Pontiac's camp and capture him. Major Gladwin

discouraged the attempt, but finally, against his judgment,

consented. Some Canadians obtained the secret and carried it

to Pontiac, who waylaid the party in an ambuscade [at a place

called Bloody Bridge ever since]. Twenty of the English were

killed and 39 wounded. Among the killed was Captain Dalzell

himself. Pontiac could make no use of this success, as the

fort was strongly garrisoned and well supplied. … Elsewhere

there was nothing to encourage him." His confederation begun

to break, and in November he was forced to raise the siege of

Detroit. "There was quietness on the frontiers during the

winter of 1763-64. In the spring of 1764 scattered war parties

were again ravaging the borders. Colonel Bouquet was

recruiting in Pennsylvania, and preparing an outfit for his

march into the valley of the Ohio. In June, Colonel

Bradstreet, with a force of 1,200 men, was sent up the great

lakes," where he made an absurd and unauthorized treaty with

some of the Ohio Indians. He arrived at Detroit on the 26th of

August. "Pontiac had departed, and sent messages of defiance

from the banks of the Maumee." Colonel Bouquet had experienced

great difficulty in raising troops and supplies and it was not

until September, 1764, that he again reached Fort Pitt. But

before two months passed he had brought the Delawares and

Shawanees to submission and had delivered some 200 white

captives from their hands. Meantime, Sir William Johnson, in

conjunction with Bradstreet, had held conferences with a great

council of 2,000 warriors at Fort Niagara, representing

Iroquois, Ottawas, Ojibways, Wyandots and others, and had

concluded several treaties of peace. By one of these, with the

Senecas, a strip of land four miles wide on each side of

Niagara River, from Erie to Ontario, was ceded to the British

government. "The Pontiac War, so far as battles and campaigns

were concerned, was ended; but Pontiac was still at large and

as untamed as ever. His last hope was the Illinois country,

where the foot of an English soldier had never trod;" and

there he schemed and plotted without avail until 1765. In 1769

he was assassinated, near St. Louis.

W. F. Poole,

The West, 1763-1783

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 6, chapter 9).

ALSO IN:

F. Parkman,

Conspiracy of Pontiac.

S. Farmer,

History of Detroit and Michigan,

chapter 38.

Historical Account of Bouquet's Expedition.

A. Henry,

Travels and Adventures in Canada,

part 1, chapters 9-23.

W. L. Stone,

Life and Times of Sir William Johnson,

volume 2, chapters 9-12.

J. R. Brodhead,

Documents Relative to Colonial History New York,

volume 7.

PONTIFEX MAXIMUS.

PONTIFICES, Roman.

See AUGURS.

PONTIFF, The Roman.

The Pope is often alluded to as the Roman Pontiff, the term

implying an analogy between his office and that of the

Pontifex Maximus of the ancient Romans.

PONTIFICAL INDICTIONS.

See INDICTIONS.

PONTUS.

See MITHRIDATIC WARS.

PONTUS EUXINUS,

EUXINUS PONTUS.

The Black Sea, as named by the Greeks.

PONZA, Naval Battle of (1435).

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

POOR LAWS, The English.

"It has been often said and often denied that the monasteries

supplied the want which the poor law, two generations after

the dissolution of these bodies, enforced. That the

monasteries were renowned for their almsgiving is certain. The

duty of aiding the needy was universal. Themselves the

creatures of charity, they could not deny to others that on

which they subsisted. …

{2563}

It is possible that these institutions created the mendicancy

which they relieved, but it cannot be doubted that they

assisted much which needed their help. The guilds which

existed in the towns were also found in the country villages.

… They were convenient instruments for charity before the

establishment of a poor law, and they employed no

inconsiderable part of their revenues, collected from

subscriptions and from lands and tenements, in relieving the

indigent and treating poor strangers hospitably. … Before the

dissolution of the monasteries, but when this issue was fairly

in view, in 1536, an attempt was made to secure some legal

provision for destitution. The Act of this year provides that

the authorities in the cities and boroughs should collect alms

on Sundays and holy days, that the ministers should on all

occasions, public and private, stir up the people to

contribute to a common fund, that the custom of giving doles

by private persons should be forbidden under penalty, and that

the church-wardens should distribute the alms when collected.

The Act, however, is strictly limited to free gifts, and the

obligations of monasteries, almshouses, hospitals, and

brotherhoods are expressly maintained. … There was a

considerable party in England which was willing enough to see

the monasteries destroyed, root and branch, and one of the

most obvious means by which this result could be attained

would be to allege that all which could be needed for the

relief of destitution would be derived from the voluntary

offerings of those who contributed so handsomely to the

maintenance of indolent and dissolute friars. The public was

reconciled to the Dissolution by the promise made that the

monastic estates should not be converted to the king's private

use, but be devoted towards the maintenance of a military

force, and that therefore no more demands should be made on

the nation for subsidies and aids. Similarly when the guild

lands and chantry lands were confiscated at the beginning of

Edward's reign, a promise was made that the estates of these

foundations should be devoted to good and proper uses, for

erecting grammar schools, for the further augmentation of the

universities, and the better provision for the poor and needy.

They were swept into the hands of Seymour and Somerset, of the

Dudleys and Cecils, and the rest of the crew who surrounded

the throne of Edward. It cannot, therefore, I think, be

doubted that this violent change of ownership, apart from any

considerations of previous practice in these several

institutions, must have aggravated whatever evils already

existed. … The guardians of Edward attempted, in a savage

statute passed in the first year of his reign, to restrain

pauperism and vagabondage by reducing the landless and

destitute poor to slavery, by branding them, and making them

work in chains. The Act, however, only endured for two years.

In the last year of Edward's reign two collectors were to be

appointed in every parish, who were to wait on every person of

substance and inquire what sums he will give weekly to the

relief of the poor. The promises are to be entered in a book,

and the collectors were authorized to employ the poor in such

work as they could perform, paying them from the fund. Those

who refused to aid were to be first exhorted by the ministers

and church wardens, and if they continued obstinate were to be

denounced to the bishop, who is to remonstrate with such

uncharitable folk. … In the beginning of Elizabeth's reign (5,

cap. 3) the unwilling giver, after being exhorted by the

bishop, is to be bound to appear before the justices, in

quarter sessions, where, if he be still obdurate to

exhortation, the justices are empowered to tax him in a weekly

sum, and commit him to prison till he pays. … There was only a

step from the process under which a reluctant subscriber to

the poor law was assessed by the justices and imprisoned on

refusal, to the assessment of all property under the

celebrated Act of 43 Elizabeth [1601], cap. 3. The law had

provided for the regular appointment of assessors for the levy

of rates, for supplying work to the able-bodied, for giving

relief to the infirm and old, and for binding apprentices. It

now consolidates the experience of the whole reign, defines

the kind of property on which the rate is to be levied,

prescribes the manner in which the assessors shall be

appointed, and inflicts penalties on parties who infringe its

provisions. It is singular that the Act was only temporary. It

was, by the last clause, only to continue to the end of the

next session of parliament. It was, however, renewed, and

finally made perpetual by 16 Car. I., cap. 4. The economical

history of labour in England is henceforward intimately

associated with this remarkable Act. … The Act was to be

tentative, indeed, but in its general principles it lasted

till 1835. … The effect of poor law relief on the wages of

labour was to keep them hopelessly low, to hinder a rise even

under the most urgent circumstances."

J. E. Thorold Rogers,

Six Centuries of Work and Wages,

chapter 15 (volume 2).

"In February 1834 was published perhaps the most remarkable

and startling document to be found in the whole range of

English, perhaps, indeed, of all, social history. It was the

Report upon the administration and practical operation of the

Poor Laws by the Commissioners who had been appointed to

investigate the subject. … It was their rare good fortune not

only to lay bare the existence of abuses and trace them to

their roots, but also to propound and enforce the remedies by

which they might be cured."

T. W. Fowle,

The Poor Law,

chapter 4.

"The poor-rate had become public spoil. The ignorant believed

it an inexhaustible fund which belonged to them. To obtain

their share, the brutal bullied the administrators, the

profligate exhibited their bastards which must be fed, the

idle folded their arms and waited till they got it; ignorant

boys and girls married upon it; poachers, thieves, and

prostitutes extorted it by intimidation; country justices

lavished it for popularity, and guardians for convenience.

This was the way the fund went. As for whence it arose—it

came, more and more every year, out of the capital of the

shopkeeper and the farmer, and the diminishing resources of

the country gentleman. … Instead of the proper number of

labourers to till his lands—labourers paid by himself—the

farmer was compelled to take double the number, whose wages

were paid partly out of the rates; and these men, being

employed by compulsion on him, were beyond his control—worked

or not as they chose —let down the quality of his land, and

disabled him from employing the better men who would have

toiled hard for independence. These better men sank down among

the worse; the rate-paying cottager, after a vain struggle,

went to the pay-table to seek relief; the modest girl might

starve, while her bolder neighbour received 1s. 6d. per week

for every illegitimate child.

{2564}

Industry, probity, purity, prudence– all heart and spirit—the

whole soul of goodness —were melting down into depravity and

social ruin, like snow under the foul internal fires which

precede the earthquake. There were clergymen in the

commission, as well as politicians and economists; and they

took these things to heart, and laboured diligently to frame

suggestions for a measure which should heal and recreate the

moral spirit as well as the economical condition of society in

England. To thoughtful observers it is clear that the … grave

aristocratic error … of confounding in one all ranks below a

certain level of wealth was at the bottom of much poor-law

abuse, as it has been of the opposition to its amendment. …

Except the distinction between sovereign and subject, there is

no social difference in England so wide as that between the

independent labourer and the pauper; and it is equally

ignorant, immoral, and impolitic to confound the two. This

truth was so apparent to the commissioners, and they conveyed

it so fully to the framers of the new poor-law, that it forms

the very foundation of the measure. … Enlightened by a

prodigious accumulation of evidence, the commissioners offered

their suggestions to government; and a bill to amend the

poor-law was prepared and proposed to the consideration of

parliament early in 1834. … If one main object of the reform

was to encourage industry, it was clearly desirable to remove

the impediments to the circulation of labour. Settlement by

hiring and service was to exist no longer; labour could freely

enter any parish where it was wanted, and leave it for another

parish which might, in its turn, want hands. In observance of

the great principle that the independent labourer was not to

be sacrificed to the pauper, all administration of relief to

the able-bodied at their own homes was to be discontinued as

soon as possible; and the allowance system was put an end to

entirely. … Henceforth, the indigent must come into the

workhouse for relief, if he must have it. … The able-bodied

should work—should do a certain amount of work for every meal.

They might go out after the expiration of twenty-four hours;

but while in the house they must work. The men, women, and

children must be separated; and the able-bodied and infirm. …

In order to a complete and economical classification in the

workhouses, and for other obvious reasons, the new act

provided for unions of parishes. … To afford the necessary

control over such a system … a central board was

indispensable, by whose orders, and through whose

assistant-commissioners, everything was to be arranged, and to

whom all appeals were to be directed. … Of the changes

proposed by the new law, none was more important to morals

than that which threw the charge of the maintenance of

illegitimate children upon the mother. … The decrease of

illegitimate births was what many called wonderful, but only

what the framers of the law had anticipated from the removal

of direct pecuniary inducement to profligacy, and from the

awakening of proper care in parents of daughters, and of

reflection in the women themselves. … On the 14th of August

1834, the royal assent was given to the Poor–law Amendment

Act, amidst prognostications of utter failure from the timid,

and some misgivings among those who were most confident of the

absolute necessity of the measure. … Before two years were

out, wages were rising and rates were falling in the whole

series of country parishes; farmers were employing more

labourers; surplus labour was absorbed; bullying paupers were

transformed into steady working-men; the decrease of

illegitimate births, chargeable to the parish, throughout

England, was nearly 10,000, or nearly 13 per cent.; … and,

finally, the rates, which had risen nearly a million in their

annual amount during the five years before the poor-law

commission was issued, sank down, in the course of the five

years after it, from being upwards of seven millions to very

little above four."

H. Martineau,

A History of the Thirty Years Peace,

book 4, chapter 7 (volume 2).

In 1838 the Act was extended to Ireland, and in 1845 to

Scotland.

T. W. Fowle,

The Poor Law,

chapter 4.

"The new Poor Law was passed by Parliament in 1834; and the

oversight of its administration was placed in the hands of a

special board of commissioners, then known as the Central Poor

Law Board. This board, which was not represented in

Parliament, was continued until 1847. In that year it was

reconstructed and placed under the presidency of a minister

with a seat in the House of Commons—a reconstruction putting

it on a political level with the Home Office and the other

important Government Departments at Whitehall. The Department

was henceforward known as the Poor Law Board, and continued to

be so named until 1871, when there was another reconstruction.

This time the Poor Law Board took over from the Home Office

various duties in respect of municipal government and public

health, and from the Privy Council the oversight of the

administration of the vaccination laws and other powers, and

its title was changed to that of the Local Government Board.

Since then hardly a session of Parliament has passed in which

its duties and responsibilities have not been added to, until

at the present time the Local Government Board is more

directly in touch with the people of England and Wales than

any other Government Department. There is not a village in the

land which its inspectors do not visit or to which the

official communications of the Board are not addressed."

E. Porritt,

The Englishman at Home,

chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

Sir G. Nicholls,

History of the English Poor-Law.

F. Peek,

Social Wreckage.

POOR MEN OF LYONS.

POOR MEN OF LOMBARDY.

See WALDENSES.

POOR PRIESTS OF LOLLARDY, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.

POPE, General John.

Capture of New Madrid and Island Number Ten.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE .MISSISSIPPI).

Command of the Army of the Mississippi.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

Virginia campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA);

(AUGUST: VIRGINIA);

and (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

POPE, The.

See PAPACY.

POPHAM COLONY, The.

See MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

POPISH PLOT, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

POPOL VUH, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUICHES.

{2565}

POPOLOCAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHONTALS.

POPULARES.

See OPTIMATES.

PORNOCRACY AT ROME.

See ROME: A. D. 903-964.

PORT GIBSON, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

PORT HUDSON, Siege and capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

PORT JACKSON: A. D. 1770-1788.

The discovery.

The naming.

The first settlement.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

PORT MAHON.

See MINORCA.

PORT PHILLIP DISTRICT.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840, and 1839-1855.

PORT REPUBLIC, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

----------PORT ROYAL: Start--------

PORT ROYAL,

The Jansenists: A. D. 1602-1660.

The monastery under Mère Angelique

and the hermits of the Port Royal Valley.

Their acceptance of the doctrines of Jansenius.

Their conflict with the Jesuits.

"The monastery of Port Royal … was founded in the beginning of

the 13th century, in the reign of Philip Augustus; and a later

tradition claimed this magnificent monarch as the author of

its foundation and of its name. … But this is the story of a

time when, as it has been said, 'royal founders were in

fashion.' More truly, the name is considered to be derived

from the general designation of the fief or district in which

the valley lies, Porrois—which, again, is supposed to be a

corruption of Porra or Borra, meaning a marshy and woody

hollow. The valley of Port Royal presents to this day the same

natural features which attracted the eye of the devout

solitary in the seventeenth century. … It lies about eighteen

miles west of Paris, and seven or eight from Versailles, on

the road to Chevreuse. … The monastery was founded, not by

Philip Augustus, but by Matthieu, first Lord of Marli, a

younger son of the noble house of Montmorency. Having formed

the design of accompanying the crusade proclaimed by Innocent

III. to the Holy Land, he left at the disposal of his wife,

Mathilde de Garlande, and his kinsman, the Bishop of Paris, a

sum of money to devote to some pious work in his absence. They

agreed to apply it to the erection of a monastery for nuns in

this secluded valley, that had already acquired a reputation

for sanctity in connection with the old chapel dedicated to

St. Lawrence, which attracted large numbers of worshippers.

The foundations of the church and monastery were laid in 1204.

They were designed by the same architect who built the

Cathedral of Amiens, and ere long the graceful and beautiful

structures were seen rising in the wilderness. The nuns

belonged to the Cistercian order. Their dress was white

woollen, with a black veil; but afterwards they adopted as

their distinctive badge a large scarlet cross on their white

scapulary, as the symbol of the 'Institute of the Holy

Sacrament.' The abbey underwent the usual history of such

institutions. Distinguished at first by the strictness of its

discipline and the piety of its inmates, it became gradually

corrupted with increasing wealth, till, in the end of the

sixteenth century, it had grown notorious for gross and

scandalous abuses. … But at length its revival arose out of

one of the most obvious abuses connected with it. The

patronage of the institution, like that of others, had been

distributed without any regard to the fitness of the

occupants, even to girls of immature age. In this manner the

abbey of Port Royal accidentally fell to the lot of one who

was destined by her ardent piety to breathe a new life into

it, and by her indomitable and lofty genius to give it an

undying reputation. Jacqueline Marie Arnauld—better known by

her official name, La Mère Angélique—was appointed abbess of

Port Royal when she was only eight years of age. She was

descended from a distinguished family belonging originally to

the old noblesse of Provence, but which had migrated to

Auvergne and settled there. Of vigorous healthiness, both

mental and physical, the Arnaulds had already acquired a

merited position and name in the annals of France. In the

beginning of the sixteenth century it found its way to Paris

in the person of Antoine Arnauld, Seigneur de la Mothe, the

grandfather of the heroine of Port Royal. … Antoine Arnauld

married the youthful daughter of M. Marion, the

Avocat-general. … The couple had twenty children, and felt, as

may be imagined, the pressure of providing for so many. Out of

this pressure came the remarkable lot of two of the daughters.

The benefices of the Church were a fruitful field of

provision, and the avocat-general, the maternal grandfather of

the children, had large ecclesiastical influence. The result

was the appointment not only of one daughter to the abbey of

Port Royal, but also of a younger sister, Agnes, only six

years of age, to the abbey of St Cyr, about six miles distant

from Port Royal. … At the age of eleven, in the year 1602,

Angélique was installed Abbess of Port Royal. Her sister took

the veil at the age of seven. … The remarkable story of

Angélique's conversion by the preaching of a Capucin friar in

1608, her strange contest with her parents which followed, the

strengthening impulses in different directions which her

religious life received, first from the famous St Francis de

Sales, and finally, and especially, from the no less

remarkable Abbé de St Cyran, all belong to the history of Port

Royal."

J. Tulloch,

Pascal,

chapter 4.

"The numbers at the Port Royal had increased to eighty, and

the situation was so unhealthy that there were many deaths. In

1626 they moved to Paris, and the abbey in the fields remained

for many years deserted. M. Zamet, a pious but not a great

man, for a while had the spiritual charge of the Port Royal,

but in 1634 the abbé of St. Cyran became its director. To his

influence is due the position it took in the coming conflict

of Jansenism, and the effects of his teachings can be seen in

the sisters, and in most of the illustrious recluses who

attached themselves to the monastery. St. Cyran had been an

early associate of Jansenius, whose writings became such a

fire-brand in the Church. As young men they devoted the most

of five years to an intense study of St. Augustine. It is said

Jansenius read all of his works ten times, and thirty times

his treatises against the Pelagians. The two students resolved

to attempt a reformation in the belief of the Church, which

they thought was falling away from many of the tenets of the

father.

{2566}

Jansenius was presently made bishop of Ypres by the Spanish as

a reward for a political tract, but he pursued his studies in

his new bishopric. … In 1640, the Augustinus appeared, in

which the bishop of Ypres sought, by a full reproduction of

the doctrines of St. Augustine, to bring the Church back from

the errors of the Pelagians to the pure and severe tenets of

the great father. The doctrine of grace, the very corner–stone

of the Christian faith, was that which Jansenius labored to

revive. Saint Augustine had taught that, before the fall of

our first parents, man, being in astute of innocence, could of

his own free will do works acceptable to God; but after that

his nature was so corrupted, that no good thing could proceed

from it, save only as divine grace worked upon him. This grace

God gave as He saw fit, working under his eternal decrees, and

man, except as predestined and elected to its sovereign help,

could accomplish no righteous act, and must incur God's just

wrath. But the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians had departed from

this doctrine, and attributed a capacity to please God, to

man's free will and the deeds proceeding from it—a belief

which could but foster his carnal pride and hasten his

damnation. The Jesuits were always desirous to teach religion

so that it could most easily be accepted, and they had

inclined to semi-Pelagian doctrines, rather than to the

difficult truths of St. Augustine. Yet no one questioned his

authority. The dispute was as to the exact interpretation of

his writings. Jansenius claimed to have nothing in his great

book save the very word of Augustine, or its legitimate

result. The Jesuits replied that his writings contained

neither the doctrine of Augustine nor the truth of God. They

appealed to the Pope for the condemnation of these heresies.

Jansenius had died before the publication of his book, but his

followers, who were soon named after him, endeavored to defend

his works from censure. … It was not until 1653 that the

influence of the Jesuits succeeded in obtaining the

condemnation of the offending book. In that year, Innocent X.

issued a bull, by which he condemned as heretical five

propositions contained in the Augustinus. … The members of the

Port Royal adopted the Jansenist cause. Saint Cyran had been a

fellow worker with Jansenius, and he welcomed the Augustinus

as a book to revive and purify the faith of the Church. … The

rigid predestinarianism of Jansen had a natural attraction for

the stern zeal of the Port Royal. The religion of the convent

and of those connected with it bordered on asceticism. They

lived in the constant awe of God, seeking little communion

with the world, and offering to it little compromise. … An

intense and rigorous religious life adopts an intense and

rigorous belief. The Jansenists resembled the English and

American Puritans. They shared their Calvinistic tenets and

their strict morality. A Jansenist, said the Jesuits, is a

Calvinist saying mass. No accusation was more resented by

those of the Jansenist party. They sought no alliance with the

Protestants. Saint Cyran and Arnauld wrote prolifically

against the Calvinists. They were certainly separated from the

latter by their strong devotion to two usages of the Catholic

Church which were especially objectionable to Protestants—the

mass and the confessional. … In 1647, Mother Angelique with

some of the sisters returned to Port Royal in the Fields. The

convent at Paris continued in close relations with it, but the

abbey in the fields was to exhibit the most important phases

of devotional life. Before the return of the sisters, this

desolate spot had begun to be the refuge for many eminent men,

whose careers became identified with the fate of the abbey.

'We saw arrive,' writes one of them, 'from diverse provinces,

men of different professions, who, like mariners that had

suffered shipwreck, came to seck the Port.' M. le Maitre, a

nephew of Mother Angelique, a lawyer of much prominence, a

counsellor of state, a favorite of the chancellor and renowned

for his eloquent harangues, abandoned present prosperity and

future eminence, and in 1638 built a little house, near the

monastery, and became the first of those who might be called

the hermits of the Port Royal. Not taking orders, nor becoming

a member of any religious body, he sought a life of lonely

devotion in this barren place. … Others gradually followed,

until there grew up a community, small in numbers, but strong

in influence, united in study, in penance, in constant praise

and worship. Though held together by no formal vows, few of

those who put hand to the plough turned back from the work.

They left their beloved retreat only when expelled by force,

and with infinite regret. The monastery itself had become

dilapidated. It was surrounded by stagnant waters, and the

woods near by were full of snakes. But the recluses found

religious joy amid this desolation. … As their numbers

increased they did much, however, to improve the desolate

retreat they had chosen. … Some of the recluses cultivated the

ground. Others even made shoes, and the Jesuits dubbed them

the cobblers. They found occupation not only in such labors

and in solitary meditation, but in the more useful work of

giving the young an education that was sound in learning and

grounded in piety. The schools of the Port Royal had a

troubled existence of about fifteen years. Though they rarely

had over fifty pupils, yet in this brief period they left

their mark. Racine, Tillemont, and many others of fruitful

scholarship and piety were among the pupils who were watched

and trained by the grave anchorites with a tender and

fostering care. … The judicious teachers of the Port Royal

taught reading in French, and in many ways did much to improve

the methods of French instruction and scholarship. The

children were thoroughly trained also in Greek and Latin, in

logic and mathematics. Their teachers published admirable

manuals for practical study in many branches. 'They sought,'

says one, 'to render study more agreeable than play or games.'

The jealousy of the Jesuits, who were well aware of the

advantages of controlling the education of the young, at last

obtained the order for the final dispersion of these little

schools, and in 1660 they were closed for ever. Besides these

manuals for teaching, the literature of the Port Royal

comprised many controversial works, chief among them the

forty-two volumes of Arnauld. It furnished also a translation

of the Bible by Saci, which, though far from possessing the

merits of the English version of King James, is one of the

best of the many French translations. But the works of Blaise

Pascal were the great productions of the Port Royal, as he

himself was its chief glory. The famous Provincial Letters

originated from the controversy over Jansenism, though they

soon turned from doctrinal questions to an attack on the

morality of the Jesuits that permanently injured the influence

of that body."

J. B. Perkins,

France under Mazarin,

chapter 20 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

M. A. Schimmelpenninck,

Select Memoirs of Port Royal.

{2567}

PORT ROYAL: A. D. 1702-1715.

Renewed persecution.

Suppression and destruction of the Monastery.

The odious Bull Unigenitus, and its tyrannical enforcement.

"The Jesuits had been for some time at a low ebb, in the

beginning of the 18th century, the Cardinal de Noailles,

Archbishop of Paris, then ruling the King through Madame de

Maintenon, and himself submitting to the direction of Bossuet.

The imprudence of the Jansenists, their indefatigable spirit

of dispute, restored to their enemies the opportunity to

retrieve their position. In 1702, forty Sorbonne doctors

resuscitated the celebrated question of fact concerning the

five propositions of Jansenius, and maintained that, in the

presence of the decisions of the Church on points of fact and

not of dogma, a respectful silence sufficed without internal

acquiescence. Some other propositions of a Jansenistic

tendency accompanied this leading question. Bossuet hastened

to interfere to stifle the matter, and to induce the doctors

to retract. … Thirty-nine doctors retracted out of forty. The

King forbade the publication thenceforth of anything

concerning these matters, but, in his own name, and that of

Philip V. [of Spain, his grandson], entreated Pope Clement XI.

to renew the constitutions of his predecessors against

Jansenism. … Clement XI. responded to the King's wishes by a

Bull which fell in the midst of the assembly of the clergy in

1705. Cardinal de Noailles, who presided, made reservations

against the infallibility of the Church in affairs of fact.

The assembly, animated with a Gallican spirit, accepted the

Bull, but established that the constitutions of the Popes bind

the whole Church only when they have been accepted by the

bodies of the pastors,' and that this acceptance on the part

of the bishops is made 'by way of judgment.' The court of Rome

was greatly offended that the bishops should claim to 'judge'

after it, and this gave rise to long negotiations: the King

induced the bishops to offer to the Pope extenuating

explanations. The Jesuits, however, regained the ascendency at

Versailles, and prepared against Cardinal de Noailles a

formidable engine of war." The Cardinal had given his

approval, some years before, to a work—"Moral Reflections on

the New Testament"—published by Father Quesnel, who

afterwards became a prominent Jansenist. The Jesuits now

procured the condemnation of this work, by the congregation of

the Index, and a decree from the Pope prohibiting it. "This

was a rude assault on Cardinal de Noailles. The decree,

however, was not received in France, through a question of

form, or rather, perhaps, because the King was then

dissatisfied with the Pope, on account of the concessions of

Clement XI. to the House of Austria. The Jansenists gained

nothing thereby. At this very moment, a terrible blow was

about to fall on the dearest and most legitimate object of

their veneration." The nuns of Port-Royal of the Fields having

refused to subscribe to the papal constitution of 1705, the

Pope had subjected them to the Abbess of Port-Royal of Paris,

"who did not share their Augustinian faith (1708). They

resisted. Meanwhile, Father La Chaise [the King's confessor]

died, and Le Tellier succeeded him. The affair was carried to

the most extreme violence. Cardinal de Noailles, a man of pure

soul and feeble character, was persuaded, in order to prove

that he was not a Jansenist, to cruelty, despite himself,

towards the rebellious nuns. They were torn from their

monastery and dispersed through different convents (November,

1709). The illustrious abbey of Port-Royal, hallowed, even in

the eyes of unbelievers, by the name of so many great men, by

the memory of so much virtue, was utterly demolished, by the

order of the lieutenant of police, D'Argenson. Two years

after, as if it were designed to exile even the shades that

haunted the valley, the dead of Port-Royal were exhumed, and

their remains transferred to a village cemetery (at Magny).

Noailles, while he entered into this persecution, took the

same course, nevertheless, as the nuns of Port-Royal, by

refusing to retract the approbation which he had given to the

'Moral Reflections.' Le Tellier caused him to be denounced to

the King. … The King prohibited Quesnel's book by a decree in

council (November 11, 1711), and demanded of the Pope a new

condemnation of this book, in a form that could be received in

France. The reply of Clement XI. was delayed until September

8, 1713; this was the celebrated Unigenitus Bull, the work of

Le Tellier far more than of the Pope, and which, instead of

the general terms of the Bull of 1708, expressly condemned 101

propositions extracted from the 'Moral Reflections.' … The

Bull dared condemn the very words of St. Augustine and of St.

Paul himself; there were propositions, on other matters than

grace, the condemnation of which was and should have been

scandalous, and seemed veritably the triumph of Jesuitism over

Christianity; for example, those concerning the necessity of

the love of God. It had dared to condemn this: 'There is no

God, there is no religion, where there is not charity.' This

was giving the pontifical sanction to the Jesuitical theories

most contrary to the general spirit of Christian theology. It

was the same with the maxims relative to the Holy Scriptures.

The Pope had anathematized the following propositions: 'The

reading of the Holy Scriptures is for all. Christians should

keep the Sabbath-day holy by reading the Scriptures; it is

dangerous to deprive them of these.' And also this: 'The fear

of unjust excommunication should not prevent us from doing our

duty.' This was overturning all political Gallicanism." The

acceptance of the Bull was strongly but vainly resisted. The

King and the King's malignant confessor spared no exercise of

their unbridled power to compel submission to it. "It was

endeavored to stifle by terror public opinion contrary to the

Bull: exiles, imprisonments, were multiplied from day to day."

And still, when Louis XIV. died, on the 1st day of September,

1715, the struggle was not at an end.

H. Martin,

History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,

volume 2, chapter 6.

{2568}

"It is now time that I should say something of the infamous

bull Unigenitus, which by the unsurpassed audacity and

scheming of Father Le Tellier and his friends was forced upon

the Pope and the world. I need not enter into a very lengthy

account of the celebrated Papal decree which has made so many

martyrs, depopulated our schools, introduced ignorance,

fanaticism, and misrule, rewarded vice, thrown the whole

community into the greatest confusion, caused disorder

everywhere, and established the most arbitrary and the most

barbarous inquisition; evils which have doubled within the

last thirty years. I will content myself with a word or two,

and will not blacken further the pages of my Memoirs. … It is

enough to say that the new bull condemned in set terms the

doctrines of St. Paul, … and also those of St. Augustin, and

of other fathers; doctrines which have always been adopted by

the Popes, by the Councils, and by the Church itself. The

bull, as soon as published, met with a violent opposition in

Rome from the cardinals there, who went by sixes, by eights,

and by tens, to complain of it to the Pope. … He protested …

that the publication had been made without his knowledge, and

put off the cardinals with compliments, excuses, and tears,

which last he could always command. The constitution had the

same fate in France as in Rome. The cry against it was

universal."

Duke of Saint Simon,

Memoirs (abridged translation by St. John),

volume 3, chapter 6.

"Jansenism … laid hold upon all ecclesiastical bodies with

very few exceptions, it predominated altogether in theological

literature; all public schools that were not immediately under

the Jesuits, or, as in Spain, under the Inquisition, held

Jansenist opinions, at least so far as the majority of their

theologians were concerned. In Rome itself this teaching was

strongly represented amongst the cardinals." Fenelon declared

"that nobody knew—now that the controversy and the

condemnations had gone on for sixty years—in what the

erroneous doctrine exactly consisted; for the Roman court

stuck fast to the principle of giving no definition of what

ought to be believed, so that the same doctrine which it

apparently rejected in one form, was unhesitatingly accepted

at Rome itself when expressed in other though synonymous

terms. … The same thing which under one name was condemned,

was under another, as the teaching of the Thomists or

Augustinians, declared to be perfectly orthodox. … Just

because nobody could tell in what sense such propositions as

those taken from the works of Jansenius or Quesnel were to be

rejected, did they become valuable; for the whole question was

turned into one of blind obedience and submission, without

previous investigation. The Jesuit D'Aubenton, who as

Tellier's agent in Rome had undertaken to procure that the

passages selected from Quesnel's book should be condemned,

repeatedly informed his employer that at Rome everything

turned upon the papal infallibility; to get this passed whilst

the king was ready to impose, by force of arms, upon the

bishops and clergy the unquestioning acceptance of the papal

constitution, was the only object."

J. I. von Döllinger,

Studies in European History,

chapter 12.

ALSO IN:

W. H. Jarvis,

History of the Church of France,

volume 2, chapters 5-7.

F. Rocquain,

The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,

chapter 1.

----------PORT ROYAL: End--------

----------PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: Start--------

PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: A. D. 1603-1613.

Settled by the French, and destroyed by the English.

See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605; 1606-1608; and 1610-1613.

PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: A. D. 1690.

Taken by an expedition from Massachusetts.

See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: A. D. 1691.

Recovered by the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1692-1697.

PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: A. D. 1710.

Final conquest by the English and

change of name to Annapolis Royal.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

----------PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: End--------

PORT ROYAL EXPEDITION, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

PORTCHESTER, Origin of.

See PORTUS MAGNUS.

PORTE, The Sublime.

See SUBLIME PORTE;

also PHARAOH.

PORTEOUS RIOT, The.

See EDINBURGH: A. D. 1736.

PORTER, Admiral David D.:

Capture of New Orleans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

Second attempt against Vicksburg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

PORTICO, The Athenian, Suppression of.

See ATHENS: A. D. 529.

PORTLAND MINISTRY, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.

PORTO NOVO, Battle of (1781).

See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.

PORTO RICO: Discovery by Columbus (1493).

See AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.

PORTO VENERE, Naval Battle of (1494).

See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

PORTOBELLO: A. D. 1668.

Capture by the Buccaneers.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

PORTOBELLO: A. D. 1740.

Capture by Admiral Vernon.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

PORTOLONGO, or Sapienza, Battle of (1354).

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

----------PORTUGAL: Start--------

PORTUGAL:

Early history.

Mistaken identification with ancient Lusitania.

Roman, Gothic, Moorish and Spanish conquests.

The county of Henry of Burgundy.

"The early history of the country, which took the name of

Portugal from the county which formed the nucleus of the

future kingdom, is identical with that of the rest of the

Iberian peninsula, but deserves some slight notice because of

an old misconception, immortalized in the title of the famous

epic of Camoens, and not yet entirely eradicated even from

modern ideas. Portugal, like the rest of the peninsula, was

originally inhabited by men of the prehistoric ages. … There

seems to be no doubt that the Celts, the first Aryan

immigrants, were preceded by a non-Aryan race, which is called

by different writers the Iberian or Euskaldunac nation, but

this earlier race speedily amalgamated with the Celts, and out

of the two together were formed the five tribes inhabiting the

Iberian peninsula, which Strabo names as the Cantabrians, the

Vasconians, the Asturians, the Gallicians and the Lusitanians.

It is Strabo, also, who mentions the existence of Greek

colonies at the mouth of the Tagus, Douro, and Minho, and it

is curious to note that the old name of Lisbon, Olisipo, was

from the earliest times identified with that of the hero of

the Odyssey, and was interpreted to mean the city of Ulysses.

…

{2569}

The Carthaginians, though they had colonies all over the

peninsula, established their rule mainly over the south and

east of it, having their capital at Carthagena or Nova

Carthago, and seem to have neglected the more barbarous

northern and western provinces. It was for this reason that

the Romans found far more difficulty in subduing these latter

provinces. … In 189 B. C. Lucius Æmilius Paullus defeated the

Lusitanians, and in 185 B. C. Gaius Calpurnius forced his way

across the Tagus. There is no need here to discuss the gradual

conquest by the Romans of that part of the peninsula which

includes the modern kingdom of Portugal, but it is necessary

to speak of the gallant shepherd Viriathus, who sustained a

stubborn war against the Romans from 149 B. C. until he was

assassinated in 139 B. C., because he has been generally

claimed as the first national hero of Portugal. This claim has

been based upon the assumed identification of the modern

Portugal with the ancient Lusitania [see LUSITANIA, an

identification which has spread its roots deep in Portuguese

literature, and has until recently been generally accepted. …

The Celtic tribe of Lusitanians dwelt, according to Strabo, in

the districts north of the Tagus, while the Lusitania of the

Latin historians of the Republic undoubtedly lay to the south

of that river, though it was not used as the name of a

province until the time of Augustus, when the old division of

the peninsula into Hispania Citerior and Hispania Ulterior was

superseded by the division into Betica, Tarraconensis, and

Lusitania. Neither in this division, nor in the division of

the peninsula into the five provinces of Tarraconensis,

Carthaginensis, Betica, Lusitania, and Gallicia, under

Hadrian, was the province called Lusitania coterminous with

the modern kingdom of Portugal. Under each division the name

was given to a district south of the Tagus. … It is important

to grasp the result of this misconception, for it emphasizes

the fact that the history of Portugal for many centuries is

merged in that of the rest of the Iberian peninsula, and

explains why it is unnecessary to study the wars of the

Lusitanians with the Roman Republic, as is often done in

histories of Portugal. Like the rest of the peninsula Portugal

was thoroughly Latinized in the days of the Roman Empire;

Roman 'coloniæ', and 'municipia' were established in places

suited for trade, such as Lisbon and Oporto. … Peaceful

existence under the sway of Rome continued until the beginning

of the 5th century, when the Goths first forced their way

across the Pyrenees. …

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.

The Visigothic Empire left but slight traces in Portugal." The

Mohammedan conquest by the Arab-Moors, which began early in

the 8th century, extended to Portugal, and for a general

account of the struggle in the peninsula between Christians

and Moslems during several succeeding centuries the reader is

referred to SPAIN: A. D. 711-713, and after. "In 997 Bermudo

II., king of Gallicia, won back the first portion of modern

Portugal from the Moors by seizing Oporto and occupying the

province now known as the Entre Minho e Douro. … In 1055

Ferdinand 'the Great,' king of Leon, Castile, and Gallicia,

invaded the Beira; in 1057 he took Lamego and Viseu; and in

1064 Coimbra, where he died in the following year. He arranged

for the government of his conquests in the only way possible

under the feudal system, by forming them into a county,

extending to the Mondego, with Coimbra as its capital. The

first count of Coimbra was Sesnando, a recreant Arab vizir,

who had advised Ferdinand to invade his district and had

assisted in its easy conquest. … But though Sesnando's county

of Coimbra was the great frontier county of Gallicia, and the

most important conquest of Ferdinand 'the Great,' it was not

thence that the kingdom which was to develop out of his

dominions was to take its name. Among the counties of Gallicia

was one called the 'comitatus Portucalensis,' because it

contained within its boundaries the famous city at the mouth

of the Douro, known in Roman and Greek times as the Portus

Cale, and in modern days as Oporto, or 'The Port.' This county

of Oporto or Portugal was the one destined to give its name to

the future kingdom, and was held at the time of Ferdinand's

death by Nuno Mendes, the founder of one of the most famous

families in Portuguese history. Ferdinand 'the Great' was

succeeded in his three kingdoms of Castile, Leon, and

Gallicia, by his three sons, Sancho, Alfonso, and Garcia, the

last of whom received the two counties of Coimbra and Oporto

as fiefs of Gallicia, and maintained Nuno Mendes and Sesnando

as his feudatories." Wars between the three sons ensued, as

the result of which "the second of them, Alfonso of Leon,

eventually united all his father's kingdoms in 1073, as

Alfonso VI." This Alfonso was now called upon to encounter a

new impulse of Mohammedan aggression, under a new dynasty,

that of the Almoravides

See ALMORAVIDES.

"The new dynasty collected great Moslem armies, and in 1086

Yusuf Ibn Teshfin routed Alfonso utterly at the battle of

Zalaca, and reconquered the peninsula up to the Ebro. …

Alfonso tried to compensate for this defeat and his loss of

territory in the east of his dominions by conquests in the

west, and in 1093 he advanced to the Tagus and took Santarem

and Lisbon, and made Sueiro Mendes, count of the new district.

But these conquests he did not hold for long. … In 1093 Seyr,

the general of the Almoravide caliph Yusuf, took Evora from

the Emir of Badajoz; in 1094 he took Badajoz itself, and

killed the emir; and retaking Lisbon and Santarem forced his

way up to the Mondego. To resist this revival of the

Mohammedan power, Alfonso summoned the chivalry of Christendom

to his aid. Among the knights who joined his army eager to win

their spurs, and win dominions for themselves, were Count

Raymond of Toulouse and Count Henry of Burgundy. To the

former, Alfonso gave his legitimate daughter, Urraca, and

Gallicia; to the latter, his illegitimate daughter Theresa,

and the counties of Oporto and Coimbra, with the title of

Count of Portugal. The history of Portugal now becomes

distinct from that of the rest of the peninsula, and it is

from the year 1095 that the history of Portugal commences. The

son of Henry of Burgundy was the great monarch Affonso

Henriques, the hero of his country and the founder of a great

dynasty."

H. M. Stephens,

The Story of Portugal,

chapter 1.

{2570}

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

The county made independent and raised to the rank of a kingdom.

Completion of conquests from the Moors.

Limits of the kingdom established.

Count Henry of Burgundy waged war for seven years with his

Moorish neighbors; then went crusading to Palestine for two

years. On his return in 1105 he made common cause with his

brother-in-law and brother-adventurer, Count Raymond of

Gallicia, against the suspected intention of King Alfonso to

declare his bastard, half-Moorish son, Sancho, the heir to his

dominions. "This peaceful arrangement had no result, owing to

the death of Count Raymond in 1107, followed by that of young

Sancho at the battle of Uclés with the Moors, in 1108, and

finally by the death of Alfonso VI. himself in 1109. The

king's death brought about the catastrophe. He left all his

dominions to his legitimate daughter, Urraca, with the result

that there was five years of fierce fighting between Henry of

Burgundy, Alfonso Raimundes, the son of Count Raymond, Alfonso

I. of Aragon, and Queen Urraca. … While they fought with each

other the Mohammedans advanced. … On May 1, 1114, Count Henry

died, … leaving his wife Theresa as regent during the minority

of his son Affonso Henriques, who was but three years old.

Theresa, who made the ancient city of Guimaraens her capital,

devoted all her energies to building up her son's dominions

into an independent state; and under her rule, while the

Christian states of Spain were torn by internecine war, the

Portuguese began to recognize Portugal as their country, and

to cease from calling themselves Gallicians. This distinction

between Portugal and Gallicia was the first step towards the

formation of a national spirit, which grew into a desire for

national independence." The regency of Theresa, during which

she was engaged in many contests, with her half-sister Urraca

and others, ended in 1128. In the later years of it she

provoked great discontent by her infatuation with a lover to

whom she was passionately devoted. In the end, her son headed

a revolt which expelled her from Portugal. The son, Affonso

Henriques, assumed the reins of government at the age of

seventeen years. In 1130 he began a series of wars with

Alfonso VII. of Castile, the aim of which was to establish the

independence of Portugal. These wars were ended in 1140 by an

agreement, "in consonance with the ideas of the times, to

refer the great question of Portuguese Independence to a

chivalrous contest. In a great tournament, known as the

Tourney of Valdevez, the Portuguese knights were entirely

successful over those of Castile, and in consequence of their

victory Affonso Henriques assumed the title of King of

Portugal. This is the turning-point of Portuguese history, and

it is a curious fact that the independence of Portugal from

Gallicia was achieved by victory in a tournament and not in

war. Up to 1136, Affonso Henriques had styled himself Infante,

in imitation of the title borne by his mother; from 1136 to

1140 he styled himself Principe, and in 1140 he first took the

title of King." A little before this time, on the 25th of

July, 1139, Affonso had defeated the Moors in a famous and

much magnified battle—namely that of Orik or Ourique—"which,

until modern investigators examined the facts, has been

considered to have laid the foundations of the independence of

Portugal. Chroniclers, two centuries after the battle,

solemnly asserted that five kings were defeated on this

occasion, that 200,000 Mohammedans were slain, and that after

the victory the Portuguese soldiers raised Affonso on their

shields and hailed him as king. This story is absolutely

without authority from contemporary chronicles, and is quite

as much a fiction as the Cortes of Lamego, which has been

invented as sitting in 1143 and passing the constitutional

laws on which Vertot and other writers have expended so much

eloquence. … It was not until the modern school of historians

arose in Portugal, which examined documents and did not take

the statements of their predecessors on trust, that it was

clearly pointed out that Affonso Henriques won his crown by

his long struggle with his Christian cousin, and not by his

exploits against the Moors."

H. M. Stephens,

The Story of Portugal,

chapters 2-3.

"The long reign of Affonso I., an almost uninterrupted period

of war, is the most brilliant epoch in the history of the

Portuguese conquests. Lisbon, which had already under its

Moorish masters become the chief city of the west, was taken

in 1147, and became at once the capital of the new kingdom.

The Tagus itself was soon passed. Large portions of the modern

Estremadura and Alemtejo were permanently annexed. The distant

provinces of Algarve and Andalucia were overrun; and even

Seville trembled at the successes of the Portuguese. It was in

vain that Moorish vessels sailed from Africa to chastise the

presumption of their Christian foes; their ships were routed

off Lisbon by the vessels of Affonso; their armies were

crushed by a victory at Santarem [1184], the last, and perhaps

the most glorious of the many triumphs of the King. … Every

conquest saw the apportionment of lands to be held by military

tenure among the conquerors; and the Church, which was here

essentially a militant one, received not only an endowment for

its religion but a reward for its sword. The Orders of St.

Michael and of Avis [St. Benedict of Avis] which were founded

had a religious as well as a military aspect. Their members

were to be distinguished by their piety not less than by their

courage, and were to emulate the older brotherhoods of

Jerusalem and of Castile. … Sancho I. [who succeeded his

father Affonso in 1185], though not adverse to military fame,

endeavoured to repair his country's wounds; and his reign, the

complement of that of Affonso, was one of development rather

than of conquest. … The surname of El Povoador, the Founder,

is the indication of his greatest work. New towns and villages

arose, new wealth and strength were given to the rising

country. Affonso II. [1211] continued what Sancho had begun;

and the enactment of laws, humane and wise, are a testimony of

progress, and an honourable distinction to his reign." But

Affonso II. provoked the hostility of an arrogant and too

powerful clergy, and drew upon himself a sentence of

excommunication from Rome. "The divisions and the weakness

which were caused by the contest between the royal and

ecclesiastical authority brought misery upon the kingdom. The

reign of Sancho II. [who succeeded to the throne in 1223] was

more fatally influenced by them even than that of his father.

… The now familiar terrors of excommunication and interdict

were followed [1245] by a sentence of deposition from Innocent

IV.; and Sancho, weak in character, and powerless before a

hostile priesthood and a disaffected people, retired to end

his days in a cloister of Castile. The successor to Sancho was

Affonso III.

{2571}

He had intrigued for his brother's crown; he had received the

support of the priesthood, and he had promised them their

reward in the extension of their privileges"; but his

administration of the government was wise and popular. He died

in 1279. "The first period of the history of Portugal is now

closed. Up to this time, each reign, disturbed and enfeebled

though it may have been, had added something to the extent of

the country. But now the last conquest from the Moors had been

won. On the south, the impassable barrier of the ocean; on the

east, the dominions of Castile, confined the kingdom. … The

crusading days were over. … The reign of Denis, who ruled from

1279 to 1325, is at once the parallel to that of Affonso I. in

its duration and importance, the contrast to it in being a

period of internal progress instead of foreign conquest. …

That Denis should have been able to accomplish as much as he

did, was the wonder even of his own age. … Successive reigns

still found the country progressing."

C. F. Johnstone,

Historical Abstracts,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

E. McMurdo,

History of Portugal,

volume 1, books 1-4,

and volume 2, book 1.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385.

The founding of the new dynasty, of the House of Avis.

"The legitimate descent of the kings of Portugal from Count

Henry, of the house of Burgundy, terminated with Ferdinand

(the son of Peter I.) … in 1383. After wasting the resources

of his people in the vain support of his claims to the crown

of Castile, exposing Lisbon to a siege, and the whole country

to devastation, this monarch gave his youthful daughter in

marriage to the natural enemy of Portugal, John I., at that

time the reigning king of Castile. … It was agreed between the

contracting parties that the male issue of this connection

should succeed to the Portuguese sceptre, and, that failing,

that it should devolve into the hands of the Castilian

monarch. Fortunately, however, the career of this Spanish

tyrant was short, and no issue was left of Beatrix, for whom

the crown of Portugal could be claimed; and therefore all the

just pretensions of the Spaniard ceased. The marriage had

scarcely been concluded, when Ferdinand died. It had been

provided by the laws of the constitution, that in a case of

emergency, such as now occurred, the election of a new

sovereign should immediately take place. The legal heir to the

crown, Don Juan [the late king's brother], the son of Pedro

and Ignes de Castro, whose marriage had been solemnly

recognised by an assembly of the states, was a prisoner at

this time in the hands of his rival, the king of Castile. The

necessity of having a head to the government appointed without

delay, opened the road to the throne for John, surnamed the

Bastard, the natural son of Don Pedro, by Donna Theresa

Lorenzo, a Galician lady. Availing himself of the natural

aversion by which the Portuguese were influenced against the

Castilians, he seized the regency from the hands of the

queen-dowager, … successfully defended Lisbon, and forced the

Spaniards to retire into Spain after their memorable defeat on

the plain of Aljubarota. … This battle … completely

established the independence of the Portuguese monarchy. John

was, in consequence, unanimously elected King by the Cortes,

assembled at Coimbra in 1385. … In aid of his natural talents

John I. had received an excellent education from his father,

and during his reign exhibited proofs of being a profound

politician, as well as a skilful general. … He became the

founder of a new dynasty of kings, called the house of 'Avis,'

from his having been grand master of that noble order. The

enterprises, however, of the great Prince Henry, a son of

John I., form a distinguishing feature of this reign."

W. M. Kinsey,

Portugal Illustrated,

pages 34-35.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.

The taking of Ceuta.

The exploring expeditions of Prince Henry the Navigator

down the African coast.

"King John [the First] had married an English wife, Philippa

Plantagenet—a grand-daughter of our King Edward III.,

thoroughly English, too, on her mother's side, and not without

a dash of Scottish blood, for her great-great-grandmother was

a Comyn of Broghan. King John of Portugal was married to his

English wife for twenty-eight years, they had five noble sons

and a daughter (who was Duchess of Burgundy and mother of

Charles the Bold); and English habits and usages were adopted

at the Portuguese Court. We first meet with Prince Henry and

his brothers, Edward and Peter, at the bed-side of their

English mother. The king had determined to attack Ceuta, the

most important seaport on the Moorish coast; and the three

young princes were to receive knighthood if they bore

themselves manfully, and if the place was taken. Edward, the

eldest, was twenty-four, Peter twenty-three, and Henry just

twenty-one. He was born on March 4th, 1394. There were two

other brothers, John and Ferdinand, but they were still too

young to bear arms. Their mother had caused three swords to be

made with which they were to be girt as knights; and the great

fleet was being assembled at Lisbon. But the Queen was taken

ill, and soon there was no hope. Husband and sons gathered

round her death-bed. When very near her end she asked: 'How is

the wind?' she was told that it was northerly. 'Then,' she

said, 'You will all sail for Ceuta on the feast of St. James.'

A few minutes afterwards she died, and husband and sons sailed

for Ceuta on St. James's day, the 25th of July, 1415,

according to her word. … Ceuta was taken after a desperate

fight. It was a memorable event, for the town never again

passed into the hands of the Moors unto this day. … From the

time of this Ceuta expedition Prince Henry set his mind

steadfastly on the discovery of Guinea and on the promotion of

commercial enterprise. During his stay at Ceuta he collected

much information respecting the African coast. … His first

objects were to know what was beyond the farthest cape

hitherto reached on the coast of Africa, to open commercial

relations with the people, and to extend the Christian faith.

Prince Henry had the capacity for taking trouble. He undertook

the task, and he never turned aside from it until he died. To

be close to his work he came to live on the promontory of

Sagres, near Cape St. Vincent, and not far from the seaport of

Lagos. He was twenty-four years old when he came to live at

this secluded spot, in December, 1418; and he died there in

his sixty-seventh year. … He established a school at Sagres

for the cultivation of map-drawing and the science of

navigation. At great expense he procured the services of

Mestre Jacome from Majorca, a man very learned in the art of

navigation, as it was then understood, and he erected an

observatory. …

{2572}

My readers will remember that during the time of the Crusades

a great order of knighthood was established, called the

Templars, which became very rich and powerful, and held vast

estates in most of the countries of Europe. At last the kings

became jealous of their prosperity and, in the days of our

Edward II. and of the French Philip IV., their wealth was

confiscated, and the order of Knights Templars was abolished

in all countries except Portugal. But King Dionysius of

Portugal refused either to rob the knights or to abolish the

order. In the year 1319 he reformed the order, and changed the

name, calling it the Order of Christ, and he encircled the

white cross of the Templars with a red cross as the future

badge of the knights. They retained their great estates.

Prince Henry was appointed, by his father, Grand Master of the

Order of Christ in the year 1419. He could imagine no nobler

nor more worthy employment for the large revenues of the Order

than the extension of geographical discovery. Thus were the

funds for his costly expeditions supplied by the Order of

Chivalry of which he was Grand Master. When Prince Henry first

began to send forth expeditions along the coast of Africa, the

farthest point to the southward that had been sighted was Cape

Bojador. The discovery of the extreme southern point of

Africa, and of a way thence to India, was looked upon then

exactly as the discovery of the North Pole is now. Fools asked

what was the use of it. Half-hearted men said it was

impossible. Officials said it was impractical. Nevertheless,

Prince Henry said that it could be done, and that, moreover it

should be done. … In 1434 he considered that the time had come

to round Cape Bojador. He selected for the command of the

expedition an esquire of his household named Gil Eannes, who

was accompanied by John Diaz, an experienced seaman of a

seafaring family at Lagos, many of whose members became

explorers. Prince Henry told them that the current which they

feared so much was strongest at a distance of about three to

five miles from the land. He ordered them, therefore, to stand

out boldly to sea. 'It was a place before terrible to all

men,' but the Prince told them that they must win fame and

honour by following his instructions. They did so, rounded the

Cape, and landed on the other side. There they set up a wooden

cross as a sign of their discovery. … The Prince now equipped

a larger vessel than had yet been sent out, called a varinel,

propelled by oars as well as sails. Many were the eager

volunteers among the courtiers at Sagres. Prince Henry's

cup-bearer, named Alfonso Gonsalves Baldaya, was selected to

command the expedition, and Gil Eannes—he who first doubled

Cape Bojador—went with it in a smaller vessel. … They sailed

in the year 1436, and, having rounded Cape Bojador without any

hesitation, they proceeded southward along the coast for 120

miles, until they reached an estuary called by them Rio

d'Ouro. … During the five following years Prince Henry was

much engaged in State affairs. The disastrous expedition to

Tangiers took place, and the imprisonment of his young brother

Ferdinand by the Moors, whose noble resignation under cruel

insults and sufferings until he died at Fez, won for him the

title of the 'Constant Prince.' But in 1441 Prince Henry was

able to resume the despatch of vessels of discovery. In that

year he gave the command of a small ship to his master of the

wardrobe, Antam Gonsalves. … He [Gonsalves] was followed in

the same year by Nuno Tristram. … Tristram discovered a

headland which, from its whiteness, he named Cape Blanco. …

The next discovery was that of the island of Arguin, south of

Cape Blanco, which was first visited in 1443 by Nuño Tristram

in command of a caravel. … The next voyage of discovery was

one of great importance, because it passed the country of the

Moors, and, for the first time, entered the land of the

Negroes. Dinis Diaz, who was selected for this enterprise by

the Prince, sailed in 1446 with the resolution of beating all

his predecessors. He passed the mouth of the river Senegal,

and was surprised at finding that the people on the north bank

were Moors, while to the south they were all blacks; of a

tribe called Jaloffs. Diaz went as far as a point which he

called Cabo Verde. In the following years several expeditions,

under Lanzarote and others, went to Arguin and the Senegal;

until, in 1455, an important voyage under Prince Henry's

patronage was undertaken by a young Venetian named Alvise

(Luigi) Cadamosto. … They sailed on March 22, 1455, and went

first to Porto Santo and Madeira. From the Canary Islands they

made sail for Cape Blanco, boldly stretching across the

intervening sea and being for some time quite out of sight of

land. Cadamosto had a good deal of intercourse with the

Negroes to the south of the Senegal, and eventually reached

the mouth of the Gambia whence he set out on his homeward

voyage. The actual extent of the discoveries made during the

life of Prince Henry was from Cape Bojador to beyond the mouth

of the Gambia. But this was only a small part of the great

service he performed, not only for his own country, but for

the whole civilised world. He organised discovery, trained up

a generation of able explorers, so that from his time progress

was continuous and unceasing. … Prince Henry, who was to be

known to all future generations as 'the Navigator,' died at

the age of sixty-six at Sagres, on Thursday, the 13th of

November, 1460."

C. R. Markham,

The Sea Fathers,

chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

R. H. Major,

Life of Prince Henry of Portugal, the Navigator.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498.

The Pope's gift of title to African discoveries.

Slow southward progress of exploration.

The rounding of the Cape of Good Hope.

Vasco da Gama's voyage.

"In order to secure his triumphs, Prince Henry procured a bull

from Pope Eugenius IV., which guaranteed to the Portuguese all

their discoveries between Cape Nun, in Morocco, and India.

None of his commanders approached within six or eight degrees

of the equator. … By the year 1472, St. Thomas, Annobon, and

Prince's Islands were added to the Portuguese discoveries, and

occupied by colonists; and at length the equator was crossed.

Fernando Po having given his name to an island in the Bight of

Biafra, acquired possession of 500 leagues of equatorial

coast, whence the King of Portugal took the title of Lord of

Guinea. The subsequent divisions of this territory into the

Grain Coast, named from the cochineal thence obtained, and

long thought to be the seed of a plant, Gold Coast, Ivory

Coast, and Slave Coast, indicate by their names the nature of

the products of those lands, and the kind of traffic.

{2573}

Under King John II., after an inactive period of eight or ten

years, Diego Cam (1484) pushed forward fearlessly to latitude

22° south, erecting at intervals on the shore, pillars of

stone, which asserted the rights of his sovereign to the

newly-found land. For the first time, perhaps, in history, men

had now sailed under a new firmament. They lost sight of a

part of the old celestial constellations, and were awe-struck

with the splendours of the Southern Cross, and hosts of new

stars. Each successive commander aimed at outdoing the deeds

of his predecessor. Imaginary perils, which had frightened

former sailors, spurred the Portuguese to greater daring.

Bartholomew Diaz, in 1486, was sent in command of an

expedition of three ships, with directions to sail till he

reached the southernmost headland of Africa. Creeping on from

cape to cape, he passed the furthest point touched by Diego

Cam, and reached about 29° south latitude. Here driven out of

his course by rough weather, he was dismayed on again making

land to find the coast trending northward. He had doubled the

Cape without knowing it, and only found it out on returning,

disheartened by the results of his voyage. Raising the banner

of St. Philip on the shore of Table Bay, Diaz named the

headland the Cape of Tempests, which the king, with the

passage to India in mind, changed to that of the Cape of Good

Hope. By a curious coincidence, in the same year Covillan [see

ABYSSINIA: 15-19TH CENTURIES] … learnt the fact that the Cape

of Good Hope, the Lion of the Sea, or the Head of Africa,

could be reached across the Indian Ocean."

J. Yeats,

Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,

part 2, chapter 4.

"Pedro de Covilho had sent word to King John II., from Cairo,

by two Jews, Rabbi Abraham and Rabbi Joseph, that there was a

south cape of Africa which could be doubled. They brought with

them an Arabic map of the African coast. … Covilho had learned

from the Arabian mariners, who were perfectly familiar with

the east coast, that they had frequently been at the south of

Africa, and that there was no difficulty in passing round the

continent that way. … Vasco de Gama set sail July 9, 1497,

with three ships and 160 men, having with him the Arab map.

King John had employed his Jewish physicians, Roderigo and

Joseph, to devise what help they could from the stars. They

applied the astrolabe to marine use, and constructed tables.

These were the same doctors who had told him that Columbus

would certainly succeed in reaching India, and advised him to

send out a secret expedition in anticipation, which was

actually done, though it failed through want of resolution in

its captain. Encountering the usual difficulties, tempestuous

weather and a mutinous crew, who conspired to put him to

death, De Gama succeeded, November 20, in doubling the Cape.

On March 1 he met seven small Arab vessels, and was surprised

to find that they used the compass, quadrants, sea-charts, and

'had divers maritime mysteries not short of the Portugals.'

With joy he soon after recovered sight of the northern stars,

for so long unseen. He now bore away to the north-east, and on

May 19, 1498, reached Calicut, on the Malabar coast. The

consequences of this voyage were to the last degree important.

The commercial arrangements of Europe were completely

dislocated; Venice was deprived of her mercantile supremacy

[see VENICE: 15-17TH CENTURIES]; the hatred of Genoa was

gratified; prosperity left the Italian towns; Egypt, hitherto

supposed to possess a pre-eminent advantage as offering the

best avenue to India, suddenly lost her position; the

commercial monopolies so long in the hands of the European

Jews were broken down. The discovery of America and passage of

the Cape were the first steps of that prodigious maritime

development soon exhibited by Western Europe. And since

commercial prosperity is forthwith followed by the production

of men and concentration of wealth, and, moreover, implies an

energetic intellectual condition, it appeared before long that

the three centres of population, of wealth, of intellect, were

shifting westwardly. The front of Europe was suddenly changed;

the British Islands, hitherto in a sequestered and eccentric

position, were all at once put in the van of the new

movement."

J. W. Draper,

History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,

chapter 19.

ALSO IN:

G. Correa,

The Three Voyages of Vasco da Gama

(Hakluyt Society, 1869).

J. Fiske,

The Discovery of America,

chapter 4 (volume l).

G. M. Towle,

Voyages and Adventures of Vasco da Gama.

See, also, SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1474-1476.

Interference in Castile.

Defeat at Toro.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1490.

Alliance with Castile and Aragon in the conquest of Granada.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1493.

The Pope's division of discoveries in the New World.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1493.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1494.

The Treaty of Tordesillas.

Amended partition of the New World with Spain.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1494.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1495.

Persecution and expulsion of Jews.

See JEWS: 8-15TH CENTURIES.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1498-1580.

Trade and settlements in the East Indies.

See INDIA; A. D. 1498-1580.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1500-1504.

Discovery, exploration and first settlement of Brazil.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514; and 1503-1504.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1501.

Early enterprise in the Newfoundland fisheries.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1510-1549.

Colonization of Brazil.

See BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1524.

Disputes with Spain in the division of the New World.

The Congress at Badajos.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.

Disastrous invasion of Morocco by Sebastian.

His death in battle.

Disputed succession to the throne.

The claim of Philip II. of Spain established by force of arms.

"Under a long succession of Kings who placed their glory in

promoting the commerce of their subjects and extending their

discoveries through the remotest regions of the globe,

Portugal had attained a degree of importance among the

surrounding nations, from which the narrow limits of the

kingdom, and the neighbourhood of the Spanish monarchy, seemed

for ever to exclude her. … John III., the last of those great

monarchs under whose auspices the boundaries of the known

world had been enlarged, was succeeded in the throne of

Portugal [1557] by his grandson Sebastian, a child of only

three years old.

{2574}

As the royal infant advanced to manhood, his subjects might,

without flattery, admire his sprightly wit, his manly form,

his daring spirit, and his superior address, in all the

accomplishments of a martial age. But the hopes which these

splendid qualities inspired were clouded by an intemperate

thirst of fame. … He had early cherished the frantic project

of transporting a royal army to India, and of rivalling the

exploits of Alexander; but from this design he was diverted,

not by the difficulties that opposed it, nor by the

remonstrances of his counsellors, but by the distractions of

Africa, which promised to his ambition a nearer and fairer

harvest of glory. On the death of Abdalla, King of Morocco,

his son, Muley Mahomet, had seized upon the crown, in contempt

to an established law of succession, that the kingdom should

devolve to the brother of the deceased monarch. A civil war

ensued, and Mahomet, defeated in several battles, was

compelled to leave his uncle Muley Moluc, a prince of great

abilities and virtues, in possession of the throne." Mahomet

escaped to Lisbon, and Sebastian espoused his cause. He

invaded Morocco [see MAROCCO: THE ARAB CONQUEST AND SINCE]

with a force partly supplied by his uncle, Philip II.; of

Spain, and partly by the Prince of Orange, engaged the Moors

rashly in battle (the battle of Alcazar, or the Three Kings,

1579), and perished on the field, his army being mostly

destroyed or made captive. "An aged and feeble priest was the

immediate heir to the unfortunate Sebastian; and the Cardinal

Henry, the great uncle to the late monarch, ascended the

vacant throne." He enjoyed his royal dignity little more than

a twelvemonth, dying in 1580, leaving the crown in dispute

among a crowd of claimants.

History of Spain,

chapter 22 (volume 2).

"The candidates were seven in number: the duchess of Braganza,

the king of Spain, the duke of Savoy, Don Antonio, prior of

Crato, the duke of Parma, Catherine of Medicis, and the

sovereign pontiff. The four first were grand-children of

Emanuel the Great, father of Henry. The duchess of Braganza

was daughter of Prince Edward, Emanuel's second son; Philip

was the son of the Empress Isabella, his eldest daughter; the

duke of Savoy, of Beatrix, his younger daughter; and Don

Antonio was a natural son of Lewis, who was a younger son of

Emanuel, and brother to the present king [cardinal Henry]. The

duke of Parma was great–grandson of Emanuel, by a daughter of

the above-mentioned Prince Edward. The Queen-mother of France

founded her claim on her supposed descent from Alphonso III.,

who died about 300 years before the present period; and the

Pope pretended that Portugal was feudatory to the see of Rome,

and belonged to him, since the male heirs in the direct line

were extinct." The other candidates held small chances against

the power and convenient neighborhood of Philip of Spain.

"Philip's agents at the court of Lisbon allowed that if the

duchess of Braganza's father had been alive, his title would

have been indisputable; but they maintained that, since he had

died without attaining possession of the throne, nothing but

the degree of consanguinity to Emanuel ought to be regarded;

and that, as the duchess and he were equal in that respect,

the preference was due to a male before a female. And they

farther insisted, that the law which excludes strangers from

inheriting the crown was not applicable to him, since Portugal

had formerly belonged to the kings of Castile." Promptly on

the death of the cardinal-king Henry, the Spanish king sent an

army of 35,000 men, under the famous duke of Alva, and a large

fleet under the Marquis of Santa Croce, to take possession of

what he claimed as his inheritance. Two battles sufficed for

the subjugation of Portugal:—one fought on the Alcantara,

August 25, 1580, and the other a little later on the Douro.

The kingdom submitted, but with bitter feelings, which the

conduct of Alva and his troops had intensified at every step

of their advance. "The colonies in America, Africa, and the

Indies, which belonged to the crown of Portugal, quickly

followed the example of the mother country; nor did Philip

find employment for his arms in any part of the Portuguese

dominions but the Azores," which, supported by the French,

were not subdued until the following year.

R. Watson,

History of the Reign of Philip II.,

book 16.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1594-1602.

Beginning of the rivalry of the Dutch in East India trade.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1624-1661.

War with the Dutch.

Loss and recovery of parts of Brazil.

See BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

Crisis of discontent with the Spanish rule.

A successful revolution.

National independence recovered.

The House of Braganza placed on the throne.

"A spirit of dissatisfaction had long been growing amongst the

Portugueze. Their colonies were neglected; a great part of

Brazil, and a yet larger portion of their Indian empire, had

fallen into the hands of the Dutch; Ormus, and their other

possessions in the Persian Gulph, had been conquered by the

Persians; their intercourse with their remaining colonies was

harassed and intercepted; their commerce with the independent

Indian states, with China and with Japan, was here injured and

there partially destroyed, by the enterprising merchants and

mariners of Holland; whilst at home the privileges secured to

them as the price of their submission, were hourly, if not

flagrantly, violated by their Spanish masters. The illegal

imposition of a new tax by the king's sole authority, in 1637,

had provoked a partial revolt in the southern provinces, where

the duke of Braganza, grandson of Catherine [whose right to

the throne was forcibly put aside by Philip II. of Spain in

1580,—see, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580], was proclaimed king. He

refused the proffered dignity, and assisted in quelling the

rebellion. He was thanked by Philip and at once recompensed,

and, as it was hoped, ensnared, by an appointment to be

general–in-chief of Portugal. But the flame was smothered, not

extinguished. … The vice-queen, Margaret, duchess-dowager of

Mantua, a daughter of Philip II.'s youngest daughter,

Catherine, saw the gathering tempest, and forewarned the court

of Madrid of the impending danger. Her information was

treated, like herself, with contempt by Olivarez. One measure,

however, he took, probably in consequence; and that one

finally decided the hesitating conspirators to delay no

longer. He ordered a large body of troops to be raised in

Portugal, the nobles to arm their vassals, and all, under the

conduct of the duke of Braganza, to hasten into Spain, in

order to attend the king, who was about to march in person

against the rebellious Catalans.

{2575}

Olivarez hoped thus at once to overwhelm Catalonia and

Roussillon, and to take from Portugal the power of revolting,

by securing the intended leader, and draining the country of

the warlike portion of its population. The nobles perceived

the object of this command, and resolved to avoid compliance

by precipitating their measures. Upon the 12th of October,

1640, they assembled to the number of 40 at the house of Don

Antonio d' Almeida. At this meeting they determined to recover

their independence, and dispatched Don Pedro de Mendoza as

their deputy, to offer the crown and their allegiance to the

duke of Braganza, who had remained quietly upon his principal

estate at Villa Viçosa. The duke hesitated, alarmed, perhaps,

at the importance of the irrevocable step he was called upon

to take. But his high-spirited duchess, a daughter of the

Spanish duke of Medina-Sidonia, observing to him, that a

wretched and dishonourable death certainly awaited him at

Madrid; at Lisbon, as certainly glory, whether in life or

death, decided his acceptance. Partisans were gained on all

sides, especially in the municipality of Lisbon; and the

secret was faithfully kept, for several weeks, by at least 500

persons of both sexes, and all ranks. During this interval,

the duke of Braganza remained at Villa Viçosa, lest his

appearance at Lisbon should excite suspicion; and it seems

that, however clearly the vice-queen had perceived the

threatening aspect of affairs, neither she nor her ministers

entertained any apprehension of the plot actually organized.

The 1st of December was the day appointed for the

insurrection. Early in the morning the conspirators approached

the palace in four well-armed bands," and easily mastered the

guard. From the windows of the palace they "proclaimed liberty

and John IV." to a great concourse of people who had speedily

assembled. Finding Vasconcellos, the obnoxious secretary to

'the vice–queen, hidden in a closet, they slew him and flung

his body into the street. The vice-queen, seeing herself

helpless, submitted to the popular will and signed mandates

addressed to the Spanish governors and other officers

commanding castles and fortifications in Portugal, requiring

their surrender. "The archbishop of Lisbon was next appointed

royal-lieutenant. He immediately dispatched intelligence of

the event to the new king, and sent messengers to every part

of Portugal with orders for the proclamation of John IV., and

the seizure of all Spaniards. … Obedience was prompt and

general. … John was crowned on the 15th of December, and

immediately abolished the heavy taxes imposed by the king of

Spain, declaring that, for his own private expenses, he

required nothing beyond his patrimonial estates. He summoned

the Cortes to assemble in January, when the three estates of

the kingdom solemnly confirmed his proclamation as king, or

'acclamation,' as the Portugueze term it. … In the islands, in

the African settlements, with the single exception of Ceuta,

which adhered to Spain, and in what remained of Brazil and

India, King John was proclaimed, the moment intelligence of

the revolution arrived, the Spaniards scarcely any where

attempting to resist. … In Europe, the new king was readily

acknowledged by all the states at war with the house of

Austria." The first attempts made by the Spanish court to

regain its lost authority in Portugal took chiefly the form of

base conspiracies for the assassination of the new king. War

ensued, but the "languid and desultory hostilities produced

little effect beyond harassing the frontiers. Portugal was

weak, and thought only of self-defence; Spain was chiefly

intent upon chastizing the Catalans." The war was prolonged,

in fact, until 1668, when it was terminated by a treaty which

recognized the independence of Portugal, but ceded Ceuta to

Spain. The only considerable battles of the long war were

those of Estremos, or Ameixal, in 1663, and Villa Viçosa,

1665, in which the Portuguese were victors, and which were

practically decisive of the war.

M. M. Busk,

History of Spain and Portugal,

book 2, chapters 10-12.

ALSO IN:

J. Dunlap,

Memoirs of Spain, 1621-1700,

volume 1, chapter 12.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1702.

Joins the Grand Alliance against France and Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703.

The Methuen Treaty with England.

Portugal joined the Grand Alliance against France and Spain,

in the War of the Spanish Succession, in 1703, and entered at

that time into an important treaty with England. This is known

as the Methuen Treaty—"called after the name of the ambassador

who negotiated it—and that treaty, and its effect upon the

commerce of England and the habits of her people lasted

through five generations, even to the present time. The wines

of Portugal were to be admitted upon the payment of a duty 33½

per cent. less than the duty paid upon French wines; and the

woolen cloths of England, which had been prohibited in

Portugal for twenty years, were to be admitted upon terms of

proportionate advantage. Up to that time the Claret of France

had been the beverage of the wine-drinkers of England. From

1703 Port established itself as what Defoe calls 'our general

draught.' In all commercial negotiations with France the

Methuen Treaty stood in the way; for the preferential duty was

continued till 1831. France invariably pursued a system of

retaliation. It was a point of patriotism for the Englishman

to hold firm to his Port."

C. Knight,

Popular History of England,

volume 5, chapter 17.

See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1713.

Possessions in South America confirmed.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1757-1759.

Expulsion of the Jesuits and suppression of the order.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1793.

Joined in the coalition against Revolutionary France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.

Napoleon's designs against the kingdom.

His delusive treaty for its partition with Spain.

French invasion and flight of the royal family to Brazil.

"One of the first steps taken by Napoleon, after his return to

Paris, … [after the Peace of Tilsit-see GERMANY: A. D. 1807

(JUNE-JULY)] was, in the month of August, to order the French

and Spanish ambassadors conjointly, to declare to the

prince–regent of Portugal, that he must concur in the

continental system, viz. shut his ports against English

commerce, confiscate all English property, and imprison all

English subjects to be found within his dominions, or they

were instructed immediately to leave Lisbon.

{2576}

The prince and his ministers dared not openly resist the

French emperor's will, even whilst the wiser part of the

cabinet were convinced that the very existence of the country

depended upon British commerce. In this extremity, and relying

upon the friendly forbearance of England, they strove to

pursue a middle course. Don John professed his readiness to

exclude British ships of all descriptions from his ports, but

declared that his religious principles would not allow him to

seize the subjects and property of a friendly state in the

midst of peace, and that prudence forbade his offending

England until a Portugueze squadron, then at sea, should have

returned safely home. … Napoleon punished this imperfect

obedience, by seizing all Portugueze vessels in ports under

his control, and ordering the French and Spanish legations to

leave Lisbon. The Portugueze ambassadors were, at the same

time, dismissed from Paris and Madrid. A French army was, by

this time, assembled near the foot of the Pyrenees, bearing

the singular title of army of observation of the Gironde; and

General Junot … was appointed to its command. … Spain was

endeavouring to share in the spoil, not to protect the victim.

A treaty, the shameless iniquity of which can be paralleled

only by the treaties between Austria, Russia, and Prussia for

the partition of Poland, had been signed at Fontainebleau, on

the 27th of October. … By this treaty Charles surrendered to

Napoleon his infant grandson's kingdom of Etruria (King Louis

I. had been dead some years), over which he had no right

whatever, and bargained to receive for him in its stead the

small northern provinces of Portugal, Entre Minho e Douro and

Tras os Montes, under the name of the kingdom of Northern

Lusitania, which kingdom the young monarch was to hold in

vassalage of the crown of Spain. The much larger southern

provinces, Alemtejo and Algarve, were to constitute the

principality of the Algarves, for Godoy, under a similar

tenure. And the middle provinces were to be occupied by

Napoleon until a general peace, when, in exchange for

Gibraltar, Trinidad, and any other Spanish possession

conquered by England, they might be restored to the family of

Braganza, upon like terms of dependence. The Portugueze

colonies were to be equally divided between France and Spain.

In execution of this nefarious treaty, 10,000 Spanish troops

were to seize upon the northern, and 6,000 upon the southern

state. … On the 18th of October, Junot, in obedience to his

master's orders, crossed the Pyrenees, and, being kindly

received by the Spaniards, began his march towards the

Portugueze frontiers, whilst the Spanish troops were equally

put in motion towards their respective destinations. … The

object of so much haste was, to secure the persons of the

royal family, whose removal to Brazil had not only been talked

of from the beginning of these hostile discussions, but was

now in preparation, and matter of public notoriety. … The

reckless haste enjoined by the emperor, and which cost almost

as many lives as a pitched battle, was very near attaining its

end. … The resolution to abandon the contest being adopted,

the prince and his ministers took every measure requisite to

prevent a useless effusion of blood. A regency, consisting of

five persons, the marquess of Abrantes being president, was

appointed to conduct the government, and negotiate with Junot.

On the 26th a proclamation was put forth, explaining to the

people that, as Napoleon's enmity was rather to the sovereign

than the nation, the prince-regent, in order to avert the

calamities of war from his faithful subjects, would transfer

the seat of government to Brazil, till the existing troubles

should subside, and strictly charging the Portugueze, more

especially the Lisbonians, to receive the French as friends.

On the 27th the whole royal family proceeded to Belem, to

embark for flight, on the spot whence, about three centuries

back, Vasco de Gama had sailed upon his glorious enterprise. …

The ships set sail and crossed the bar, almost as the French

advance guard was entering Lisbon. Sir Sidney Smith escorted

the royal family, with four men-of-war, safely to Rio Janeiro,

the capital of Brazil, leaving the remainder of his squadron

to blockade the mouth of the Tagus."

M. M. Busk,

History of Spain and Portugal,

book 4, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

C. A. Fyffe,

History of Modern Europe,

volume 1, chapter 7.

Sir A. Alison,

History of Europe, 1800-1815,

chapter 52.

H. Martineau,

History of England, 1800-1815,

book 2, chapter 1.

R. Southey,

History of the Peninsular War,

chapter 2 (volume l).

See, also, BRAZIL: A. D. 1808-1822.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1808.

Rising against the French.

Arrival of British forces.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1808.

Wellington's first campaign in the Peninsula.

The Convention of Cintra.

French evacuation of Portugal.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1809 (February-December).

Wellington's retreat and fresh advance.

The French checked.

Passage of the Douro.

Battle of Talavera.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY);

and (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1809-1812.

Wellington's Lines of Torres Vedras.

French invasion and retreat.

English advance into Spain.

See SPAIN: A.D. 1809-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER);

and 1810-1812.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1814.

End of the Peninsular War.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1820-1824.

Revolution and Absolutist reaction.

Separation and independence of Brazil.

"Ever since 1807 Portugal had not known a court. On the first

threat of French invasion the Regent had emigrated to the

Brazils, and he had since lived and ruled entirely in the

great Transatlantic colony. The ordinary conditions of other

countries had been reversed. Portugal had virtually become a

dependency of her own colony. The absence of the court was a

sore trial to the pride of the Portuguese. An absent court had

few supporters. It happened, too, that its ablest defender had

lately left the country. … In April 1820 [Marshal] Beresford

sailed for the Brazils. He did not return till the following

October; and the revolution had been completed before his

return. On the 24th of August the troops at Oporto determined

on establishing a constitutional government, and appointed a

provisional Junta with this object. The Regency which

conducted the affairs of the country at Lisbon denounced the

movement as a nefarious conspiracy. But, however nefarious the

conspiracy might be, the defection of the army was so general

that resistance became impossible. On the 1st of September the

Regency issued a proclamation promising to convene the Cortes.

{2577}

The promise, however, did not stop the progress of the

insurrection. The Junta which had been constituted at Oporto

marched at the head of the troops upon Lisbon. The troops at

Lisbon and in the south of Portugal threw off their

allegiance, and established a Junta of their own. The Junta at

Lisbon were, for the moment, in favour of milder measures than

the Junta of Oporto. But the advocates of the more extreme

course won their ends. The Oporto troops, surrounding the two

Juntas, which had been blended together, compelled them to

adopt the Spanish constitution; in other words, to sanction

the election of one deputy to the Cortes for every 30,000

persons inhabiting the country. … When the revolution of 1820

had occurred John VI., King of Portugal, was quietly ruling in

his transatlantic dominions of Brazil. Portugal had been

governed for thirteen years from Rio de Janeiro; and the

absence of the Court from Lisbon had offended the Portuguese

and prepared them for change. After the mischief had been done

John VI. was persuaded to return to his native country,

leaving his eldest son, Dom Pedro, Regent of Brazil in his

absence. Before setting out on his journey he gave the prince

public instructions for his guidance, which practically made

Brazil independent of Portugal; and he added private

directions to the prince, in case any emergency should arise

which should make it impracticable to preserve Brazil for

Portugal, to place the crown on his own head, and thus save

the great Transatlantic territory for the House of Braganza.

Leaving these parting injunctions with his son, John VI.

returned to the old kingdom which he had deserted nearly

fourteen years before. He reached Lisbon, and found the

Constitutionalists in undisputed possession of power. He found

also that the action of the Constitutionalists in Portugal was

calculated to induce Brazil to throw off the authority of the

mother country. The Cortes in Portugal insisted on the

suppression of the supreme tribunals in Brazil, on the

establishment of Provincial Juntas, and on the return of the

Regent to Portugal. The Brazilians declined to adopt measures

which they considered ruinous to their dignity, and persuaded

the Regent to disobey the orders of the Cortes. A small body

of Portuguese troops quartered in Brazil endeavoured to

overawe the prince, but proved powerless to do so. In May 1822

the prince was persuaded to declare himself Perpetual Defender

of the Brazils. In the following September the Brazilians

induced him to raise their country to the dignity of an

empire, and to declare himself its constitutional emperor. The

news that the Brazilians had declared themselves an

independent empire reached Europe at a critical period.

Monarchs and diplomatists were busily deliberating at Verona

on the affairs of Spain and of the Spanish colonies. No one,

however, could avoid comparing the position of Portugal and

Brazil with that of Spain and her dependencies. … The evident

determination of France to interfere in Spain created anxiety

in Portugal. The Portuguese Cortes apprehended that the

logical consequence of French interference in the one country

was French interference in the other. … The position of a

French army on the Spanish frontier roused the dormant spirits

of the Portuguese Absolutists. In February 1823 a vast

insurrection against the Constitution broke out in Northern

Portugal. The insurgents, who in the first instance obtained

considerable success, were with difficulty defeated. But the

revolt had been hardly quelled before the Absolutists

recovered their flagging spirits. Every step taken by the Duc

d' Angoulême in his progress from the Bidassoa to Madrid [see

SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827] raised their hopes of ultimate

success. The king's second son, the notorious Dom Miguel, fled

from his father's palace and threw in his lot with the

insurgents. For a moment the king stood firm and denounced his

son's proceedings. But the reaction which had set in was too

strong to be resisted. The Cortes was closed, a new Ministry

appointed, and autocracy re-established in Portugal. The

re-establishment of autocracy in Portugal marked the

commencement of a series of intrigues in which this country

[England] was deeply interested. One party in the new

Government, with M. de Palmella at its head, was disposed to

incline to moderate measures and to listen to the advice which

it received from the British Ministry and from the British

Ambassador, Sir Edward Thornton. Another party, of which M. de

Subsérra was the representative, was in favour of an intimate

union with France, and ready to listen to the contrary

counsels of M. de Neuville, the French Minister at Lisbon. M.

de Palmella, despairing of founding a settled form of

government amidst the disorders which surrounded him on every

side, applied to the British Ministry for troops to give

stability to the Administration. The demand arrived in London

in July 1823. … The demand for troops was refused, but a

British squadron was sent to the Tagus, with a view of

affording the King of Portugal the moral support of the

British nation and a secure asylum in the event of any danger

to his person. Many months elapsed before the King of Portugal

had occasion to avail himself of the possible asylum which was

thus afforded to him. … The evident leanings of M. de Palmella

towards moderate measures, however, alarmed the Portuguese

Absolutists. Ever since the revolution of 1823 Dom Miguel had

held the command of the army; and, on the night of the 29th of

April, 1824, the prince suddenly ordered the arrest of the

leading personages of the Government, and, under the pretext

of suppressing an alleged conspiracy of Freemasons, called on

the army to liberate their king, and to complete the triumph

of the previous year. For nine days the king was a mere puppet

in the hands of his son, and Dom Miguel was virtually master

of Lisbon. On the 9th of May the king was persuaded by the

foreign ministers in his capital to resume his authority; to

retire on board the 'Windsor Castle,' a British man-of-war; to

dismiss Dom Miguel from his command, and to order his

attendance upon him. The prince, 'stricken with a sudden

futuity,' obeyed his father's commands, and was prevailed upon

to go into voluntary exile. The revolution of 1824 terminated

with his departure, and Portugal again enjoyed comparative

tranquillity."

S. Walpole,

History of England from 1815,

chapter 9 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

H. M. Stephens,

The Story of Portugal,

chapter 18.

See, also, BRAZIL: A.D. 1808-1822.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1822.

The independence of Brazil proclaimed and established.

See BRAZIL: A. D. 1808-1822.

{2578}

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889.

Return of John VI. to Brazil.

Abdication of the Portuguese throne by Dom Pedro,

after granting a constitution.

Usurpation of Dom Miguel.

Civil war and factious conflicts.

Establishment of Parliamentary government, and Peace.

"At the close of 1824 the king returned to Brazil to spend his

last days in peace. On reaching Rio de Janeiro, he recognized

Dom Pedro as Emperor of Brazil, and on the 6th of March, 1826,

John VI. died in the country of his choice. By his will, John

VI. left the regency of Portugal to his daughter Isabel Maria,

to the disgust of Dom Miguel, who had fully expected in spite

of his conduct that Portugal would be in some manner

bequeathed to him, and that Dom Pedro would be satisfied with

the government of Brazil. The next twenty-five years are the

saddest in the whole history of Portugal. The establishment of

the system of parliamentary government, which now exists, was

a long and difficult task. … The keynote of the whole series

of disturbances is to be found in the pernicious influence of

the army. … The army was disproportionately large for the size

and revenue of the country; there was no foreign or colonial

war to occupy its energies, and the soldiers would not return

to the plough nor the officers retire into private life. The

English Cabinet at this juncture determined to maintain peace

and order, and in 1826, a division of 5,000 men was sent under

the command of Lieutenant-General Sir William Clinton to

garrison the chief towns. The accession of Pedro IV. to the

throne was hailed with joy in Portugal, though looked on with

suspicion in Brazil. He justified his reputation by drawing up

a charter, containing the bases for a moderate parliamentary

government of the English type, which he sent over to

Portugal, by the English diplomatist, Lord Stuart de Rothesay.

Then to please his Brazilian subjects, he abdicated the throne

of Portugal in favour of his daughter, Donna Maria da Gloria,

a child of seven years old, on condition that on attaining a

suitable age she should marry her uncle, Dom Miguel, who was

to swear to observe the new constitution. The Charter of 1826

was thankfully received by the moderate parliamentary party;

Clinton's division was withdrawn; Palmella remained prime

minister; and in the following year, 1827, Dom Pedro destroyed

the effect of his wise measures by appointing Dom Miguel to be

regent of Portugal in the name of the little queen. Dom Miguel

was an ambitious prince, who believed that he ought to be king

of Portugal; he was extremely popular with the old nobility,

the clergy, and the army, with all who disliked liberal ideas,

and with the beggars and the poor who were under the influence

of the mendicant orders. He was declared Regent in July, 1827,

and in May, 1828, he summoned a Cortes of the ancient type,

such as had not met since 1697, which under the presidency of

the Bishop of Viseu offered him the throne of Portugal. He

accepted, and immediately exiled all the leaders of the

parliamentary, or, as it is usually called, the Chartist,

party, headed by Palmella, Saldanha, Villa Flor, and Sampaio.

They naturally fled to England, where the young queen was

stopping on her way to be educated at the court of Vienna, and

found popular opinion strongly in their favour. But the Duke

of Wellington and his Tory Cabinet refused to countenance or

assist them. … Meanwhile the reign of Dom Miguel had become a

Reign of Terror; arrests and executions were frequent;

thousands were deported to Africa, and in 1830 it was

estimated that 40,000 persons were in prison for political

offences. He ruled in absolute contempt of all law, and at

different times English, French, and American fleets entered

the Tagus to demand reparation for damage done to commerce, or

for the illegal arrest of foreigners. The result of this

conduct was that the country was hopelessly ruined, and the

chartist and radical parties, who respectively advocated the

Charter of 1826 and the Constitution of 1822, agreed to sink

their differences, and to oppose the bigoted tyrant. … Dom

Pedro, who had devoted his life to the cause of parliamentary

government, resigned his crown in 1831 [see BRAZIL: A. D.

1825-1865] to his infant son, and left Brazil to head the

movement for his daughter's cause. … In July, 1832, the

ex-emperor with an army of 7,500 men arrived at Oporto, where

he was enthusiastically welcomed, and Dom Miguel then laid

siege to the city. European opinion was divided between the

two parties; partisans of freedom and of constitutional

government called the Miguelites 'slaves of a tyrant,' while

lovers of absolutism, alluding to the loans raised by the

ex-emperor, used to speak of the 'stock-jobbing Pedroites.'

The siege was long and protracted." The Miguelites finally

sustained several heavy defeats, both on land and at sea, and

Lisbon was triumphantly entered by the Chartists in July,

1833. "The year 1834 was one of unbroken success for the

Chartists. England and France recognized Maria da Gloria as

Queen of Portugal, and the ministry of Queen Isabella of

Spain, knowing Dom Miguel to be a Carlist, sent two Spanish

armies under Generals Rodil and Serrano to the help of Dom

Pedro. … Finally the combined Spanish and Portuguese armies

surrounded the remnant of the Miguelites at Evora Monte, and

on the 26th of May, 1834, Dom Miguel surrendered. By the

Convention of Evora Monte, Dom Miguel abandoned his claim to

the throne of Portugal, and in consideration of a pension of

£15,000 a year promised never again to set foot in the

kingdom. … Dom Pedro, who had throughout the struggle been the

heart and soul of his daughter's party, had thus the pleasure

of seeing the country at peace, and a regular parliamentary

system in operation, but he did not long survive, for on the

24th of September, 1834, he died at Queluz near Lisbon, of an

illness brought on by his great labours and fatigues, leaving

a name, which deserves all honour from Portuguese and

Brazilians alike. Queen Maria da Gloria was only fifteen, when

she thus lost the advantage of her father's wise counsel and

steady help, yet it might have been expected that her reign

would be calm and prosperous. But neither the queen, the

nobility, nor the people, understood the principles of

parliamentary government. … The whole reign was one of violent

party struggles, for they hardly deserve to be called civil

wars, so little did they involve, which present a striking

contrast to the peaceable constitutional government that at

present prevails. … In 1852 the Charter was revised to suit

all parties; direct voting, one of the chief claims of the

radicals, was allowed, and the era of civil war came to an

end.

{2579}

Maria da Gloria did not long survive this peaceful settlement,

for she died on the 15th of November, 1853, and her husband

the King-Consort, Ferdinand II, assumed the regency until his

eldest son Pedro V. should come of age. The era of peaceful

parliamentary government, which succeeded the stormy reign of

Maria II., has been one of material prosperity for Portugal. …

The whole country, and especially the city of Lisbon, was

during this reign, on account of the neglect of all sanitary

precautions, ravaged by cholera and yellow fever, and it was

in the midst of one of these outbreaks, on the 11th of

November, 1861, that Pedro V., who had refused to leave his

pestilence-stricken capital, died of cholera, and was followed

to the grave by two of his younger brothers, Dom Ferdinand and

Dom John. At the time of Pedro's death, his next brother and

heir, Dom Luis, was travelling on the continent, and his

father, Ferdinand II., who long survived Queen Maria da Gloria

… assumed the regency until his return; soon after which King

Luis married Maria Pia, younger daughter of Victor Emmanuel,

king of Italy. … The reign of King Luis was prosperous and

peaceful, and the news of his death on October 9, 1889, was

received with general regret. … Luis I. was succeeded on the

throne by his elder son, Dom Carlos, or Charles I., a young

man of twenty-six, who married in 1886, the Princess Marie

Amélie de Bourbon, the eldest daughter of the Comte de Paris.

His accession was immediately followed by the revolution of

the 15th of November, 1889, in Brazil, by which his great

uncle, Pedro II., Emperor of Brazil, was dethroned and a

republican government established in that country."

H. M. Stephens,

The Story of Portugal,

chapter 18.

See BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.

ALSO IN:

W. Bollaert,

Wars of Succession in Portugal and Spain,

volume 1.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1884-1889.

Territorial claims in Africa.

The Berlin Conference.

See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

----------PORTUGAL: End--------

PORTUS AUGUSTI AND PORTUS TRAJANI.

See OSTIA.

PORTUS CALE.

The ancient name of

Oporto, whence came, also, the name of Portugal.

See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

PORTUS ITIUS.

The port on the French coast from which Cæsar sailed on both

his expeditions to Britain. Boulogne, Ambleteuse, Witsand and

Calais have all contended for the honor of representing it in

modern geography; but the serious question seems to be between

Boulogne and Witsand, or Wissant.

T. Lewin,

Invasion of Britain.

ALSO IN:

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 4, appendix 1.

Napoleon III.,

History of Cæsar,

book 3, chapter 7.

PORTUS LEMANIS.

An important Roman port in Britain, at the place which still

preserves its name—Lymne.

T. Wright,

Celt, Roman and Saxon,

chapter 5.

PORTUS MAGNUS.

An important Roman port in Britain, the massive walls of which

are still seen at Porchester (or Portchester).

T. Wright,

Celt, Roman and Saxon,

chapter 5.

POST.

POSTAGE.

POST–OFFICE.

"The little that is known of the post-system of the [Roman]

empire is summed up in a few words in Becker's 'Handbuch,'

iii. i. 304: 'The institution of Augustus, which became the

basis of the later System known to us from the writings of the

Jurists, consisted of a military service which forwarded

official despatches from station to station by couriers,

called in the earlier imperial period speculatories. (Liv.

xxxi. 24.; Suet. Calig. 44.; Tac. Hist. ii. 73.) Personal

conveyance was confined (as in the time of the republic) to

officials: for this purpose the mutationes (posts) and

mansiones (night quarters) were assigned, and even palatia

erected at the latter for the use of governors and the emperor

himself. Private individuals could take advantage of these

state posts within the provinces by a special license

(diploma) of the governor, and at a later period of the

emperor only.' Under the republic senators and high personages

could obtain the posts for their private use, as a matter of

privilege."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans under the Empire,

chapter 34 (volume 4), foot-note.

"According to Professor Friedländer in his interesting work,

'Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschiehte Roms,' great progress

was made by the Romans, in the fourth and fifth centuries, in

their method of postal communication. Their excellent roads

enabled them to establish rapid mule and horse posts as well

as carts, and it is even stated that special 'postal ships'

(Post schiffe) were kept in readiness at the principal

sea-ports. These advanced postal arrangements, like many other

traces of Roman civilization, survived longest in Gaul; but

even there the barbarism of the people, and the constant wars

in which they were engaged, gradually extinguished, first the

necessity, and then, as a natural consequence, the means of

postal communication, until we find, at a much later period,

all European countries alike, for lack of any organized

system, making use of pilgrims, friars, pedlars, and others,

to convey their correspondence from one place to another. The

first attempt of any importance, to rescue postal

communication from the well-nigh hopeless condition into which

it had for centuries fallen, was made in Germany in 1380, by

the order of Teutonic Knights, who established properly

equipped post-messengers for home and international service.

An improvement and extension of this plan was carried out by

Francis von Thaxis in the year 1516, when a postal line from

Brussels to Vienna, via Kreuznach, was established. It is true

that, shortly before this, there is some record of Louis XI.

of France having started, for State postal purposes, what were

termed cavaliers du roy; but these were only allowed to be

used for private purposes by privileged individuals, part of

whose privilege, by the way, consisted in paying to Louis an

enormous fee. It is to Francis von Thaxis that must be

accorded the title of the first postal reformer. So eager was

his interest in the work he had undertaken, that, in order to

gain the right of territorial transit through several of the

small states of Germany where his plans were strongly opposed,

he actually agreed for a time to carry the people's letters

free of charge, an instance of generosity, for a parallel of

which we look in vain in the history of the Post Office. The

mantle of this reformer seems, strangely enough, to have

fallen in turn upon many of his descendants, who not only in

Germany, but also in Spain, Austria, Holland, and other

countries, obtained concessions for carrying on the useful

work started by Francis von Thaxis.

{2580}

One of the Thaxis family, at a later date, was created a

prince of Germany, and took the name of Thurm und Taxis; and

from him is descended the princely line bearing that name

which flourishes at the present day. Another member of the

family was created a grandee of Spain, and has the honor of

being immortalized by Schiller in his 'Don Carlos.' The first

establishment of an organized system of postal communication

in England is wrapt in some obscurity. During the reign of

John post-messengers were, for the first time, employed by the

king; these messengers were called nuncii; and in the time of

Henry I. these nuncii were also found in the service of some

of the barons. In Henry III.'s reign they had so far become a

recognized institution of the State that they were clothed in

the royal livery. Mr. Lewins, in his interesting work, 'Her

Majesty's Mails,' states that several private letters are

still in existence, dating back as far as the reign of Edward

II., which bear the appearance of having been carried by the

nuncii of that period, with 'Haste, post haste!' written

across them. … Edward IV., towards the end of the fifteenth

century, during the time that he was engaged in war with

Scotland, had the stations for postal relays placed within a

few miles of each other all the way from London to the royal

camp, and by this means managed to get his despatches carried

nearly a hundred miles a day. … No improvement is recorded in

the postal service in this country from the period last

referred to until the reign of Henry VIII. This king, we are

told, appointed a 'master of the posts,' in the person of Sir

Brian Tuke, who really seems to have made great efforts to

exercise a proper control over the horse-posts, and to bring

some sort of organization to bear on his department. Poor

Tuke, however, was not rewarded with much success. … James I.

established a regular post for inland letters, and Charles I.,

recognizing, no doubt, the financial importance of the Post

Office, declared it in 1637, by royal proclamation, to be

State property. It was, however, during the Protectorate,

twenty years later, that the first act of Parliament relating

to the formation of a State Post Office was passed. This

statute was entitled, 'An Act for the settling of the postage

of England, Scotland, and Ireland.' … The first trace which

can be found of a regular tariff of postal charges is in the

reign of Charles I., and even regarded by the light of to-day

these charges cannot be held to be exorbitant; for example, a

single letter from London, for any distance under eighty

miles, was charged twopence; fourpence up to one hundred and

forty miles; sixpence for any greater distance in England, and

eightpence to all parts of Scotland."

Postal Communication, Past and Present

(National Review; copied in Littell's Living Age,

July 30, 1887).

"A penny post was established in London, in 1683, two years

before the death of Charles II., for the conveyance of letters

and parcels within the City, by Robert Murray, an upholsterer

by trade, who, like a great many others, was dissatisfied with

the Government, which, in its anxiety to provide for the

postal requirements of the country, had entirely neglected the

City and suburbs. The post, established by Murray at a vast

expense, was ultimately handed over to a William Docwray,

whose name is now well known in the annals of Post Office

history. The arrangements of the new penny post were simple,

and certainly liberal enough. All letters or parcels not

exceeding a pound weight, or any sum of money not exceeding

£10 in value, or parcel not worth more than £10, could be

conveyed at a cost of one penny; or within a radius of ten

miles from a given centre, for the charge of twopence. Several

district offices were opened in various parts of London, and

receiving houses were freely established in all the leading

thoroughfares. … The deliveries in the City were from six to

eight daily, while from three to four were found sufficient to

supply the wants of the suburbs. The public appreciated and

supported the new venture, and it soon became a great

commercial success, useful to the citizens, and profitable to

the proprietor. No sooner, however, did a knowledge of this

fact reach the ears of those in authority over the General

Post Office, than the Duke of York, acting under instructions,

and by virtue of the settlement made to him, objected to its

being continued, on the ground that it was an invasion of his

legal rights. … The authorities … applied to the court of

King's Bench, wherein it was decided that the new or so-called

penny post was an infraction of the privileges of the

authorities of the General Post Office, and the royal

interest, and that consequently it, with all its organization,

profits, and advantages, should be handed over to, and remain

the property of, the royal establishment. … Post-paid

envelopes were in use in France in the time of Louis XIV.

Pelisson states that they originated in 1653 with M. de

Velayer, who established, under royal authority, a private

penny-post in Paris. He placed boxes at the corners of the

principal streets to receive the letters, which were obliged

to be enclosed in these envelopes. They were suggested to the

Government by Mr. Charles Whiting in 1830, and the eminent

publisher, the late Mr. Charles Knight, also proposed stamped

covers for papers. Dr. T. E. Gray, of the British Museum,

claimed the credit of suggesting that letters should be

prepaid by the use of stamps as early as 1834."

W. Tegg,

Posts and Telegraphs,

pages 21-23 and 100-101.

"On the morning of the 10th of January, 1840, the people of

the United Kingdom rose in the possession of a new power—the

power of sending by the post a letter not weighing more than

half an ounce upon the prepayment of one penny, and this

without any regard to the distance which the letter had to

travel. … To the sagacity and the perseverance of one man, the

author of this system, the high praise is due, not so much

that he triumphed over the petty jealousies and selfish fears

of the post-office authorities, but that he established his

own convictions against the doubts of some of the ablest and

most conscientious leaders of public opinion. … Mr. Rowland

Hill in 1837 published his plan of a cheap and uniform

postage. A Committee of the House of Commons was appointed in

1837, which, continued its inquiries throughout the session of

1838, and arrived at the conviction that 'the mode recommended

of charging and collecting postage, in a pamphlet published by

Mr. Rowland Hill,' was feasible, and deserving of a trial

under legislative sanction. … Lord Ashburton, although an

advocate of Post-office Reform, held that the reduction to a

penny would wholly destroy the revenue. Lord Lowther, the

Postmaster-General, thought twopence the smallest rate that

would cover the expenses.

{2581}

Colonel Maberly, the secretary to the post office, considered

Mr. Hill's plan a most preposterous one, and maintained that

if the rates were to be reduced to a penny, the revenue would

not recover itself for forty or fifty years. … Public opinion,

however, had been brought so strongly to bear in favour of a

penny rate, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Spring

Rice, on the 5th of July, 1839, proposed a resolution, 'that

it is expedient to reduce the postage on letters to one

uniform rate of a penny postage, according to a certain amount

of weight to be determined—that the parliamentary privilege

of franking should be abolished, and that official franking be

strictly limited—the House pledging itself to make good any

deficiency that may occur in the revenue from such reduction

of the postage.' A Bill was accordingly passed to this effect

in the House of Commons, its operation being limited in its

duration to one year, and the Treasury retaining the power of

fixing the rates at first, although the ultimate reduction was

to be to one penny. This experimental measure reduced all

rates above fourpence to that sum, leaving those below

fourpence unaltered. With this complication of charge the

experiment could not have a fair trial, and accordingly on the

10th of January, 1840, the uniform half-ounce rate became by

order of the Treasury one penny. … In 1840 the number of

letters sent through the post had more than doubled, and the

legislature had little hesitation in making the Act of 1839

permanent, instead of its duration being limited to the year

which would expire in October. A stamped envelope, printed

upon a peculiar paper, and bearing an elaborate design, was

originally chosen as the mode of rendering prepayment

convenient to the sender of a letter. A simpler plan soon

superseded this attempt to enlist the Fine Arts in a plain

business operation. The plan of prepaying letters by affixing

a stamp bearing the head of the ruler of the country, came

into use here in May, 1840 [see, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1840].

The habit of prepayment by postage stamps has now become so

universal throughout the world, that in 1861 the system was

established in eighty different countries or colonies."

C. Knight,

Popular History of England,

volume 8, chapter 24.

The first postal system in the American colonies was privately

established in New England in 1676, by John Heyward, under

authority from the General Court of the colony of

Massachusetts. "In 1683 the government of Penn established a

postal system for the Colony of Pennsylvania. In 1700 Colonel

J. Hamilton organized 'his postal establishment for British

America' including all the English colonies, but soon after

disposed of his right to the English crown. In 1710 the

English Parliament established by law the first governmental

postal system with the general office at New York, which

continued until in 1776 the Continental Congress adopted and

set in action the postal system proposed by Franklin, who was

appointed the first Postmaster General. The first law of the

Federal Congress continued this system in operation as

sufficient for the public wants, but the postal service was

not finally settled until the act of 1792. This law (1792)

fixed a tariff which with unimportant changes remained in

force until the adoption of the system of Uniform Postage in

the United States. Single, double and triple letters were

charged 8, 16 and 24 cents respectively when sent to other

countries, and four cents plus the internal postage when

arriving from foreign countries. The internal postage between

offices in the United States was 6, 8, 10, 15, 17, 20, 22 and

25 cents for distances of 30, 60, 100, 150, 200, 250, 350, or

400 miles respectively for single letters, and double, triple,

etc., this for double, triple, etc. letters. A single letter

was defined by the law to be a single sheet or piece of paper,

a double letter, two sheets or pieces of paper, etc. … The

earliest letters which we have seen, consist of single sheets

of paper folded and addressed upon the sheet. An envelope

would have subjected them to double postage."

J. K. Tiffany,

History of the Postage Stamps,

introduction.

By an act of March 3, 1845, the postage rates in the United

States were reduced to two—namely, 5 cents for 300 miles or

under, and 10 cents for longer distances. Six years later

(March 3, 1851) the minimum rate for half an ounce became 3

cents (if prepaid) with the distance covered by it extended to

3,000 miles; if not prepaid, 5 cents. For distances beyond

3,000 miles, these rates were doubled. In 1856 prepayment was

made compulsory; and by an act signed March 3, 1863, the 3

cent rate for half–ounce letters was extended to all distances

in the United States.

J. Rees,

Footprints of a Letter-Carrier,

page 264.

In 1883 the rate in the United States was reduced to 2 cents

for all distances, on letters not exceeding half an ounce. In

1885 the weight of a letter transmissible for 2 cents was

increased to one ounce. The use of postage stamps was first

introduced in the United States under an act of Congress

passed in March, 1847. Stamped envelopes were first provided

in 1853. The first issue of postal cards was on the 1st of

May, 1873, under an act approved June 8, 1872. The registry

system was adopted July 1, 1855. Free delivery of letters in

the larger cities was first undertaken on the 1st of July

1863.

D. M. Dickinson,

Progress and the Post

(North American Review, October, 1889).

ALSO IN:

Annual Report of the Postmaster-General

of the United States, 1893,

pages 543-558

(Description of all Postage Stamps and

Postal Cards issued).

POSTAL MONEY-ORDER SYSTEM, The.

The postal money-order system, though said to be older in

practical existence, was regularly instituted and organized in

England, in its present form, in 1859. It was adopted in the

United States five years later, going into operation in

November, 1864.

D. M. Dickinson,

Progress and the Post

(North American Review, October, 1889).

ALSO IN:

Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1887,

page 687.

POSTAL SAVINGS BANKS.

Postal savings banks were first brought into operation in

England in 1861. "One shilling is the smallest sum that can be

deposited. The Government has, however, … issued blank forms

with spaces for twelve penny postage-stamps, and will receive

one of these forms with twelve stamps affixed as a deposit.

This plan was suggested by the desire to encourage habits of

saving among children, and by the success of penny banks in

connection with schools and mechanics' institutes. No one can

deposit more than £30 in one year, or have to his credit more

than £150 exclusive of interest. When the principal and

interest together amount to £200, interest ceases until the

amount has been reduced below £200.

{2582}

Interest at two and a half per cent is paid, beginning the

first of the month following the deposit and stopping the last

of the month preceding the withdrawal, but no interest is paid

on any sum less than a pound or not a multiple of a pound. The

interest is added to the principal on the 31st of December of

each year. … The English colonies … have established postal

savings-banks of a similar character. … The Canadian system …

went into operation in 1868. … Influenced by the success of

the English system of postal savings-banks, the governments on

the Continent of Europe have now nearly all made similar

provisions for the investment of the surplus earnings of the

people. The Italian system … went into operation February 20,

1876. … In France the proposal to establish postal

savings-banks was frequently discussed, but not adopted until

March 1881, although the ordinary savings-banks had for

several years been allowed to use the post-offices as places

for the receipt and repayment of deposits. … The Austrian

postal savings-banks were first opened January 12, 1883. … The

Belgian system has been [1885] in successful operation for

more than fifteen years; that of the Netherlands was

established some three years ago; while Sweden has just

followed her neighbors, Denmark and Norway, in establishing

similar institutions. In 1871 Postmaster-General Creswel

recommended the establishment of postal savings depositories

in connection with the United States post-offices, and two

years later he discussed the subject very fully in his annual

report. Several of his successors have renewed his

recommendation;" but no action has been taken by Congress.

D. B. King,

Postal Savings-Banks

(Popular Science Monthly, December, 1885).

POSTAL TELEGRAPH, The.

"The States of the continent of Europe were the first to

appreciate the advantages of governmental control of the

telegraph. … From the beginning they assumed the erection and

management of the telegraph lines. It may be said that in

taking control of the telegraphs the monarchical governments

of the Old World were actuated as much by the desire to use

them for the maintenance of authority as by the advantages

which they offered for the service of the people. To a certain

extent this is doubtless true, but it is none the less true

that the people have reaped the most solid benefits, and that

the tendency has been rather to liberalize government than to

maintain arbitrary power. … The greatest progress and the best

management have alike been shown in those countries where the

forms of government are most liberal, as in Switzerland and

Belgium. … In Great Britain the telegraph was at first

controlled by private parties. … In July, 1868, an act was

passed 'to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster-General to acquire,

work, and maintain electric telegraphs.' … The rate for

messages was fixed throughout the kingdom at one shilling for

twenty words, excluding the address and signature. This rate

covered delivery within one mile of the office of address, or

within its postal delivery." The lines of the existing

telegraph companies were purchased on terms which were

commonly held to be exorbitant, and Parliament, changing its

original intention, conferred on the post-office department a

monopoly of the telegraphs. Thus "the British postal telegraph

was from the first handicapped by an enormous interest charge,

and to some extent by the odium which always attaches to a

legal monopoly. But notwithstanding the exorbitant price paid

for the telegraph, the investment has not proved an

unprofitable one."

N. P. Hill,

Speech in the Senate of the United States,

January 14, 1884, on a Bill to Establish Postal Telegraphs,

("Speeches and Papers," pages 200-215).

POSTAL UNION, The.

The Postal Union, which now embraces most of the civilized and

semi-civilized countries of the world, was formed originally

by a congress of delegates, representing the principal

governments of Europe, and the United States of America, which

assembled at Berne, Switzerland, in September, 1874. A treaty

was concluded at that time, which established uniform rates of

postage (25 centimes, or 5 cents, on half-ounce letters),

between the countries becoming parties to it, and opening the

opportunity for other states to join in the same arrangement.

From year to year since, the Postal Union has been widened by

the accession of new signatories to the treaty, until very few

regions of the globe where any postal system exists lie now

outside of it. The late accessions to the Postal Union have

been North Borneo, the German East African Protectorate, and

the British Australasian Colonies, in 1801; Natal and

Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1802; the South African Republic

(Transvaal) in 1803. By the action of an international postal

congress, held at Vienna, in 1801, a kind of international

clearing-house for the Postal Union was established at Berne,

Switzerland, and the settlement of accounts between its

members has been greatly facilitated thereby.

POSTUMIAN ROAD.

One of the great roads of the ancient Romans. It led from

Genoa to Aquileia, by way of Placentia, Cremona and Verona.

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 4, chapter 11.

POTESTAS.

The civil power with which a Roman magistrate was invested was

technically termed potestas.

W. Ramsay,

Manual of Roman Antiquity.,

chapter 5.

POTESTAS TRIBUNITIA, The.

The powers and prerogatives of the ancient tribunitian office,

without the office itself, being conferred upon Augustus and

his successors, became the most important element, perhaps, of

the finally compacted sovereignty of the Roman emperors.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 30.

POTIDÆA, Siege of.

The city of Potidæa, a Corinthian colony founded on the long

peninsula of Pallene which projects from the Macedonian coast,

but which had become subject to Athens, revolted from the

latter B. C. 432, and was assisted by the Corinthians. This

was among the quarrels which led up to the Peloponnesian War.

The Athenians reduced the city and expelled the inhabitants

after a siege of three years.

Thucydides,

History,

books 1-2.

See, also, GREECE: B. C. 432;

and ATHENS: B. C. 430-429.

POTOMAC, Army of the:

Its creation and its campaigns.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER); 1862 (MARCH-JULY), and after.

POTOSI, The Spanish province of.

Modern Bolivia.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

{2583}

POTTAWATOMIES.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, AND OJIBWAS.

POUNDAGE.

See TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE.

POWHATANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.

POYNING'S ACTS.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1494.

PRÆFECTS.

PREFECTS.

PRÉFÊTS.

See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14;

and PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

PRÆMUNIRE, Statute of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.

PRÆNESTE, Sulla's capture of.

Præneste, the ancient city of the Latins, held against Sulla,

in the first civil war, by young Marius, was surrendered after

the battle at the Colline Gate of Rome. Sulla ordered the male

inhabitants to be put to the sword and gave up the town to his

soldiers for pillage.

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 7, chapter 19.

PRÆNOMEN.

NOMEN.

COGNOMEN.

See GENS.

PRÆTOR.

See ROME: B. C. 366.

----------PRÆTORIANS: Start--------

PRÆTORIAN GUARDS.

PRÆTORIANS.

"The commander–in-chief of a Roman army was attended by a

select detachment, which, under the name of 'Cohors

Praetoria,' remained closely attached to his person in the

field, ready to execute his orders, and to guard him from any

sudden attack. … Augustus, following his usual line of policy,

retained the ancient name of 'Praetoriae Cohortes,' while he

entirely changed their character. He levied in Etruria,

Umbria, ancient Latium, and the old Colonies, nine or ten

Cohorts, consisting of a thousand men each, on whom he

bestowed double pay and superior privileges. These formed a

permanent corps, who acted as the Imperial Life Guards, ready

to overawe the Senate, and to suppress any sudden popular

commotion."

W. Ramsay,

Manual of Roman Antiquity,

chapter 12.

The Prætorian Guard had been quartered, during the reign of

Augustus, and during the early years of the reign of Tiberius,

in small barracks at various points throughout the city, or in

the neighboring towns. Sejanus, the intriguing favorite of

Tiberius, being commander of the formidable corps, established

it in one great permanent camp, "beyond the north-eastern

angle of the city, and between the roads which sprang from the

Viminal and Colline gates." This was done A. D. 23.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 45.

See, also, ROME: A. D. 14-37.

PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 41.

Their elevation of Claudius to the throne.

See ROME: A. D. 41.

PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 193.

Murder of Pertinax and sale of the empire.

See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 193.

Reconstitution by Severus.

Severus, whose first act on reaching Rome had been to disarm

and disband the insolent Guard which murdered Pertinax and

sold the empire to Julianus, had no thought of dispensing with

the institution. There was soon in existence a new

organization of Prætorians, increased to four times the

ancient number and picked from all the legions of the

frontiers.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 5.

PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 238.

Murder of Balbinus and Pupienus.

See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 312.

Abolition by Constantine.

"By the prudent measures of Diocletian, the numbers of the

Prætorians were insensibly reduced, their privileges

abolished, and their place supplied by two faithful legions of

Illyricum, who, under the new titles of Jovians and

Herculians, were appointed to perform the service of the

imperial guards. … They were old corps stationed at Illyricum;

and, according to the ancient establishment, they each

consisted of 6,000 men. They had acquired much reputation by

the use of the plumbatæ, or darts loaded with lead."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 13, with foot-note.

Restored and augmented by Maxentius, during his brief reign,

the Prætorians were finally abolished and their fortified camp

destroyed, by Constantine, after his victory in the civil war

of A. D. 312.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 13.

----------PRÆTORIANS: End--------

PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

"As the government degenerated into military despotism, the

Prætorian præfect, who in his origin had been a simple captain

of the guards, was placed not only at the head of the army,

but of the finances, and even of the law. In every department

of administration he represented the person, and exercised the

authority, of the emperor. The first præfect who enjoyed and

abused this immense power was Plautianus, the favourite

minister of Severus. … They [the Prætorian præfects) were

deprived by Constantine of all military command as soon as

they had ceased to lead into the field, under their immediate

orders, the flower of the Roman troops; and at length, by a

singular revolution, the captains of the guards were

transformed into the civil magistrates of the provinces.

According to the plan of government instituted by Diocletian,

the four princes had each their Prætorian præfect; and, after

the monarchy was once more united in the person of

Constantine, he still continued to create the same number of

four præfects, and intrusted to their care the same provinces

which they already administered.

1. The Præfect of the East stretched his ample jurisdiction"

from the Nile to the Phasis and from Thrace to Persia.

"2. The important provinces of Pannonia, Dacia, Macedonia, and

Greece, acknowledged the authority of the Præfect of

Illyricum.

3. The power of the Præfect of Italy" extended to the Danube,

and over the islands of the Mediterranean and part of Africa.

"4. The Præfect of the Gauls comprehended under that plural

denomination the kindred provinces of Britain and Spain, and …

to the foot of Mount Atlas.

… Rome and Constantinople were alone excepted from the

jurisdiction of the Prætorian præfects. … A perfect equality

was established between the dignity of the two municipal, and

that of the four Prætorian præfects."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapters 5 and 17.

See, also, ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

PRÆTORIUM, The.

"In the very early days of Rome, before even Consuls had a

being, the two chief magistrates of the republic bore the

title of Praetors. Some remembrance of this fact lingering in

the speech of the people gave always to the term Prætorium

(the Praetor's house) a peculiar majesty, and caused it to be

used as the equivalent of palace. So in the well-known

passages of the New Testament, the palace of Pilate the

Governor at Jerusalem, of Herod the King at Caesarea, of Nero

the Emperor at Rome, are all called the Praetorium. From the

palace the troops who surrounded the person of the Emperor

took their well-known name, 'the Praetorian Guard.'"

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

{2584}

PRAGA, Battle of (1831).

See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

----------PRAGMATIC SANCTION: Start--------

PRAGMATIC SANCTION.

"No two words convey less distinct meaning to English ears

than those which form this title: nor are we at all prepared

to furnish an equivalent. Perhaps 'a well considered

Ordinance' may in some degree represent them: i. e. an

Ordinance which has been fully discussed by men practised in

State Affairs. But we are very far from either recommending or

being satisfied with such a substitute. The title was used in

the Lower [the Byzantine] Empire, and Ducange ad v. describes

'Pragmaticum Rescriptum seu Pragmatica Sanctio' to be that

which 'ad hibitâ diligente causæ cognitione, ex omnium

Procerum consensu in modum sententiæ lecto, a Principe

conceditur.'"

E. Smedley,

History of France,

part 1, chapter 15, footnote.

"Pragmatic Sanction being, in the Imperial Chancery and some

others, the received title for Ordinances of a very

irrevocable nature, which a sovereign makes, in affairs that

belong wholly to himself, or what he reckons his own rights."

T. Carlyle,

History of Frederick II.,

book 5, chapter 2.

"This word [pragmatic] is derived from the Greek 'pragma,'

which means 'a rule.'"

E. de Bonnechose,

History of France,

volume 1, epoch 2, book 1, chapter 5, foot-note.

The following are the more noted ordinances which have borne

this name.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION: A. D. 1220 and 1232.

Of the Emperor Frederick II.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION:A. D. 1268 (?).

Of St. Louis.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1268.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION: A. D. 1438.

Of Charles VII. of France, and its abrogation.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1438; and 1515-1518.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION:A. D. 1547.

Of the Emperor Charles V. for the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1547.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION: A. D. 1718.

Of the Emperor Charles VI.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740 (OCTOBER).

----------PRAGMATIC SANCTION: End--------

----------PRAGUE: Start--------

PRAGUE: A. D. 1348-1409.

The University and the German secession.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY;

and BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415.

PRAGUE: A. D. 1620.

Battle of the White Mountain.

Abandonment of crown and capital by Frederick.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1620.

PRAGUE: A. D. 1631.

Occupied and plundered by the Saxons.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

PRAGUE: A. D. 1648.

Surprise and capture of the Kleinsite by the Swedes.

Siege of the older part of the city.

The end of the Thirty Years War.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

PRAGUE: A. D. 1741.

Taken by the French, Saxons and Bavarians.

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

PRAGUE: A. D. 1742.

The French blockaded in the city.

Retreat of Belleisle.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

PRAGUE: A. D. 1744.

Won and lost by Frederick the Great.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744; and 1744-1745.

PRAGUE: A. D. 1757.

Battle.

Prussian victory

Siege.

Relief by Count Daun.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

PRAGUE: A. D. 1848.

Bombardment by the Austrians.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

----------PRAGUE: End--------

PRAGUE, Congress of.

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

PRAGUE,

Treaty of (1634).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

Treaty of (1866).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

PRAGUERIE.

The commotions produced by John Huss, at Prague, in the

beginning of the 15th century, gave the name Praguerie, at

that period, to all sorts of popular disturbances.

PRAIRIAL, The month.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)

THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

PRAIRIAL FIRST, The insurrection of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (APRIL).

PRAIRIAL TWENTY-SECOND, Law of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (JUNE-JULY).

PRAIRIE GROVE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

PRAKRITA.

See SANSKRIT

PRATO, The horrible sack of (1512).

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.

PRECIANI, The.

See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

PRECIEUSES.

See RAMBOUILLET, HÔTEL DE.

PRECIOUS METALS, Production of.

See MONEY AND BANKING: 16-17TH CENTURIES, and 1848-1893.

PREFECTS.

PRÉFÊTS.

PRÆFECTS.

See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14;

and PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

PREMIER.

PRIME MINISTER.

See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

PREMISLAUS, King of Poland, A. D. 1289-1296.

PREMONSTRATENSIAN ORDER.

This was the most important branch of the Regular Canons of

St. Augustine, founded by St. Norbert, a German nobleman, who

died in 1134. It took its name from Pre-montre, in Picardy,

where the first house was established.

E. L. Cutts,

Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

J. Alzog,

Manual of Universal Church History,

section 243 (volume 2).

See AUSTIN CANONS.

PRESBURG, OR PRESSBURG, Peace of (1805).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

----------PRESBYTERIANS: Start--------

PRESBYTERIANS, English,

in the Civil War.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY),

and (JULY-SEPTEMBER); 1646 (MARCH);

1647 (APRIL-AUGUST); (AUGUST-DECEMBER); 1648.

PRESBYTERIANS:

At the Restoration.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660; 1661; and 1662-1665.

PRESBYTERIANS:

In Colonial Massachusetts.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1646-1651.

PRESBYTERIANS:

Scotch-Irish.

See SCOTCH-IRISH.

PRESBYTERIANS:

Scottish.

See CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

----------PRESBYTERIANS: End--------

PRESCOTT, Colonel William, and the battle of Bunker Hill.

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

{2585}

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

"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: 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 [and these electors, meeting in their

respective States, shall vote for President and

Vice-President, transmitting certified lists of their votes to

the President of the Senate of the United States, who shall

count them in the presence of the two Houses of Congress; and

if no person is elected President by a majority of all the

votes cast, then the House of Representatives shall elect a

President from the three persons who received the highest

numbers of the votes cast by the electors, the representation

from each State having one vote in such election]. … 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. … 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. 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. 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. 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. 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."

Constitution of the United States,

article 2, and article 12 of amendments.

The provisions of the Constitution regarding the Presidential

succession, in case of the death or resignation of both

President and Vice-President, are: '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.'

(Article II, Section 6.)

In pursuance of the power thus granted to it in the last half

of this section, Congress in 1792 passed an act declaring that

in case of the death, resignation, etc., of both the President

and Vice-President, the succession should be first to the

President of the Senate and then to the Speaker of the House.

This order was changed by the act of 1886, which provided that

the succession to the presidency should be as follows:

1. President.

2. Vice-President.

3. Secretary of State.

4. Secretary of the Treasury.

5. Secretary of War.

6. Attorney General.

7. Postmaster General.

8. Secretary of the Navy.

9. Secretary of the Interior.

In all cases the remainder of the four-years' term shall be

served out. This act also regulated the counting of the votes

of the electors by Congress, and the determination of who were

legally chosen electors.

Statutes of the United States passed at 1st Session

of 49th Congress, page 1.

ALSO IN:

E. Stanwood,

History of Presidential Elections,

chapter 27.

J. Story,

Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,

book 3, chapters 36-37 (volume 3).

The Federalist,

numbers 66-76.

J. Bryce,

The American Commonwealth,

chapters 5-8 (volume 1).

PRESIDIO.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835

PRESS, The.

See PRINTING.

PRESSBURG, or

PRESBURG, Treaty of (1805).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1800.

PRESS-GANG.

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

PRESTER JOHN, The Kingdom of.

"About the middle of the eleventh century stories began to be

circulated in Europe as to a Christian nation of north-eastern

Asia, whose sovereign was at the same time king and priest,

and was known by the name of Prester John. Amid the mass of

fables with which the subject is encumbered, it would seem to

be certain that, in the very beginning of the century, the

Khan of the Keraït, a tribe whose chief seat was at Karakorum,

between Lake Baikal and the northern frontier of China, was

converted to Nestorian Christianity—it is said, through the

appearance of a saint to him when he had lost his way in

hunting. By means of conversation with Christian merchants, he

acquired some elementary knowledge of the faith, and, on the

application of Ebed-Jesu, metropolitan of Maru, to the

Nestorian patriarch Gregory, clergy were sent, who baptized

the king and his subjects, to the number of 200,000. Ebed-Jesu

consulted the patriarch how the fasts were to be kept, since

the country did not afford any corn, or anything but flesh and

milk; and the answer was, that, if no other Lenten provisions

were to be had, milk should be the only diet for seasons of

abstinence. The earliest western notice of this nation is

given by Otho of Freising, from the relation of an Armenian

bishop who visited the court of pope Eugenius III. This report

is largely tinctured with fable, and deduces the Tartar

chief's descent from the Magi who visited the Saviour in His

cradle.

{2586}

It would seem that the Nestorians of Syria, for the sake of

vying with the boasts of the Latins, delighted in inventing

tales as to the wealth, the splendour, and the happiness of

their convert's kingdom; and to them is probably to be

ascribed an extravagantly absurd letter, in which Prester John

is made to dilate on the greatness and the riches of his

dominions, the magnificence of his state and the beauty of his

wives, and to offer the Byzantine emperor, Manuel, if he be of

the true faith, the office of lord chamberlain in the court of

Karakorum. In 1177 Alexander III. was induced by reports which

a physician named Philip had brought back from Tartary, as to

Prester John's desire to be received into communion with the

pope, to address a letter to the king, recommending Philip as

a religions instructor. But nothing is known as to the result

of this; and in 1202 the Keraït kingdom was overthrown by the

Tartar conqueror Genghis Khan. In explanation of the story as

to the union of priesthood with royalty in Prester John, many

theories have been proposed, of which two may be mentioned

here: that it arose out of the fact of a Nestorian priest's

having got possession of the kingdom on the death of a khan;

or that, the Tartar prince's title being compounded of the

Chinese 'wang' (king) and the Mongol 'khan,' the first of

these words was confounded by the Nestorians of Syria with the

name John, and the second with 'cohen' (a priest). … The

identification of Prester John's kingdom with Abyssinia was a

mistake of Portuguese explorers some centuries later."

J. C. Robertson,

History of the Christian Church,

book 6, chapter 11, with foot-note (volume 5).

ALSO IN:

Colonel H. Yule,

Note to 'The Book of Marco Polo,'

volume 1, pages 204-209.

PRESTON,

Battle of (1648).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (APRIL-AUGUST).

Battle of (1715).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

PRESTON PANS, Battle of (1745).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.

PRESTONBURG, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

PRETAXATION.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

PRETENDERS, The Stuart.

See JACOBITES.

PRICE'S RAID.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

PRIDE'S PURGE.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

PRIEST'S LANE, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

PRIM, General, Assassination of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

PRIMATES.

METROPOLITANS.

PATRIARCHS.

In the early organization of the Christian Church, the bishops

of every province found it necessary "to make one of

themselves superior to all the rest, and invest him with

certain powers and privileges for the good of the whole, whom

they therefore named their primate, or metropolitan, that is,

the principal bishop of the province. … Next in order to the

metropolitans or primates were the patriarchs; or, as they

were at first called, archbishops and exarchs of the diocese.

For though now an archbishop and a metropolitan be generally

taken for the same, to wit, the primate of a single province;

yet anciently the name archbishop was a more extensive title,

and scarce given to any but those whose jurisdiction extended

over a whole imperial diocese, as the bishop of Rome,

Alexandria, Antioch, &c."

T. Bingham,

Antiquities of the Christian Church,

book 2, chapters 16-17 (volume 1).

See, also, CHRISTIANITY; A. D. 312-337.

PRIME MINISTER, The English.

See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

PRINCE, Origin of the title.

See PRINCEPS SENATUS.

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

"Prince Edward's Island, the smallest province of the Dominion

[of Canada], originally called St. John's Island, until 1770

formed part of Nova Scotia. The first Governor was Walter

Patterson. … The first assembly met in 1773." In 1873 Prince

Edward Island consented to be received into the Confederation

of the Dominion of Canada—the latest of the provinces to

accede to the Union, except Newfoundland, which still (1894)

remains outside.

J. E. C. Munro,

The Constitution of Canada,

chapter 2.

See, also,

CANADA: A. D. 1867; and 1869-1873.

PRINCE OF THE CAPTIVITY.

See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

PRINCE OF WALES.

See WALES, PRINCE OF.

PRINCEPS SENATUS.

"As the title of imperator conferred the highest military rank

upon Augustus and his successors, so did that of princeps

senatus, or princeps (as it came to be expressed by an easy

but material abridgment), convey the idea of the highest civil

preeminence consistent with the forms of the old constitution.

In ancient times this title had been appropriated to the first

in succession of living censorii, men who had served the

office of censor; and such were necessarily patricians and

senators. The sole privilege it conferred was that of speaking

first in the debates of the senate; a privilege however to

which considerable importance might attach from the exceeding

deference habitually paid to authority and example by the

Roman assemblies. … The title of princeps was modest and

constitutional; it was associated with the recollection of the

best ages of the free state and the purest models of public

virtue; it could not be considered beyond the deserts of one

who was undoubtedly the foremost man of the nation. … The

popularity which the assumption of this republican title

conferred upon the early emperors may be inferred from the

care with which it is noted, and its constitutional functions

referred to by the writers of the Augustan age and that which

succeeded it. But it was an easy and natural step in the

progress of political ideas to drop the application of the

title, and contract it from prince of the senate, to prince

merely. The original character of the appellation was soon

forgotten, and the proper limits of its privileges confounded

in the more vague and general prerogative which the bare

designation of first or premier seemed to imply."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 31.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 3, note by Dr. W. Smith.

PRINCETON, Battle of (1777).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1776-1777 WASHINGTON'S RETREAT.

PRINCIPES.

See LEGION, THE ROMAN.

{2587}

----------PRINTING AND THE PRESS: Start--------

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1430-1456.

The invention of movable type.

Rival claims for Coster and Gutenberg.

The first Printed Book.

"Before arriving at the movable type placed side by side, and

forming phrases, which appears to us to-day so simple and so

ordinary, many years passed. It is certain that long before

Gutenberg a means was found of cutting wood and metal in

relief and reproducing by application the image traced. …

Remembering that the numerous guilds of 'tailleurs d' images,'

or sculptors in relief, had in the Middle Ages the specialty

of carving ivories and of placing effigies on tombs, it can be

admitted without much difficulty that these people one day

found a means of multiplying the sketches of a figure often

asked for, by modelling its contour in relief on ivory or

wood, and afterwards taking a reproduction on paper or

parchment by means of pressure. When and where was this

discovery produced? We cannot possibly say; but it is certain

that playing cards were produced by this means, and that from

the year 1423 popular figures were cut in wood, as we know

from the St. Christopher of that date belonging to Lord

Spencer. … It is a recognised fact that the single sheet with

a printed figure preceded the xylographic book, in which text

and illustration were cut in the same block. This process did

not appear much before the second quarter of the 15th century,

and it was employed principally for popular works which were

then the universal taste. The engraving also was nothing more

than a kind of imposition palmed off as a manuscript; the

vignettes were often covered with brilliant colours and gold,

and the whole sold as of the best quality. … An attempt had

been made to put some text at the foot of the St. Christopher

of 1423, and the idea of giving more importance to the text

was to the advantage of the booksellers. … At the epoch of the

St. Christopher, in 1423, several works were in vogue in the

universities, the schools, and with the public. … To find a

means of multiplying these treatises at little cost was a

fortune to the inventor. It is to be supposed that many

artisans of the time attempted it; and without doubt it was

the booksellers themselves, mostly mere dealers, who were

tempted to the adventure by the sculptors and wood-cutters.

But none had yet been so bold as to cut in relief a series of

blocks with engravings and text to compose a complete work.

That point was reached very quickly when some legend was

engraved at the foot of a vignette, and it may be thought that

the 'Donatus' [i. e. the Latin Syntax of Ælius Donatus] was

the most ancient of books so obtained among the 'Incunabuli,'

as we now call them, a word that signifies origin or cradle.

The first books then were formed of sheets of paper or

parchment, laboriously printed from xylographic blocks, that

is to say wooden blocks on which a 'tailleur d' images' had

left in relief the designs and the letters of the text. He had

thus to trace his characters in reverse, so that they could be

reproduced as written; he had to avoid faults, because a

phrase once done, well or ill, lasted. It was doubtless this

difficulty of correction that gave the idea of movable types.

… This at least explains the legend of Laurent Coster, of

Haarlem, who, according to Hadrian Junius, his compatriot,

discovered by accident the secret of separate types while

playing with his children. And if the legend of which we speak

contains the least truth, it must be found in the sense above

indicated, that is in the correction of faults, rather than in

the innocent game of a merchant of Haarlem. … Movable type,

the capital point of printing, the pivot of the art of the

Book, developed itself little by little, according to needs,

when there was occasion to correct an erroneous inscription;

but, in any case, its origin is unknown. Doubtless to vary the

text, means were found to replace entire phrases by other

phrases, preserving the original figures; and thus the light

dawned upon these craftsmen, occupied in the manufacture and

sale of their books. According to Hadrian Junius, Laurent

Janszoon Coster (the latter name signifying 'the discoverer')

published one of the celebrated series of works under the

general title of 'Speculum' which was then so popular, … the

'Speculum Humanæ Salvationis.' … Junius, as we see, attributes

to Laurent Coster the first impression of the 'Speculum,' no

longer the purely xylographic impression of the 'Donatus' from

an engraved block, but that of the more advanced manner in

movable types [probably between 1430 and 1440]. In point of

fact, this book had at least four editions, similar in

engravings and body of letters, but of different text. It must

then be admitted that the fount was dispersed, and typography

discovered. … All the xylographic works of the 15th century

may be classed in two categories: the xylographs, rightly so

called, or the block books, such as the 'Donatus,' and the

books with movable types, like the 'Speculum,' of which we

speak. … The movable types used, cut separately in wood, were

not constituted to give an ideal impression. We can understand

the cost that the execution of these characters must have

occasioned, made as they were one by one, without the

possibility of ever making them perfectly uniform. Progress

was to substitute for this irregular process types that were

similar, identical, easily produced, and used for a long time

without breaking. Following on the essays of Laurent Coster,

continuous researches bore on this point. … Here history is

somewhat confused. Hadrian Junius positively accuses one of

Laurent Coster's workmen of having stolen the secrets of his

master and taken flight to Mayence, where he afterwards

founded a printing office. According to Junius, the metal type

was the discovery of the Dutchman, and the name of the thief

was John. Who was this John? Was it John Gænsefleisch, called

Gutenberg, or possibly John Fust? But it is not at all

apparent that Gutenberg, a gentleman of Mayence, exiled from

his country, was ever in the service of the Dutch inventor. As

to Fust, we believe his only intervention in the association

of printers of Mayence was as a money-lender, from which may

be comprehended the unlikelihood of his having been with

Coster, the more so as we find Gutenberg retired to

Strasbourg, where he pursued his researches. There he was, as

it were, out of his sphere, a ruined noble whose great

knowledge was bent entirely on invention. Doubtless, like many

others, he may have had in his hands one of the printed works

of Laurent Coster, and conceived the idea of appropriating the

infant process.

{2588}

In 1439 he was associated with two artisans of the city of

Strasbourg, ostensibly in the fabrication of mirrors, which

may be otherwise understood as printing of 'Speculums,' the

Latin word signifying the same thing. … Three problems

presented themselves to him. He wanted types less fragile than

wooden types and less costly than engraving. He wanted a press

by the aid of which he could obtain a clear impression on

parchment or paper. He desired also that the leaves of his

books should not be anopistograph, or printed only on one

side. … Until then, and even long after, the xylographs were

printed 'au frotton,' or with a brush, rubbing the paper upon

the forme coated with ink, thicker than ordinary ink. He

dreamed of something better. In the course of his work John

Gutenberg returned to Mayence. The idea of publishing a Bible,

the Book of books, had taken possession of his heart. … The

cutting of his types had ruined him. … In this unhappy

situation, Gutenberg made the acquaintance of a financier of

Mayence, named Fust, … who put a sum of 1,100 florins at his

disposal to continue his experiments. Unfortunately this money

disappeared, it melted away, and the results obtained were

absolutely ludicrous. … About this time a third actor enters

on the scene. Peter Schoeffer, of Gernsheim, a writer,

introduced into the workshop of Gutenberg to design letters,

benefited by the abortive experiments, and taking up the

invention at its dead-lock, conducted it to success. John of

Tritenheim, called Trithemius, the learned abbot of Spanheim,

is the person who relates these facts; but as he got his

information from Schoeffer himself, too much credence must not

be given to his statements. Besides, Schoeffer was not at all

an ordinary artisan. If we credit a Strasbourg manuscript

written by his hand in 1449, he was a student of the 'most

glorious university of Paris.'" How much Schoeffer contributed

to the working out of the invention is a matter of conjecture;

but in 1454 it was advanced to a state in which the first

known application of it in practical use was made. This was in

the printing of copies of the famous letters of indulgence

which Pope Nicholas V. was then selling throughout Europe.

Having the so far perfected invention in hand, Fust and

Schoeffer (the latter now having married the former's

granddaughter) wished to rid themselves of Gutenberg. "Fust

had a most easy pretext, which was to demand purely and simply

from his associate the sums advanced by him, and which had

produced so little. Gutenberg had probably commenced his

Bible, but, in face of the claims of Fust, he had to abandon

it altogether, types, formes, and press. In November, 1455, he

had retired to a little house outside the city, where he tried

his best, by the aid of foreign help, to establish a workshop,

and to preserve the most perfect secrecy. Relieved of his

company, Fust and Schoeffer were able to take up the

impression of the Bible and to complete it without him. … One

thing is certain: that the Bible of Schoeffer, commenced by

Gutenberg or not, put on sale by Fust and Schoeffer alone

about the end of 1455 or beginning of 1456, proves to be the

first completed book. … It is now called the Mazarine Bible,

from the fact that the copy in the Mazarin Library was the

first to give evidence concerning it. The book was put on sale

at the end of 1455 or beginning of 1456, for a manuscript note

of a vicar of St. Stephen at Mayence records that he finished

the binding and illuminating of the first volume on St.

Bartholomew's Day [June 13], 1456, and the second on the 15th

of August. … All these remarks show that the printers did not

proclaim themselves, and were making pseudo-manuscripts. …

Many of the copies are illuminated with as much care and

beauty as if they were the finest manuscripts. … Copies are by

no means uncommon, most of the great libraries having one, and

many are in private collections."

H. Bouchot,

The Printed Book,

chapter 1.

"The general consent of all nations in ascribing the honour of

the invention of printing to Gutenberg seems at first sight a

very strong argument in his favour; but if Gutenberg were not

the first to invent and use movable types, but the clever man

who brought to perfection what already existed in a crude

state, we can quite imagine his fame to have spread everywhere

as the real inventor. As a master in the art of printing,

Gutenberg's name was known in Paris so early as 1472. … Mr.

Hessels … believes that the Coster mentioned in the archives

as living in Haarlem, 1436-83, was the inventor of types, and

that, taken as a whole, the story as told by Junius is

substantially correct. Personally I should like to wait for

more evidence. There is no doubt that the back-bone of the

Dutch claim lies in the pieces and fragments of old books

discovered for the most part in the last few decades, and

which give support to, at the same time that they receive

support from, the Cologne Chronicler. … These now amount to

forty-seven different works. Their number is being added to

continually now that the attention of librarians has been

strongly called to the importance of noting and preserving

them. They have been catalogued with profound insight by Mr.

Hessels, and for the first time classified by internal

evidence into their various types and classes. But, it may

well be asked, what evidence is there that all these books

were not printed long after Gutenberg's press was at work? …

The earliest book of Dutch printing bears date 1473, and not a

single edition out of all the so-called Costeriana has any

printer's name or place or date. To this the reply is, that

these small pieces were school-books or absies and such-like

works, in the production of which there was nothing to boast

of, as there would be in a Bible. Such things were at all

times 'sine ulla nota,' and certain to be destroyed when done

with, so that the wonder would be to find them so dated, and

the very fact of their bearing a date would go far to prove

them not genuine. These fragments have been nearly all

discovered in 15th-century books, printed mostly' in various

towns of Holland. … Mr. Hessels quotes forty-seven different

books as 'Costeriana,' which include four editions of the

Speculum, nineteen of Donatus, and seven of Doctrinale. The

Donatuses are in five different types, probably from five

different Dutch presses. Compared with the earliest dated

books of 1473 and onwards, printed in Holland, they have

nothing in common, while their brotherhood to the Dutch MSS.

and block-books of about thirty years earlier is apparent.

Just as astronomers have been unable to explain certain

aberrations of the planets without surmising a missing link in

the chain of their knowledge, so is it with early typography.

That such finished works as the first editions of the Bible

and Psalter could be the legitimate predecessors of the

Costeriana, the Bruges, the Westminster press, and others, I

cannot reconcile with the internal evidence of their

workmanship. But admit the existence of an earlier and much

ruder school of typography, and all is plain and harmonious."

W. Blades,

Books in Chains, and other Bibliographical Papers,

pages 149-158.

ALSO IN:

J. H. Hessels,

Gutenberg: was he the Inventor of Printing?

C. H. Timperley,

Encyclopœdia of Literature and Typographical Anecdote,

pages 101-120.

H. N. Humphreys,

History of the Art of Printing,

chapters 3-4.

{2589}

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1457-1489.

Progress and diffusion of the art.

After the Mazarine Bible, "then follows the Kalendar for the

year 1457, most probably printed at the end of 1456. Then

again the printed dates, August 14, 1457 and 1459, with place

(Mentz) in the colophons of the Psalter issued by Fust and

Schoeffer; the printed year 1460 (with Mentz added) in the

Catholicon [a Latin Grammar and Dictionary]. &c. &c. So that,

with the exception of 1458, there is no interruption in Mentz

printing from the moment that we see it begin there. As

regards the printed psalter, its printers are mentioned

distinctly in the book itself; but the other books just

mentioned are assumed to have been issued by the same two

Mentz printing-offices which are supposed to be already at

work there in 1454, though the 1460 Catholicon and some of the

other works are ascribed by some to other printers. By the

side of these dates, we find already a Bible completed in 1460

by Mentelin at Strassburg, according to a MS. note in the copy

preserved at Freiburg. … Assuming then, for a moment, that

Mentz is the starting-point, we see printing spread to

Strassburg in 1460; to Bamberg in 1461; to Subiaco in 1465; in

1466 (perhaps already in 1463) it is established at Cologne;

in 1467 at Eltville, Rome; in 1468 at Augsburg, Basle,

Marienthal; in 1469 at Venice; 1470 at Nuremberg, Verona,

Foligno, Trevi, Savigliano, Paris; 1471 at Spire, Bologna,

Ferrara, Florence, Milan, Naples, Pavia, Treviso; 1472 at

Esslingen, Cremona, Mantua, Padua, Parma, Monreale, Fivizano,

Verona; 1473 at Laugingen, Ulm (perhaps here earlier),

Merseburg, Alost, Utrecht, Lyons, Brescia, Messina; 1474 at

Louvain, Genoa, Como, Savona, Turin, Vicenza; 1475 at Lubeck,

Breslau, Blaubeuren, Burgdorf, Modena, Reggio, Cagli, Caselle

or Casale, Saragossa; 1476 at Rostock, Bruges (here earlier?),

Brussels; 1477 at Reichenstein, Deventer, Gouda, Delft,

Westminster; 1478 at Oxford, St. Maartensdyk, Colle,

Schussenried, Eichstadt; 1479 at Erfurt, Würzburg, Nymegen,

Zwolle, Poitiers; 1480 at London [?], Oudenaarde, Hasselt,

Reggio; 1481 at Passau, Leipzig, Magdeburg, Treves, Urach;

1482 at Reutlingen, Memmingen, Metz, Antwerp; 1483 at Leiden,

Kuilenburg, Ghent, Haarlem; 1484 at Bois-le–Duc, Siena; 1485

at Heidelberg, Regensburg; 1486 at Munster, Stuttgart; 1487 at

Ingolstadt; 1488 at Stendal; 1489 at Hagenau, &c."

J. H. Hessels,

Haarlem the Birth-place of Printing, not Mentz,

chapter 4.

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

The early Venetian printers.

The Aldine Press.

"One of the famous first race of German printers, John of

Spires, arrived at Venice in the year 1469, and immediately

brought his art into full play; producing within the first

three months his fine edition of the 'Letters of Cicero.' a

masterpiece of early printing. … The success of John of Spires

as a printer was at once recognized by the Venetian Republic;

and Pasquale Malipiero, the reigning Doge, granted a patent

conferring upon him the sole right of printing books within

the territory of Venice. … But the enterprising printer did

not live to enjoy the privilege," and it was not continued to

any of his family, "On the withdrawal of the monopoly several

new printers set up their Presses in the city, among whom was

the celebrated Jenson, the ingenious Frenchman who was sent by

Charles VII. to acquire the art at Mayence. … John Emeric, of

Udenheim, was another of the German printers who immediately

succeeded John and Vindelin of Spires; and still more

successful, though somewhat later, in the field, was Erard

Ratdolt. … He [Ratdolt] is said to have been the first to

adopt a regular form of Title at all approaching our modern

conception of a Book-Title; and he also took the lead in the

production of those beautifully-engraved initials for which

the books printed in Italy towards the close of the 15th

century are famous. His most splendid work is undoubtedly the

'Elements of Euclid, with the Commentaries of Campanus.' …

Nicholas Jenson was the most renowned of those who followed

the earliest German printers in Venice, until his works were

partially eclipsed by those of the Aldi. … In 1470 he [Jenson]

had … completed his preparations, and the first four works

which issued from his Venetian press appeared in that year. …

These works were printed with Roman characters of his own

engraving, more perfect in form than those of any previous

printer. His types are in fact the direct parents of the

letters now in general use, which only differ from them in

certain small details dependent solely on fashion. … This

celebrated printer died in September of the year 1481. …

Andrea Torresani and others continued Jenson's Association,

making use of the same types. Torresani was eventually

succeeded in the same establishment by the celebrated Aldo

Manuccio, who, having married his daughter, adopted the

important vocation of printer, and became the first of those

famous 'Aldi,' as they are commonly termed, whose fame has not

only absorbed that of all the earlier Venetian printers, but

that of the early printers of every other Italian seat of the

art. … It was Manuccio who, among many other advances in this

art, first invented the semi-cursive style of character now

known as 'Italic'; and it is said that it was founded upon a

close imitation of the careful handwriting of Petrarch, which,

in fact, it closely resembles. This new type was used for a

small octavo edition of 'Virgil,' issued in 1501, on the

appearance of which he obtained from Pope Leo X. a letter of

privilege, entitling him to the sole use of the new type which

he had invented." The list of the productions of the elder

Aldus and his son Paul "comprises nearly all the great works

of antiquity, and of the best Italian authors of their own

time. From their learning and general accomplishments, the

Aldi might have occupied a brilliant position as scholars and

authors, but preferred the useful labour of giving correctly

to the world the valuable works of others. The Greek editions

of the elder Aldus form the basis of his true glory,

especially the 'Aristotle,' printed in 1405, a work of almost

inconceivable labour and perseverance."

H. N. Humphreys,

History of the Art of Printing,

chapter 8.

{2590}

"Aldus and his studio and all his precious manuscripts

disappeared during the troubled years of the great Continental

war in which all the world was against Venice [see VENICE: A.

D. 1508-1500]. In 1510, 1511, and 1512, scarcely any book

proceeded from his press. … After the war Aldus returned to

his work with renewed fervour. 'It is difficult,' says

Renouard, 'to form an idea of the passion with which he

devoted himself to the reproduction of the great works of

ancient literature. If he heard of the existence anywhere of a

manuscript unpublished, or which could throw a light upon an

existing text, he never rested till he had it in his

possession. He did not shrink from long journeys, great

expenditure, applications of all kinds.' … It is not in this

way however that the publisher, that much questioned and

severely criticised middleman, makes a fortune. And Aldus died

poor. His privileges did not stand him in much stead,

copyright, especially when not in books but in new forms of

type, being non-existent in his day. In France and Germany,

and still nearer home, his beautiful Italic was robbed from

him, copied on all sides, notwithstanding the protection

granted by the Pope and other princes as well as by the

Venetian Signoria. His fine editions were printed from, and

made the foundation of foreign issues which replaced his own.

How far his princely patrons stood by him to repair his losses

there seems no information. His father-in-law, Andrea of

Asola, a printer who was not so fine a scholar, but perhaps

more able to cope with the world, did come to his aid, and his

son Paolo Manutio, and his grandson Aldo il Giovane, as he is

called, succeeded him in turn."

Mrs. Oliphant,

The Makers of Venice,

part 4, chapter 3.

Aldus died in 1515. His son Paul left Venice for Rome in 1562.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1476-1491.

Introduction in England.

The Caxton Press.

"It was probably at the press of Colard Mansion, in a little

room over the porch of St. Donat's at Bruges, that William

Caxton learned the art which he was the first to introduce

into England. A Kentish boy by birth, but apprenticed to a

London mercer, Caxton had already spent thirty years of his

manhood in Flanders as Governor of the English gild of

Merchant Adventurers there, when we find him engaged as

copyist in the service of Edward's sister, Duchess Margaret of

Burgundy. But the tedious process of copying was soon thrown

aside for the new art which Colard Mansion had introduced into

Bruges. … The printing-press was the precious freight he

brought back to England in 1476 after an absence of

five-and-thirty years. Through the next fifteen, at an age

when other men look for ease and retirement, we see him

plunging with characteristic energy into his new occupation.

His 'red pale' or heraldic shield marked with a red bar down

the middle invited buyers to the press he established in the

Almonry at Westminster, a little enclosure containing a chapel

and almshouses near the west front of the church, where the

alms of the abbey were distributed to the poor. … Caxton was a

practical man of business, … no rival of the Venetian Aldi or

of the classical printers of Rome, but resolved to get a

living from his trade, supplying priests with service books

and preachers with sermons, furnishing the clerk with his

'Golden Legend' and knight and baron with 'joyous and pleasant

histories of chivalry.' But while careful to win his daily

bread, he found time to do much for what of higher literature

lay fairly to hand. He printed all the English poetry of any

moment which was then in existence. His reverence for that

'worshipful man, Geoffrey Chaucer,' who 'ought to be eternally

remembered,' is shown not merely by his edition of the

'Canterbury Tales,' but by his reprint of them when a purer

text of the poem offered itself. The poems of Lydgate and

Gower were added to those of Chaucer. The Chronicle of Brut

and Higden's 'Polychronicon' were the only available works of

an historical character then existing in the English tongue,

and Caxton not only printed them but himself continued the

latter up to his own time. A translation of Boethius, a

version of the Eneid from the French, and a tract or two of

Cicero, were the stray first-fruits of the classical press in

England. Busy as was Caxton's printing-press, he was even

busier as a translator than as a printer. More than four

thousand of his printed pages are from works of his own

rendering. The need of these translations shows the popular

drift of literature at the time; but keen as the demand seems

to have been, there is nothing mechanical in the temper with

which Caxton prepared to meet it. A natural, simple-hearted

taste and enthusiasm, especially for the style and forms of

language, breaks out in his curious prefaces. … But the work

of translation involved a choice of English which made

Caxton's work important in the history of our language. He

stood between two schools of translation, that of French

affectation and English pedantry. It was a moment when the

character of our literary tongue was being settled, and it is

curious to see in his own words the struggle over it which was

going on in Caxton's time. 'Some honest and great clerks have

been with me and desired me to write the most curious terms

that I could find;' on the other hand, 'some gentlemen of late

blamed me, saying that in my translations I had over many

curious terms which could not be understood of common people,

and desired me to use old and homely terms in my

translations.' 'Fain would I please every man,' comments the

good-humoured printer, but his sturdy sense saved him alike

from the temptations of the court and the schools. His own

taste pointed to English, but 'to the common terms that be

daily used' rather than to the English of his antiquarian

advisers. 'I took an old book and read therein, and certainly

the English was so rude and broad I could not well understand

it,' while the Old-English charters which the Abbot of

Westminster lent as models from the archives of his house

seemed 'more like to Dutch than to English.' To adopt current

phraseology however was by no means easy at a time when even

the speech of common talk was in a state of rapid flux. …

Coupling this with his long absence in Flanders we can hardly

wonder at the confession he makes over his first translation,

that 'when all these things came to fore me, after that I had

made and written a five or six quires, I fell in despair of

this work, and purposed never to have continued therein, and

the quires laid apart, and in two years after laboured no more

in this work.' He was still however busy translating when he

died [in 1491].

{2591}

All difficulties in fact were lightened by the general

interest which his labours aroused. When the length of the

'Golden Legend' makes him 'half desperate to have accomplished

it' and ready to 'lay it apart,' the Earl of Arundel solicits

him in no wise to leave it and promises a yearly fee of a buck

in summer and a doc in winter, once it were done. 'Many noble

and divers gentle men of this realm came and demanded many and

often times wherefore I have not made and imprinted the noble

history of the San Graal.' … Caxton profited in fact by the

wide literary interest which was a mark of the time."

J. R. Green,

History of the English People,

book 5, chapter 1 (volume 2).

"Contemporary with Caxton were the printers Lettou and

Machlinia, … who carried on business in the city of London,

where they established a press in 1480. Machlinia had

previously worked under Caxton. … Wynkyn de Worde … in all

probability … was one of Caxton's assistants or workmen, when

the latter was living at Bruges, but without doubt he was

employed in his office at Westminster until 1491, when he

commenced business on his own account, having in his

possession a considerable quantity of Caxton's type. Wynkyn de

Worde, who was one of the founders of the Stationers' Company,

died in 1534, after having printed no less than 410 books

known to bibliographers, the earliest of which bearing a date

is the 'Liber Festivalis,' 4to, 1493."

J. H. Slater,

Book Collecting,

chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

C. Knight,

William Caxton.

C. H. Timperley,

Encyclopœdia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,

pages 138-194.

T. C. Hansard,

History and Process of Printing

("The Five Black Arts," chapter 1).

Gentleman's Magazine Library:

Bibliographical Notes, and Literary Curiosities.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1496-1598.

The Estienne or Stephanus Press in Paris.

"With the names of Aldus and Elzevir we are all acquainted;

the name of Estienne, or Stephanus, has a less familiar sound

to English ears, though the family of Parisian printers was as

famous in its day as the great houses of Venice and Leyden.

The most brilliant member of it was the second Henry, whose

story forms a melancholy episode in French literary history of

the 16th century. … The Estiennes are said to have come of a

noble Provençal family, but nothing is exactly known of their

descent. The art of printing was not much more than fifty

years old when Henry Estienne, having learnt his trade in

Germany, came to Paris, and set up his press [about 1496] in

the Rue Saint Jean de Beauvais, opposite the school of Canon

Law. There for some twenty years he laboured diligently,

bringing out in that time no less than 120 volumes, chiefly

folios. The greater number of these are theological and

scholastic works; among the few modern authors on the list is

the name of Erasmus. Henry Estienne died in 1520 leaving three

sons. Robert, the second of them, was born probably in 1503.

The boys all being minors, the business passed into the hands

of their mother, who in the following year married Simon de

Colines, her late husband's foreman, and perhaps partner. …

Robert worked with De Colines for five or six years before he

went into business on his own account in the same street." It

was he who first gave celebrity to the name and the press.

"The spell of the Renaissance had early fallen upon the young

printer, and it held him captive almost till the end of his

life." He married "the daughter of the learned Flemish printer

Jodocus Badius, notable for her culture and her beauty. Latin

was the ordinary language of the household. The children

learned it in infancy from hearing it constantly spoken. … At

one time ten foreign scholars lived in Estienne's house to

assist him in selecting and revising his manuscripts and in

correcting his proofs. … Both Francis [King Francis I.] and

his sister Marguerite of Navarre had a great regard for

Robert, and often visited the workshop; to that royal

patronage the printer was more than once indebted for his

liberty and his life." His danger came from the bigoted

Sorbonne, with whom he brought himself into collision by

printing the Bible with as careful a correction of the text as

he had performed in the case of the Latin classics. After the

death of Francis I., the peril of the printer's situation

became more serious, and in 1550 he fled to Geneva, renouncing

the Roman Catholic faith. He died there in 1559.

H. C. Macdowall,

An old French Printer

(Macmillan's Magazine, November 1892).

The second Henry Estienne, son of Robert, either did not

accompany his father to Geneva, or soon returned to Paris, and

founded anew the Press of his family, bringing to it even more

learning than his father, with equal laboriousness and zeal.

He died at Lyons in 1598.

E. Greswell,

A View of the Early Parisian Greek Press.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1535-1709.

Introduction in America.

The first Spanish printing in Mexico.

The early Massachusetts Press.

Restrictions upon its freedom.

"The art of printing was first introduced into Spanish

America, as early as the middle of the 16th century. The

historians whose works I have consulted are all silent as to

the time when it was first practiced on the American

continent; … but it is certain that printing was executed,

both in Mexico and Peru, long before it made its appearance in

the British North American colonies. [The precise date of the

introduction of printing into Mexico was for a long time in

doubt. … When Mr. Thomas wrote his 'History of Printing in

America,' early works on America were rare, and it is probable

that there was not one in the country printed in either

America or Europe in the 16th century, except the copy of

Molina's dictionary; now many of the period may be found in

our great private libraries. The dictionary of Molina, in

Mexican and Spanish, printed in Mexico, in 1571, in folio,

was, by many, asserted and believed to be the earliest book

printed in America. … No one here had seen an earlier book

until the 'Doctrina Christiana,' printed in the house of Juan

Cromberger, in the city of Mexico, in the year 1544, was

discovered. Copies of this rare work were found in two well

known private libraries in New York and Providence. For a long

time the honor was awarded to this as the earliest book

printed in America. But there is now strong evidence that

printing was really introduced in Mexico nine years before

that time, and positive evidence, by existing books, that a

press was established in 1540. Readers familiar with early

books relating to Mexico have seen mention of a book printed

there as early as 1535, … the 'Spiritual Ladder' of St John

Climacus. … It seems that no copy of the 'Spiritual Ladder'

has ever been seen in recent times, and the quoted

testimonials are the only ones yet found which refer to it.

Note by Hon. John R. Bartlett,

appendix A., giving a 'List of Books printed in Mexico

between the years 1540 and 1560 inclusive.'

{2592}

… In January, 1639, printing was first performed in that part

of North America which extends from the Gulf of Mexico to the

Frozen ocean. For this press our country is chiefly indebted

to the Rev. Mr. Glover, a nonconformist minister, who

possessed a considerable estate. … Another press, with types,

and another printer, were, in 1660, sent over from England by

the corporation for propagating the gospel among the Indians

in New England. This press, &c., was designed solely for the

purpose of printing the Bible, and other books, in the Indian

language. On their arrival they were carried to Cambridge, and

employed in the printing house already established in that

place. … The fathers of Massachusetts kept a watchful eye on

the press; and in neither a religious nor civil point of view

were they disposed to give it much liberty. … In 1662, the

government of Massachusetts appointed licensers of the press;

and afterward, in 1664, passed a law that 'no printing should

be allowed in any town within the jurisdiction, except in

Cambridge'; nor should any thing be printed there but what the

government permitted through the agency of those persons who

were empowered for the purpose. … In a short time, this law

was so far repealed as to permit the use of a press at Boston.

… It does not appear that the press, in Massachusetts, was

free from legal restraints till about the year 1755 [see

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729]. … Except in

Massachusetts, no presses were set up in the colonies till

near the close of the 17th century. Printing then [1686] was

performed in Pennsylvania [by William Bradford], 'near

Philadelphia' [at Shackamaxon, now Kensington], and afterward

in that city, by the same press which, in a few years

subsequent, was removed to New York.

See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1685-1693;

also PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

The use of types commenced in Virginia about 1681; in 1682 the

press was prohibited. In 1709 a press was established at New

London, in Connecticut."

I. Thomas,

History of Printing in America,

2nd edition. (Translated and Collection

of the American Antiquity Society, volume 5),

volume 1, pages 1-17.

ALSO IN:

J. L. Bishop,

History of American Manufactures,

volume 1, chapter 7.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1612-1650.

Origin of printed newspapers.

The newspaper defined.

Its earliest appearances in Germany and Italy.

"Lally-Tollendal, in his 'Life of Queen Elizabeth,' in the

'Biographie Universelle' (vol. xiii, published in 1815, p. 56)

… remarks that 'as far as the publication of an official

journal is concerned, France can claim the priority by more

than half a century; for in the Royal Library at Paris there

is a bulletin of the campaign of Louis XII. in Italy in 1509.'

He then gives the title of this 'bulletin,' from which it

clearly appears that it is not a political journal, but an

isolated piece of news—a kind of publication of which there

are hundreds in existence of a date anterior to 1588 [formerly

supposed to be the date of the first English newspaper—see

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1622-1702], and of which there

is no doubt that thousands were issued. There is, for

instance, in the British Museum a French pamphlet of six

printed leaves, containing an account of the surrender of

Granada to Ferdinand and Isabella on the 'first of January

last past' (le premier jour de janvier dernierement passe), in

the year 1492; and there are also the three editions of the

celebrated letter of Columbus, giving the first account of the

discovery of America, all printed at Rome in 1493. Nay, one of

the very earliest productions of the German press was an

official manifesto of Diether, Archbishop of Cologne, against

Count Adolph of Nassau, very satisfactorily proved to have

been printed at Mentz in 1462. There is among the German

bibliographers a technical name for this class of printed

documents, which are called 'Relations.' In fact, in order to

arrive at a satisfactory conclusion with regard to the origin

of newspapers, it is requisite, in the first place, to settle

with some approach to precision what a newspaper is. Four

classes of publications succeeded to each other from the 15th

to the 19th century, to which the term has by different

writers been applied:

1st. Accounts of individual public transactions of recent

occurrence.

2nd. Accounts in one publication of several public

transactions of recent occurrence, only connected together by

having taken place about the same period, so as at one time to

form the 'news of the day.'

3rd. Accounts similar to those of the second class, but issued

in a numbered series.

4th. Accounts similar to those of the second class, but issued

not only in a numbered series, but at stated intervals.

The notices of the surrender of Granada and the discovery of

America belong to the first class, and so also do the last

dying speeches, which are in our own time cried about the

streets. These surely are not newspapers. The Times and Daily

News [London] belong to the fourth class, and these, of

course, are newspapers. … Are not, in fact, all the essentials

of a newspaper comprised in the definition of the second

class, which it may be as well to repeat: 'Accounts in one

publication of several public transactions of recent

occurrence, only connected together by having taken place

about the same period, so as at one time to form the news of

the day'? Let us take an instance. There is preserved in the

British Museum a collection of several volumes of interesting

publications issued in Italy between 1640 and 1650, and

containing the news of the times. They are of a small folio

size, and consist in general of four pages, but sometimes of

six, sometimes only of two. There is a series for the month of

December, 1644, consisting entirely of the news from Rome. The

first line of the first page runs thus:—'Di Roma,' with the

date, first of the 3rd, then of the 10th, then the 17th, then

the 24th, and lastly the 31st of December, showing that a

number was published every week, most probably on the arrival

of the post from Rome. The place of publication was Florence,

and the same publishers who issued this collection of the news

from Rome, sent forth in the same month of December, 1644, two

other similar gazettes, at similar intervals, one of the news

from Genoa, the other of the news from Germany and abroad.

That this interesting series of publications, which is well

worthy of a minute examination and a detailed description, is

in reality a series of newspapers, will, I believe, be

questioned by very few; but each individual number presents no

mark by which, if separately met with, it could be known to

form part of a set. …

{2593}

The most minute researches on the history of newspapers in

Germany are, as already mentioned, those of Prutz, who has

collected notices of a large number of the 'relations,' though

much remains to be gleaned. There are, for instance, in Van

Heusde's Catalogue of the Library at Utrecht (Utrecht, 1835,

folio), the titles of nearly a hundred of them, all as early

as the sixteenth century; and the British Museum possesses a

considerable quantity, all of recent acquisition. Prutz has no

notice of the two that have been mentioned, and, like all

preceding writers, he draws no distinction between the

publications of the first class and the second. The view that

he takes is, that no publication which does not answer to the

definition of what I have termed the fourth class is entitled

to the name of a newspaper. There was in the possession of

Professor Grellman a publication called an 'Aviso,' numbered

as '14,' and published in 1612, which has been considered by

many German writers as their earliest newspaper, but Prutz

denies that honour to it, on the ground of there being no

proof that it was published at stated intervals. In the year

1615 Egenolph Emmel, of Frankfort-on-the-Main, issued a weekly

intelligencer, numbered in a series, and this, according to

Prutz, is the proper claimant. Its history has been traced

with some minuteness in a separate dissertation by

Schwarzkopf, who has also the credit of having published in

1795 the first general essay on newspapers of any value, and

to have followed up the subject in a series of articles in the

Allgemeine Litterarische Anzeiger. … The claims of Italy have

yet to be considered. Prutz dismisses them very summarily,

because, as he says, the Venetian gazettes of the sixteenth

century, said to be preserved at Florence, are in manuscript,

and it is essential to the definition of a newspaper that it

should be printed. These Venetian gazettes have never, so far

as I am aware, been described at all; they may be mere

'news-letters,' or they may be something closely approaching

to the modern newspaper. But I am strongly inclined to believe

that something of the second class of Italian origin will turn

up in the great libraries of Europe when further research is

devoted to the subject. … The existence of these 'gazettes' in

so many languages furnishes strong ground for supposing that

the popularity of newspapers originated in Italy."

T. Watts,

The fabricated "Earliest English Newspaper"

(Gentleman's Magazine, 1850, reprinted in the Gentleman's

Magazine Library; Bibliographical Notes, pages 146-150).

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1617-1680.

The Elzevirs.

"Just as the house of Aldus waned and expired, that of the

great Dutch printers, the Elzevirs, began obscurely enough at

Leyden in 1583. The Elzevir's were not, like Aldus, ripe

scholars and men of devotion to learning. Aldus laboured for

the love of noble studies; the Elzevirs were acute, and too

often 'smart' men of business. The founder of the family was

Louis (born at Louvain, 1540, died 1617). But it was in the

second and third generations that Bonaventura and Abraham

Elzevir began to publish at Leyden their editions in small

duodecimo. Like Aldus, these Elzevirs aimed at producing books

at once handy, cheap, correct, and beautiful in execution.

Their adventure was a complete success. The Elzevirs did not,

like Aldus, surround themselves with the most learned scholars

of their time. Their famous literary adviser, Heinsius, was

full of literary jealousies, and kept students of his own

calibre at a distance. The classical editions of the Elzevirs,

beautiful, but too small in type for modern eyes, are anything

but exquisitely correct. … The ordinary marks of the Elzevirs

were the sphere, the old hermit, the Athena, the eagle, and

the burning faggot. But all little old books marked with

spheres are not Elzevirs, as many booksellers suppose. Other

printers also stole the designs for the tops of chapters, the

Aegipan, the Siren, the head of Medusa, the crossed sceptres,

and the rest. In some cases the Elzevirs published their

books, especially when they were piracies, anonymously. When

they published for the Jansenists, they allowed their clients

to put fantastic pseudonyms on the title pages. But, except in

four cases, they had only two pseudonyms used on the titles of

books published by and for themselves. These disguises are

'Jean Sambix' for Jean and Daniel Elzevir, at Leyden, and 'for

the Elzevirs of Amsterdam, 'Jacques le Jeune.' The last of the

great representatives of the house, Daniel, died at Amsterdam,

1680. Abraham, an unworthy scion, struggled on at Leyden till

1712. The family still prospers, but no longer prints, in

Holland."

A. Lang,

The Library,

chapter 3.

"Though Elzevirs have been more fashionable than at present,

they are still regarded by novelists as the great prize of the

book collector. You read in novels about 'priceless little

Elzevirs,' about books 'as rare as an old Elzevir.' I have

met, in the works of a lady novelist (but not elsewhere) with

an Elzevir 'Theocritus.' The late Mr. Hepworth Dixon

introduced into one of his romances a romantic Elzevir Greek

Testament, 'worth its weight in gold.' Casual remarks of this

kind encourage a popular delusion that all Elzevirs are pearls

of considerable price."

A. Lang,

Books and Bookmen,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

J. H. Slater,

Book Collecting,

chapter 8.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1622-1702.

The first printed Newspaper and

the first daily Newspaper in England.

"Up to 1839 (when Mr. Watts, of the British Museum, exposed

the forgery) the world was led to believe that the first

English newspaper appeared in 1588." Mr. Watts "ascertained

that 'The English Mercurie,' which Mr. George Chalmers first

discovered on the shelves of the British Museum, and which was

said to have been 'imprinted in London by her highness's

printer, 1588,' was a forgery, for which the second Earl of

Hardwicke appears to be answerable." As to the actual date of

the appearance of the first printed newspaper in England, "Mr.

Knight Hunt, in his 'Fourth Estate,' speaks confidently. …

'There is now no reason to doubt,' he says, 'that the puny

ancestor of the myriads of broad sheets of our time was

published in the metropolis in 1622; and that the most

prominent of the ingenious speculators who offered the novelty

to the world, was one Nathaniel Butter.' As the printing press

had then been at work in England for a century and a half,

Caxton having established himself in Westminster Abbey in

1471, and as manuscript news-letters had been current for many

years previous to 1622, one cannot help wondering that the

inventive wits of that age should have been so slow in finding

out this excellent mode of turning Faust's invention to

profitable account.

{2594}

Butter's journal was called—'The Weekly Newes,' a name which

still survives, although the original possessor of that title

has long since gone the way of all newspapers. The first

number in the British Museum collection bears date the 23rd of

May, 1622, and contains 'news from Italy, Germanie,' &c. The

last number made its appearance on the 9th of January, 1640; a

memorable year, in which the Short Parliament, dismissed by

King Charles 'in a huff,' after a session of three weeks, was

succeeded by the Long Parliament, which unlucky Charles could

not manage quite so easily. … It was nearly a century after

'The Weekly Newes' made its first appearance, before a daily

newspaper was attempted. When weekly papers had become firmly

established, some of the more enterprising printers began to

publish their sheets twice, and ultimately three times a week.

Thus at the beginning of last century we find several papers

informing the public that they are 'published every Tuesday,

Thursday, and Saturday morning.' One of the most respectable

looking was entitled 'The New State of Europe,' or a 'True

Account of Public Transactions and Learning.' It consisted of

two pages of thin, coarse paper … and contained altogether

about as much matter as there is in a single column of the

'Times' of 1855. The custom at that period was to publish the

newspaper on a folio or quarto sheet, two pages of which were

left blank to be used for correspondence. This is expressly

stated in a standing advertisement in the 'New State of

Europe,' in which the names of certain booksellers are given

'where any person may have this paper with a blank half sheet

to write their own private affairs.' … The first number of the

'Daily Courant' [the first daily newspaper in England] was

published on the 11th of March, 1702, just three days after

the accession of Queen Anne. … As regards the form and size of

the new journal, the 'author' condescends to give the

following information, with a growling remark at the

impertinence of the 'Postboys,' 'Postmen,' 'Mercuries,' and

'Intelligencers' of that day:—'This "Courant" (as the title

shows) will be published Daily, being designed to give all the

Material News as soon as every Post arrives, and is confined

to half the compass to save the Publick at least half the

Impertinences of ordinary Newspapers.' In addition to the

Prospectus we have quoted, the first number of the 'Daily

Courant' contains only nine paragraphs, five of which were

translated from the 'Harlem Courant,' three from the 'Paris

Gazette,' and one from the 'Amsterdam Courant.' They all

relate to the war of the Spanish Succession then waging, or to

the attempts making by diplomats to settle the affairs of the

Continent at some kind of Vienna or Utrecht Conference. After

adhering for several weeks to the strict rule of giving only

one page of news, and those entirely foreign, the 'Courant'

begins to show certain symptoms of improvement. The number for

April 22, contains two pages of news and advertisements. … The

alteration in the getting-up of the 'Courant' was owing to a

change of proprietorship. The paper had now come into the

hands of 'Sam Buckley, at the Dolphin, Little Britain.' … Mr.

Samuel Buckley, who continued to publish and conduct the

'Daily Courant' for many years, was a notable man among London

publishers, as we find from various references to him in the

fugitive literature of that age."

The London Daily Press

(Westminster Review, October, 1855).

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1631.

The first printed Newspaper in France.

Dr. Renandot and his "Gazette."

"The first Frenchman to found a printed newspaper was Dr.

Théophraste Renaudot, who obtained the King's privilege for

the 'Gazette de France' in 1631. … He was a shrewd man, born

at London in 1567, brought up in Paris, but graduate of the

Faculty of Montpellier. In 1612, being then twenty-six, he

returned to the capital, and somehow got appointed at once

doctor to the King. But there was no salary attached to this

post, which was in his case purely honorary, and so Renaudot

opened a school, though the fact that he, a mere provincial

doctor, had obtained a medical appointment at court, was very

sore to the Paris Faculty of Medicine, who began to annoy him

from that moment. Renaudot, however, was a man far ahead of

his contemporaries in sagacity, patience, learning and

humanity. Petty spite did not disturb him, or at least it did

not deter him from executing any of the numerous plans he had

in mind for the welfare of his contemporaries. … This

extraordinary man not only inaugurated in France an Estate,

Professional and Servants' Agency, as well as an office for

private sales and exchanges, but further laid the basis of the

Poste Restante, Parcels Delivery, Post-Office Directory,

Tourist's Guide and Money Order Office; besides affording an

outlet to troubled spirits like those who correspond through

the agony column of 'The Times.' It is not surprising that his

office in the Rue de la Calandre should soon have been all too

small for its multifarious duties and that his original staff

of six clerks should, in less than three months, have swelled

to fifty. Richelieu, in sheer admiration at the man, sent for

him and thanked him for the services he was rendering the

King's subjects. He also offered him money to extend his

offices, and this Renaudot accepted, but only as a loan. It

was his custom to levy a commission of six deniers per livre

(franc) on the sales he effected, and by means of these and

other receipts he soon repaid the Cardinal every penny that

had been advanced to him. But he did more than this. Finding

that his registers were not always convenient modes of

reference, by reason of the excessive crowds which pressed

round them, he brought out a printed advertiser, which is

almost the exact prototype of a journal at present well known

in London. It was called 'Feuille du Bureau d'Adresses,' and

appeared every Saturday, at the price of 1 sou. Opinions

differ as to whether this paper preceded the 'Gazette de

France,' or was issued simultaneously with it. Probably it was

first published in manuscript form, but came out in print at

least six months before the 'Gazette,' for a number bearing

the date of June 14th, 1631, shows a periodical in full

organisation and containing indirect references to

advertisements which must have appeared several weeks before.

At all events this 'Feuille' was purely an advertisement

sheet—a forerunner of the 'Petites Affiches' which were

reinvented in 1746—it was in no sense a newspaper. … It is

clear that from the moment he started his 'Feuille du Bureau

d'Adresses,' Renaudot must have conceived the possibility of

founding a news-sheet. … The manuscript News Letters had

attained, by the year 1630, to such a pitch of perfection, and

found such a ready sale, that the notion of further

popularising them by printing must have suggested itself to

more than one man before it was actually put into practice.

{2595}

But the great bar was this, that nothing could be printed

without the King's privilege, and this privilege was not

lightly granted. … Renaudot, who had no wish to publish

tattle, had no reason to fear censorship. He addressed himself

to Richelieu, and craved leave to start a printed newspaper

under royal patronage. The politic Cardinal was quite shrewd

enough to see how useful might be to him an organ which would

set information before the public in the manner he desired,

and in that manner alone; so he granted all Renaudot wished,

in the form of 'letters patent,' securing him an entire

monopoly of printing newspapers, and moreover he conferred on

his protégé the pompous title of Historiographer of France.

The first number of the 'Gazette de France' appeared on

Friday, May 30, 1631. Its size was four quarto pages, and its

price one sol parisis, i. e. ½d., worth about l½d. modern

money. … The first number contained no preface or address,

nothing in the way of a leading article, but plunged at once

in medias res, and gave news from nineteen foreign towns or

countries, but oddly enough, not a line of French

intelligence. … The bulk of the matter inserted was furnished

direct by Richelieu from the Foreign Office, and several of

the paragraphs were written in his own hand. … The publication

of the 'Gazette' was continued uninterruptedly from week to

week but the press of matter was so great that Renaudot took

to issuing a Supplement with the last number of every month.

In this he condensed the reports of the preceding numbers,

corrected errors, added fresh news, and answered his

detractors. … At the end of the year 1631 he suppressed his

monthly Supplement, increased the 'Gazette' to eight pages,

and announced that for the future he would issue supplements

as they were needed. It seems they were needed pretty often,

for towards the beginning of the year 1633 Renaudot published

Supplements, under the title of 'Ordinaries and

Extraordinaries,' as often as twice, and even three times in

one week. In fact whenever a budget of news arrived which

would nowadays justify a special edition, the indefatigable

editor set his criers afoot with a fresh printed sheet,

shouting, 'Buy the "Extraordinary," containing the account of

the superb burial of the King of Denmark!' or, 'Buy and read

of the capture of the beautiful island of Curaçoa in the

Indies by the Dutch from the Spaniards!' Renaudot understood

the noble art of puffing. He dressed his criers in red, and

gave them a trumpet apiece to go and bray the praises of the

'Gazette' on the off days, when the paper did not appear. … On

the death of Renaudot, he was succeeded by his sons Eusèbe and

Isaac, who in their turn bequeathed the Gazette' to Eusèbe

junior, son of the elder brother, who took orders and

consequently left no progeny. After this the 'Gazette' became

Government property. … In 1762 the 'Gazette' was annexed to

the Foreign Office Department. … The 'Gazette de France'

continued to appear under royal patronage until May 1st, 1792,

when its official ties were snapped and it came out as a

private and republican journal with the date 'Fourth Year of

Freedom.' The 'Gazette' has flourished with more or less

brilliancy ever since, and has been for the last fifty years a

legitimist organ, read chiefly in the provinces."

The French Press

(Cornhill Magazine, June, 1873).

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1637.

Archbishop Laud's Star-Chamber restriction of printing.

On the 11th of July, 1637, "Archbishop Laud procured a decree

to be passed in the star chamber, by which it was ordered,

that the master printers should be reduced to twenty in

number; and that if any other should secretly, or openly,

pursue the trade of printing, he should be set in the pillory,

or whipped through the streets, and suffer such other

punishment as the court should inflict upon him; that none of

the master printers should print any book or books of

divinity, law, physic, philosophy, or poetry, till the said

books, together with the titles, epistles, prefaces, tables,

or commendatory verses, should be lawfully licensed, on pain

of losing the exercise of his art, and being proceeded against

in the star chamber, &c.; that no person should reprint any

book without a new license; that every merchant, bookseller,

&c., who should import any book or books, should present a

catalogue of them to the archbishop or bishop, &c., before

they were delivered, or exposed to sale, who should view them,

with power to seize those that were schismatical; and, that no

merchant, &c., should print or cause to be printed abroad, any

book, or books, which either entirely or for the most part,

were written in the English tongue, nor knowingly import any

such books, upon pain of being proceeded against in the star

chamber, or high commission court. … That there should be four

founders of letters for printing, and no more. That the

archbishop of Canterbury, or the bishop of London, with six

other high commissioners, shall supply the places of those

four as they shall become void. That no master founder shall

keep above two apprentices at one time. That all journeymen

founders be employed by the masters of the trade; and that all

the idle journeymen be compelled to work upon pain of

imprisonment, and such other punishment as the court shall

think fit. That no master founder of letters shall employ any

other person in any work belonging to casting and founding of

letters than freemen and apprentices to the trade, save only

in putting off the knots of metal hanging at the end of the

letters when they are first cast; in which work, every master

founder may employ one boy only, not bound to the trade."

C. H. Timperley,

Encyclopœdia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,

page 490.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1647.

Renewed ordinance, in England, against the printers.

"An ordinance of parliament passed the house of lords on this

day [September 30, 1647], that no person shall make, write,

print, sell, publish or utter, or cause to be made, &c., any

book, pamphlet, treatise, ballad, libel, sheet, or sheets of

news whatsoever (except the same be licensed by both or either

house of parliament,) under the penalty of 40s. and an

imprisonment not exceeding forty days, if he can not pay it:

if a printer, he is to pay a fine of only 20s., or suffer

twenty days' imprisonment, and likewise to have his press and

implements of printing broken in pieces. The book-seller, or

stationer, to pay 10s., or suffer ten days' imprisonment,—and,

lastly, the hawker, pedlar, or ballad-singer, to forfeit all

his printed papers exposed to sale, and to be whipped as a

common rogue in the parish where he shall be apprehended.

{2596}

Early in the following year, the committee of estates in

Scotland passed an act prohibiting the printing under the pain

of death, any book, declaration, or writing, until these were

first submitted to their revisal. … One of the consequences of

these persecutions was the raising up of a new class of

publishers, those who became noted for what was called

'unlawful and unlicensed books.' Sparkes, the publisher of

Prynne's Histriomastix, was of this class. The presbyterian

party in parliament, who thus found the press closed on them,

vehemently cried out for its freedom; and it was imagined,

that when they ascended into power, the odious office of a

licenser of the press would have been abolished; but these

pretended friends of freedom, on the contrary, discovered

themselves as tenderly alive to the office as the old

government, and maintained it with the extremest vigour. Both

in England and Scotland, during the civil wars, the party in

power endeavoured to crush by every means the freedom of the

press."

C. H. Timperley,

Encyclopœdia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,

page 506.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1654-1694.

Freedom of the press under Cromwell.

Censorship under the restored Stuarts.

Roger L'Estrange and the first news reporters.

"During the Protectorate of Cromwell the newspaper press knew

… what it was to enjoy the luxury of freedom. The natural

result was that a very great increase took place in the number

of new political journals. Most of them, however, had only a

very brief existence. Many of their number could not boast of

a longer life than six or seven months—nay, many of them not

so much as even that term of life. But, as might have been

expected, from what was known of the antecedents of Charles

II., the freedom of the press, which previously existed, came

to an immediate end on his ascending the throne. Hardly had he

done so, than an edict was issued, prohibiting the publication

of any journal except the London Gazette, which was originally

printed at Oxford, and called the Oxford Gazette,—the Court

being then resident there on account of the plague raging in

London at the time, 1665, when it was commenced, and for some

time afterwards. This was an act of pure despotism. But

Government at this time reserved to itself the right —a right

which there was none to dispute—to publish a broad sheet in

connexion with the London Gazette, whenever they might deem it

expedient, which should contain either foreign or domestic

matters of interest,—of the knowledge of which some of the

King's subjects might wish to be put in early possession. …

The newspapers of the seventeenth century were permitted,

until the time of Charles II., to be published without being

licensed by the Government of the day; but in the reign of

that despotic sovereign, a law was passed [1662] prohibiting

the publication of any newspaper without being duly licensed.

… Sir John Birkenhead, … one of the three men whom Disraeli

the elder called the fathers of the English press, was

appointed to the office of Licenser of the Press. But he was

soon succeeded by Sir Roger l'Estrange."

J. Grant,

The Newspaper Press,

volume 1, chapter. 2.

Roger L'Estrange "is remarkable for having been the writer of

the best newspapers which appeared before the age of Queen

Anne, and, at the same time, a most bitter enemy to the

freedom of the press. He was appointed licenser or censor in

1663, and in the same year was given authority to publish all

newspapers, periodicals, and pamphlets, not exceeding two

sheets in size. He appears to have looked upon his newspaper

as a noxious thing, suffered to exist only that an income

might be created for him in return for the labour of purging

the press. Yet he spared no pains to make his Public

Intelligencer readable, and if we may trust his letters now

preserved at the State Paper Office, expended in the first

year more than £500 on 'spyes for collecting intelligence.'

Three years afterwards he estimated the profits at £400 a

year. … He sent paid correspondents, or 'spyes' as they were

called, to all parts of the country, and even induced some

respectable persons, under promise of concealing their names,

to contribute occasional paragraphs; these persons were for

the most part repaid by sending to them their newspapers and

letters free of postage. Another set of 'spyes' was employed

in picking up the news of the town on Paul's Walk or in the

taverns and coffee–houses. L'Estrange printed about sixteen

reams of his Intelligencer weekly, which were for the most

part sold by the mercury-women who cried them about the

streets. One Mrs. Andrews is said to have taken more than

one-third of the whole quantity printed. … Advantage was taken

of a slip in the weekly intelligence to deprive L'Estrange of

his monopoly in favour of the new Oxford Gazette, published in

the winter of 1665 and transferred to London in the ensuing

spring. The Gazette was placed under the control of

Williamson, then a rising under-Secretary of State, under

whose austere influence nothing was suffered to appear which

could excite or even amuse the public. … L'Estrange has not

been a favourite with historians, and we confess that his

harsh measures towards the press are apt to raise a feeling of

repugnance. … But he was certainly an enthusiastic and

industrious writer, who raised the tone of the press, even

while taking pains to fetter its liberty. When he lost his

monopoly, that era of desolation began which Macaulay has so

forcibly described. The newspapers became completely sterile,

omitting events even of such importance as the trial of the

seven bishops, and were supplanted in popular favour by the

manuscript news-letters, which were, in fact, the only

journals of importance. On the day after the abdication of

James II. three fresh newspapers appeared, and many more burst

out after the appearance of the official journal under the

style of the Orange Gazette. But it was not until 1694 that

the king was induced to abolish the censorship and to permit

free trade in news; 'he doubted much,' says Hume, 'of the

salutary effects of such unlimited freedom.' The newspapers

increased and multiplied exceedingly for the eighteen years

between the abolition of the office of licenser and the

passing of the Stamp Act, in 1712, by which a halfpenny tax

was laid on every half-sheet of intelligence."

Early English Newspapers

(Cornhill Magazine, July, 1868).

{2597}

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1685-1693.

William Bradford and his Press in Philadelphia and New York.

William Bradford, a young printer, of the Society of Friends,

came to Philadelphia in the autumn of 1685, and established

himself in business. "His first publication was 'Kalendarium

Pennsilvaniense, or America's Messenger; Being an Almanack for

the Year of Grace 1686.' This brought him a summons before the

Governor and Council, for referring to the Proprietary, in the

table of chronology, ns 'Lord Penn;' and, on his appearance,

he was ordered to blot out the objectionable title, and

forbidden to print anything without license from the

Provincial Council. In 1687 he was cautioned by the

Philadelphia meeting not to print anything touching the

Quakers without its approval. Two years later he was again

called before the Governor, and Council—this time for printing

the charter of the province. The spirited report, in his own

handwriting, of his examination on this occasion, is now

preserved in the collection of the New York Historical

Society. Disappointed at the non-fulfilment of Penn's promise

of the government printing and the failure of his scheme for

printing an English Bible, which, although indorsed by the

meeting, found few subscribers, and harassed by both the civil

and religious authorities, Bradford determined to leave the

province," which he did, with his family, sailing to England

in 1689. He was induced, however, by promises of increased

business and a yearly salary of £40, to return. In 1692,

having become one of the supporters of George Keith, and

having printed Keith's "Appeal", he was arrested and

imprisoned.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

This occurred in August, and his trial followed in December.

The jury disagreed, and he was held for appearance at the next

court. "In the meantime the dissensions in the province

aroused by the Keithian schism had led to the abrogation of

Penn's charter by the crown, and the appointment of Benjamin

Fletcher to be Royal Governor of Pennsylvania as well as New

York." This change led to the dropping of proceedings against

Bradford, and to his removal from Philadelphia to New York,

whither he seems to have been invited. His removal was

undoubtedly prompted by a resolution which the Provincial

Council of New York adopted on the 23d of March, 1693: "That

if a Printer will come and settle in the city of New York for

the printing of our Acts of Assembly and Publick Papers, he

shall be allowed the sum of £40 current money of New York per

annum for his salary and have the benefit of his printing

besides what serves the publick." "Bradford's first warrant

for his salary as 'Printer to King William and Queen Mary, at

the City of New York,' was dated October 12, 1693, and was for

six months, due on the 10th preceding," showing that he had

established himself in the colony more hospitable to his art

as early as the 10th of April, 1693. "What was the first

product of his press is a matter of doubt. It may have been,

as Dr. Moore suggests, the 'Journal of the Late Actions of the

French at Canada,' or 'New England's Spirit of Persecution

Transmitted to Pennsilvania'"—which was a report of his own

trial at Philadelphia—or it may have been an Act of the New

York Assembly—one of three which his press produced early that

year, but the priority among which is uncertain.

C. R Hildeburn,

Printing in New York in the 17th Century

(Memorial History of the City of New York,

volume 1, chapter 15.)

ALSO IN:

I. Thomas,

History of Printing in America,

2d edition, volume 1.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1695.

Expiration of the Censorship law in England.

Quick multiplication of Newspapers.

"While the Licensing Act was in force there was no newspaper

in England except the 'London Gazette,' which was edited by a

clerk in the office of the Secretary of State, and which

contained nothing but what the Secretary of State wished the

nation to know. There were indeed many periodical papers: but

none of those papers could be called a newspaper. Welwood, a

zealous Whig, published a journal called the Observator: but

his Observator, like the Observator which Lestrange had

formerly edited, contained, not the news, but merely

dissertations on politics. A crazy bookseller, named John

Dunton, published the Athenian Mercury: but the Athenian

Mercury merely discussed questions of natural philosophy, of

casuistry and of gallantry. A fellow of the Royal Society,

named John Houghton, published what he called a Collection for

the Improvement of Industry and Trade: but his Collection

contained little more than the prices of stocks, explanations

of the modes of doing business in the City, puffs of new

projects, and advertisements of books, quack medicines,

chocolate, Spa water, civet cats, surgeons wanting ships,

valets wanting masters, and ladies wanting husbands. If ever

he printed any political news, he transcribed it from the

Gazette. The Gazette was so partial and so meagre a chronicle

of events that, though it had no competitors, it had but a

small circulation. … But the deficiencies of the Gazette were

to a certain extent supplied in London by the coffeehouses,

and in the country by the news-letters. On the third of May

1695 the law which had subjected the press to a censorship

expired. Within a fortnight, a stanch old Whig, named Harris,

who had, in the days of the Exclusion Bill, attempted to set

up a newspaper entitled Intelligence Domestic and Foreign, and

who had been speedily forced to relinquish that design,

announced that the Intelligence Domestic and Foreign,

suppressed fourteen years before by tyranny, would again

appear. Ten days later was printed the first number of the

English Courant. Then came the Packet Boat from Holland and

Flanders, the Pegasus, the London Newsletter, the London Post,

the Flying Post, the Old Postmaster, the Postboy, and the

Postman. The history of the newspapers of England from that

time to the present day is a most interesting and instructive

part of the history of the country. At first they were small

and mean-looking. … Only two numbers came out in a week; and a

number contained little more matter than may be found in a

single column of a daily paper of our time."

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 21.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729.

The first Newspapers in America.

"There was not a newspaper published in the English colonies,

throughout the extensive continent of North America, until the

24th of April, 1704. John Campbell, a Scotchman, who was a

bookseller and postmaster in Boston, was the first who began

and established a publication of this kind. It was entitled

'The Boston News-Letter.' … It is printed on half a sheet of

pot paper, with a small pica type, folio.

{2598}

The first page is filled with an extract from 'The London

Flying Post,' respecting the pretender. … The queen's speech

to both houses of parliament on that occasion, a few articles

under the Boston head, four short paragraphs of marine

intelligence from New York, Philadelphia, and New London, and

one advertisement, form its whole contents. The advertisement

is from Campbell, the proprietor of the paper." In 1719, a

rival paper was started in Boston, called the "Gazette," and

in 1721, a third, founded by James Franklin, took the name of

"The New England Courant." Meantime there had appeared at

Philadelphia, on the 22nd of December, 1719,—only one day

later than the second of the Boston newspapers—"The American

Weekly Mercury," printed by Andrew Bradford, son of William

Bradford. The same printer, Andrew Bradford, removing to New

York, brought out "The New York Gazette," the first newspaper

printed in that city, in October, 1725.

I. Thomas,

History of Printing in America,

volume 2, page 12, and after.

"In 1740, the number of newspapers in the English colonies on

the continent had increased to eleven, of which one appeared

in South Carolina, one in Virginia, three in Pennsylvania—one

of them being in German—one in New York, and the remaining

five in Boston. … The New England 'Courant,' the fourth

American periodical, was, in August 1721, established by James

Franklin as an organ of independent opinion. Its temporary

success was advanced by Benjamin, his brother and apprentice,

a boy of fifteen, who wrote for its columns, worked in

composing the types as well as printing off the sheets, and,

as carrier, distributed the papers to the customers. The sheet

satirized hypocrisy, and spoke of religious knaves as of all

knaves the worst. This was described as tending 'to abuse the

ministers of religion in a manner which was intolerable.' … In

July 1722, a resolve passed the council, appointing a censor

for the press of James Franklin; but the house refused its

concurrence. The ministers persevered; and, in January 1723, a

committee of inquiry was raised by the legislature. Benjamin,

being examined, escaped with an admonition; James, the

publisher, refusing to discover the author of the offence, was

kept in jail for a month; his paper was censured as reflecting

injuriously on the reverend ministers of the gospel; and, by

vote of the house and council, he was forbidden to print it,

'except it be first supervised.' Vexed at the arbitrary

proceedings, Benjamin Franklin, then but seventeen years old,

in October 1723, sailed clandestinely for New York. Finding

there no employment, he crossed to Amboy; went on foot to the

Delaware; for want of a wind, rowed in a boat from Burlington

to Philadelphia; and bearing marks of his labor at the oar,

weary, hungry, having for his whole stock of cash a single

dollar, the runaway apprentice—the pupil of the free schools

of Boston, rich in the boundless hope of youth and the

unconscious power of modest genius—stepped on shore to seek

food and occupation. On the deep foundations of sobriety,

frugality and industry, the young journeyman built his

fortunes and fame; and he soon came to have a printing-office

of his own. … The assembly of Pennsylvania chose him its

printer. He planned a newspaper [the 'Pennsylvania Gazette'];

and, when (1729] he became its proprietor and editor, he

defended freedom of thought and speech, and the inalienable

power of the people."

G. Bancroft,

History of the United States of America,

part 3, chapter 15 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

J. Parton,

Life of Franklin,

parts 1-2 (volume l).

B. Franklin,

Life by Himself,

edited by J. Bigelow,

part 1.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1709-1752.

The Periodicals of the Essayists.

The "Tatler," "Spectator," and their successors.

"In the spring of 1709, Steele [Sir Richard] formed a literary

project, of which he was far indeed from foreseeing the

consequences. Periodical papers had during many years been

published in London. Most of these were political; but in some

of them questions of morality, taste, and love-casuistry had

been discussed. The literary merit of these works was small

indeed; and even their names are now known only to the

curious. Steele had been appointed gazetteer by Sunderland, at

the request, it is said, of Addison; and thus had access to

foreign intelligence earlier and more authentic than was in

those times within the reach of an ordinary news-writer. This

circumstance seems to have suggested to him the scheme of

publishing a periodical paper on a new plan. It was to appear

on the days on which the post left London for the country,

which were, in that generation, the Tuesdays, Thursdays, and

Saturdays. It was to contain the foreign news, accounts of

theatrical representations, and the literary gossip of Will's

and of the Grecian. It was also to contain remarks on the

fashionable topics of the day, compliments to beauties,

pasquinades on noted sharpers, and criticisms on popular

preachers. The aim of Steele does not appear to have been at

first higher than this. … Issac Bickerstaff, Esquire,

Astrologer, was an imaginary person, almost as well known in

that age as Mr. Paul Pry or Mr. Pickwick in ours. Swift had

assumed the name of Bickerstaff in a satirical pamphlet

against Partridge, the almanac-maker. Partridge had been fool

enough to publish a furious reply. Bickerstaff had rejoined in

a second pamphlet still more diverting than the first. All the

wits had combined to keep up the joke, and the town was long

in convulsions of laughter. Steele determined to employ the

name which this controversy had made popular; and, in April,

1709, it was announced that Isaac Bickerstaff, Esquire,

Astrologer, was about to publish a paper called the 'Tatler.'

Addison had not been consulted about this scheme; but as soon

as he heard of it, he determined to give it his assistance.

The effect of that assistance cannot be better described than

in Steele's own words. 'I fared,' he said, 'like a distressed

prince who calls in a powerful neighbour to his aid. I was

undone by my auxiliary. When I had once called him in, I could

not subsist without dependence on him.' 'The paper,' he says

elsewhere, 'was advanced indeed. It was raised to a greater

thing than I intended it.'"

Lord Macaulay.

Life and Writings of Addison (Essays).

"Steele, on the 12th of April 1709, issued the first number of

the 'Tatler.' … This famous newspaper, printed in one folio

sheet of 'tobacco paper' with 'scurvy letter,' ran to 271

numbers, and abruptly ceased to appear in January 1711. It

enjoyed an unprecedented success, for, indeed, nothing that

approached it had ever before been issued from the periodical

press in England. The division of its contents was thus

arranged by the editor: 'All accounts of gallantry, pleasure,

and entertainment shall be under the article of White's

Chocolate House; poetry under that of Will's Coffee-House;

learning under the title of Grecian; foreign and domestic news

you will have from St. James's Coffee-House; and what else I

shall on any other subject offer shall be dated from my own

apartment.'

{2599}

The political news gradually ceased to appear. … Of the 271

'Tatlers,' 188 were written by Steele, 42 by Addison, and 36

by both conjointly. Three were from the pen of John Hughes. …

These, at least, are the numbers usually given, but the

evidence on which they are based is slight. It rests mainly

upon the indications given by Steele to Tickell when the

latter was preparing his edition of Addison's Works. The

conjecture may be hazarded that there were not a few Tatlers

written by Addison which he was not anxious to claim as his

particular property. … Addison, … remained Steele's firm

friend, and less than two months after the cessation of the

'Tatler' there appeared the first number of a still more

famous common enterprise, the 'Spectator,' on the 1st of March

1711. It was announced to appear daily, and was to be composed

of the reflections and actions of the members of an imaginary

club, formed around 'Mr. Spectator.' In this club the most

familiar figure is the Worcestershire Knight, Sir Roger de

Coverley, the peculiar property of Addison. … The 'Spectator'

continued to appear daily until December 1712. It consisted of

555 numbers, of which Addison wrote 274, Steele 236, Hughes

19, and Pope 1 (The Messiah, 'Spectator' 378). Another

contributor was Eustace Budgell (1685-1736), Addison's cousin.

… The 'Spectator' enjoyed so very unequivocal a success that

it has puzzled historians to account for its discontinuance.

In No. 517 Addison killed Sir Roger de Coverley 'that nobody

else might murder him.' This shows a voluntary intention to

stop the publication, which the Stamp Act itself had not been

able to do by force."

E. Gosse,

A History of Eighteenth Century Literature,

chapter 6.

"After this, in 1713, came the 'Guardian'; and in 1714 an

eighth volume of the 'Spectator' was issued by Addison alone.

He was also the sole author of the 'Freeholder,' 1715, which

contains the admirable sketch of the 'Tory Foxhunter.' Steele,

on his side, followed up the 'Guardian' by the 'Lover,' the

'Reader,' and half-a–dozen abortive efforts; but his real

successes, as well as those of Addison, were in the three

great collections for which they worked together. … Between

the 'Guardian' of 1713 and the 'Rambler' of 1750-2 there were

a number of periodical essayists of varying merit. It is

scarcely necessary to recall the names of these now forgotten

'Intelligencers,' 'Moderators,' 'Remembrancers,' and the like,

the bulk of which were political. Fielding places one of them,

the 'Freethinker' of Philips, nearly on a level with 'those

great originals the "Tatlers" and the "Spectators;"' but the

initial chapters to the different books of 'Tom Jones' attract

us more forcibly to the author's own 'Champion,' written in

conjunction with the Ralph who 'makes night hideous' in the

'Dunciad.' … Another of Fielding's enterprises in the

'Spectator' vein was the 'Covent Garden Journal,' 1752. …

Concurrently with the 'Covent Garden Journal' appeared the

final volume of Johnson's 'Rambler,' a work upon the cardinal

defect of which its author laid his finger, when in later

life, he declared it to be 'too wordy.' Lady Mary said in her

smart way that the 'Rambler' followed the 'Spectator' as a

pack horse would do a hunter. … In the twenty-nine papers

which Johnson wrote for Hawkesworth's 'Adventurer,' the

'Rambler' style is maintained. In the 'Idler,' however, which

belongs to a later date, when its author's mind was unclouded,

and he was comparatively free from the daily pressure" of

necessity, he adopts a simpler and less polysyllabic style."

A. Dobson,

Eighteenth Century Essays,

introduction.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1712.

The first Stamp Tax on Newspapers in England.

The first stamp tax on newspapers in England went into effect

on the 12th day of August, 1712. "An act had passed the

legislature, that 'for every pamphlet or paper contained in

half a sheet, or lesser piece of paper so printed, the sum of

one halfpenny sterling: and for every such pamphlet or paper

being larger than half a sheet, and not exceeding one whole

sheet, so printed, a duty after the rate of one penny sterling

for every sheet printed thereof.' This act, which was to curb

the licentiousness of the press, was to be in force for the

space of thirty-two years, to be reckoned from the 10th day of

June, 1712. Addison, in the 'Spectator' of this day, says,

'this is the day on which many eminent authors will probably

publish their last works. I am afraid that few of our weekly

historians, who are men that above all others delight in war,

will be able to subsist under the weight of a stamp duty in an

approaching peace. In short, the necessity of carrying a

stamp, and the impracticability of notifying a bloody battle,

will, I am afraid, both concur to the sinking of these thin

folios which have every other day related to us the history of

Europe for several years last past. A facetious friend of

mine, who loves a pun, calls this present mortality among

authors, "the fall of the leaf.'" On this tax Dean Swift thus

humorously alludes in his Journal to Stella, as follows

(August 7):—'Do you know that all Grub-street is dead and gone

last week? No more Ghosts or murders now for love or money. I

plied it close the last fortnight, and published at least

seven papers of my own, besides some of other people's; but

now every single half-sheet pays a halfpenny to the queen. The

'Observator' is fallen; the 'Medleys' are jumbled together

with the 'Flying Post'; the 'Examiner' is deadly sick; the

'Spectator' keeps up and doubles its price; I know not how

long it will hold. Have you seen the red stamp the papers are

marked with? Methinks the stamping is worth a half-penny.' The

stamp mark upon the newspapers was a rose and thistle joined

by the stalks, and enclosing between the Irish shamrock, the

whole three were surmounted by a crown. … It is curious to

observe what an effect this trifling impost had upon the

circulation of the most favourite papers. Many were entirely

discontinued, and several of those which survived were

generally united into one publication. The bill operated in a

directly contrary manner to what the ministers had

anticipated; for the opposition, who had more leisure, and

perhaps more acrimony of feeling, were unanimous in the

support of their cause. The adherents of ministers, who were

by no means behind the opposition in their proficiency in the

topic of defamation, were, it seems, not so strenuously

supported; and the measure thus chiefly destroyed those whom

it was Bolinbroke's interest to protect.

{2600}

For some reason, which we have not been able to trace, the

stamp-duties were removed shortly after their imposition, and

were not again enforced until 1725. In order to understand how

so small a duty as one halfpenny should operate so strongly

upon these periodical publications, we must look at the price

at which they were vended at that period. The majority of them

were published at a penny, many at a halfpenny, and some were

even published so low as a farthing."

C. H. Timperley,

Encyclopædia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,

pages 601-602.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1723.

End of Newspaper monopoly in France.

"Until Louis XVI. was dethroned, Paris was officially supposed

to possess but three periodicals: the 'Gazette de France' for

politics, 'Le Journal des Savants' for literature and science,

and the 'Mercure de France' for politics, literature, and

social matters mingled. For a time these monopolies were

respected, but only for a very short time. … During the

Regency of the Duke of Orleans (1715-23), the 'Gazette de

France,' 'Mercure,' and 'Journal des Savants' combined to

bring an action for infringement against all the papers then

existing, but they were non-suited on a technical objection;

and this was their last attempt at asserting their

prerogative."

The French Press

(Cornhill Magazine, October, 1873).

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1734.

Zenger's trial in New York.

Determination of the freedom of the Press.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1771.

Freedom of Parliamentary reporting won in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1777.

The first Daily Newspaper in France.

"In 1777 there appeared the 'Journal de Paris,' which only

deserves notice from its being the first daily paper issued in

France."

Westminster Review,

July 1860, page 219.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1784-1813.

The earliest daily Newspapers in the United States.

"The first daily newspaper published in the United States was

the 'American Daily Advertiser.' It was issued in Philadelphia

in 1784, by Benjamin Franklin Bache, afterwards of the Aurora.

When the seat of national government was in Philadelphia, it

shared the confidence and support of Jefferson with the

'National Gazette.' It was strong in its opposition to the

Federal section of the administration of Washington, and to

all the measures originating with Hamilton. Zachariah Poulson

became its proprietor and publisher in 1802, and it was known

as 'Poulson's Advertiser,' and we believe he continued its

publisher till October 28, 1839, when the establishment was

sold to Brace and Newbold, the publishers of a new paper

called the 'North American.' The name after that was the

'North American and Daily Advertiser.' … The 'New York Daily

Advertiser,' the second real journal in the United States, was

published in 1785. It was commenced on the 1st of March by

Francis Childs & Co. … On the 29th of July, 1786, the

'Pittsburg (Pennsylvania) Gazette,' the first newspaper

printed west of the Alleghany Mountains, appeared, and in 1796

the 'Post' was issued. … 'The United States Gazette' was

started in New York in 1789 by John Fenno, of Boston. Its

original name was 'Gazette of the United States.' It was first

issued in New York, because the seat of the national

government was then in that city. When Congress removed to

Philadelphia in 1790, the 'Gazette' went with that body. In

1792 it was the special organ of Alexander Hamilton. … Noah

Webster, the lexicographer of America, was a lawyer in 1793,

and had an office in Hartford, Connecticut. 'Washington's

administration was then violently assailed by the 'Aurora,'

'National Gazette,' and other organs of the Republican Party,

and by the partisans of France. Jefferson was organizing the

opposition elements, and Hamilton was endeavoring to

strengthen the Federal party. Newspapers were established on

each side as the chief means of accomplishing the objects each

party had in view. Noah Webster was considered, in this state

of affairs, the man to aid the Federalists journalistically in

New York. He was, therefore, induced to remove to that city

and take charge of a Federal organ. On the 9th of December,

1793, he issued the first number of a daily paper, which was

named the 'Minerva.' According to its imprint, it appeared

'every day, Sundays excepted, at four o'clock, or earlier if

the arrival of the mail will permit.' … With the 'Minerva' was

connected a semi-weekly paper called the 'Herald.' … The names

of 'Minerva' and 'Herald' were shortly changed to those of

'Commercial Advertiser' and 'New York Spectator,' and these

names have continued. … The 'Commercial Advertiser' is the

oldest daily newspaper in the metropolis. Of the hundreds of

daily papers started in New York, from the time of Bradford's

Gazette in 1725 to the 'Journal of Commerce' in 1827, there

are now [1872] only two survivors—the 'Evening Post' and the

'Commercial Advertiser.' … The first prominent daily paper

issued in New England was the Boston Daily Advertiser, the

publication of which was commenced on the 3d of March, 1813.

There was a daily paper begun in that city on the 6th of

October, 1796, by Alexander Martin, and edited by John O'Ley

Burk, one of the 'United Irishmen.' It lived about six months.

It was called the Polar Star and Boston Daily Advertiser.

Another was attempted on the 1st of January, 1798, by Caleb P.

Wayne, who was afterwards editor of the United States Gazette

of Philadelphia. This second daily paper of Boston was named

the Federal Gazette and Daily Advertiser. It lived three

months. The third attempt at a daily paper in the capital of

Massachusetts was a success. It was published by William W.

Clapp, afterwards of the Saturday Evening Gazette, and edited

by Horatio Biglow."

F. Hudson,

Journalism in the United States,

pages 175-194, and 378.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1785-1812.

The founding of "The Times," in London.

The beginning of "leading articles."

The newspaper afterwards famous as "The Times" was started, in

1785, under the name of the "Daily Universal Register," and

did not adopt the title of "The Times" until the 1st of

January, 1788.

J. Grant,

The Newspaper Press,

volume 1, chapter 16.

"All the newspapers that can be said to have been

distinguished in any way till the appearance of the 'Times'

were distinguished by some freak of cleverness. … The 'Times'

took up a line of its own from the first day of its existence.

The proprietors staked their fortunes upon the general

character of their paper, upon the promptitude and accuracy of

its intelligence, upon its policy, upon the frank and

independent spirit of its comments on public men. … The chief

proprietor of the 'Times' was John Walter—a man who knew

nothing or next to nothing of newspaper work, but who knew

precisely what the public wanted in a newspaper, and

possessed, with this instinct and intelligence, the

determination and enterprise which constitute the character of

a successful man of business.

{2601}

He saw how a newspaper ought to be conducted, and he thought

he saw how, by the development of a new idea in printing, he

could produce the 'Times' a good deal cheaper than any of its

contemporaries. The whole English language, according to Mr.

Walter, consisted of about 90,000 words; but by separating the

particles and omitting the obsolete words, technical terms,

and common terminations, Mr. Walter believed it to be possible

to reduce the stock in common use to about 50,000, and a large

proportion of these words, with all the common terminations,

he proposed to have cast separately, so that the compositor,

with a slip of MS. before him to set in type, might pick up

words or even phrases instead of picking up one by one every

letter of every word in his copy, and thus, of course, save a

good deal of time. The idea was impracticable, utterly

impracticable, because the number of words required to carry

out the system must in itself be so great that no case of type

that a printer could stand before would hold them all, even if

the printer 'learn his boxes' with a case of some 4,000 or

5,000 compartments before him; but it took a good many years,

a good many experiments, and the expenditure of some thousands

of pounds to convince Mr. Walter that the failure was not due

to the perversity of his printers but to the practical

difficulties which surrounded his conception. John Walter was

far more successful in the general conduct of the 'Times' as a

newspaper than he was in the management of the 'Times'

printing office. He set all the printers in London by the ears

with his whim about logographic printing. But he had a very

clear conception of what a national newspaper ought to be, and

with the assistance of a miscellaneous group of men, who, as

they are sketched for us by Henry Crabb Robinson, were

apparently far more picturesque than practical, John Walter

made the 'Times' what the 'Times' has been for nearly a

century, pre-eminently and distinctly a national newspaper.

The 'Times,' in its original shape, consisted merely of the

day's news, a few advertisements, some market quotations,

perhaps a notice of a new book, a few scraps of gossip, and in

the session, a Parliamentary report. The 'Morning Chronicle'

had the credit … of inventing the leading article, as it had

the credit of inventing Parliamentary reporting. The 'Morning

Chronicle,' on the 12th of May, 1791, published a paragraph,

announcing that 'the great and firm body of the Whigs of

England, true to their principles, had decided on the dispute

between Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke, in favor of Mr. Fox, as the

representative of the pure doctrines of Whiggery,' and that in

consequence of this resolution Mr. Burke would retire from

Parliament. It was very short, but this paragraph is the

nearest approximation that is to be found in the newspapers of

that time to a leading article, and appearing as it did in the

part of the 'Morning Chronicle' where a year or two afterwards

the leading articles were printed, Mr. Wingrove Cooke cites it

as the germ of the leaders which, when they became general,

gave a distinctive colour and authority to newspapers as

independent organs of opinion and criticism. The idea soon

became popular; and in the 'Morning Post' and the 'Courier'

the leading article, developed as it was by Coleridge and

Macintosh into a work of art, often rivalling in argument,

wit, and eloquence the best speeches in Parliament, became the

object of quite as much interest as the Parliamentary reports

themselves. The 'Times,' knowing how to appropriate one by one

all the specialties of its contemporaries, and to improve upon

what it appropriated, was one of the first newspapers to adopt

the idea of leading articles, and in adopting that idea, to

improve upon it by stamping its articles with a spirit of

frankness and independence which was all its own. … The reign

of John Walter, practically the founder of the 'Times,' ended

in the year 1812, and upon his death his son, the second John

Walter, took possession of Printing House Square, and, acting

in the spirit of his father, with ampler means, soon made the

'Times' the power in the State that it has been from that day

to this."

C. Pebody,

English Journalism,

pages 92-99.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1817.

The trials of William Hone.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1830-1833.

The first Penny Papers in the United States.

"The Penny Press of America dates from 1833. There were small

and cheap papers published in Boston and Philadelphia before

and about that time. The Bostonian was one. The Cent, in

Philadelphia, was another. The latter was issued by

Christopher C. Cornwall in 1830. These and all similar

adventures were not permanent. Most of them were issued by

printers when they had nothing else to do. Still they belonged

to the class of cheap papers. The idea came from the

illustrated Penny Magazine, issued in London in 1830. … The

Morning Post was the first penny paper of any pretensions in

the United States. It was started on New-Year's Day, 1833, as

a two-cent paper, by Dr. Horatio David Shepard, with Horace

Greeley and Francis V. Story as partners, printers, and

publishers. … After one week's trial, with the exhaustion of

the capital, the original idea of Dr. Shepard, his dream of

the previous year 1832 was attempted, and the price reduced to

one cent; but it was too late. … This experiment, however, was

the seed of the Cheap Press. It had taken root. On Tuesday,

the 3d of September, in the same year 1833, the first number

of the Sun was issued by Benjamin H. Day."

F. Hudson,

Journalism in the United States,

pages 416-417.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1853-1870.

Extinction of taxes on Newspapers in England.

The beginning of Penny Papers.

Rise of the provincial daily press.

"In 1853 the advertisement duty was repealed; in 1855 the

obligatory newspaper stamp was abolished, and in 1861, with

the repeal of the paper duty, the last check upon the

unrestrained journalism was taken away. As a matter of course,

the resulting increase in the number of newspapers has been

very great as well as the resulting diminution in their price.

… When it was seen that the trammels of journalism were about

to be loosed the penny paper came into existence. The 'Daily

Telegraph,' the first newspaper published at that price, was

established in June, 1855, and is now one of the most

successful of English journals."

T. G. Bowles,

Newspapers (Fortnightly Review,

July 1, 1884).

{2602}

"With the entire freedom from taxation began the modern era of

the daily press. At this time [1861] London had nine or ten

daily newspapers, with the 'Times' in the lead. Of these, six

or seven still survive, and are holding their own with

competitors of more recent origin. Up to the time of the

abolition of the stamp duties, London was the only city which

had a daily press; but between 1855 and 1870 a large number of

newspapers published in the provincial cities, which had

hitherto been issued in weekly or bi-weekly form, made their

appearance as daily journals. With only one or two exceptions,

all the prosperous provincial morning papers of to-day were

originally weeklies, and as such had long occupied the ground

they now hold as dailies."

E. Porritt,

The Englishman at Home,

chapter 13.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1874-1894.

Surviving Press Censorship in Germany.

"It would be wrong to speak of the Newspaper Press of Germany

as the fourth estate. In the land which gave Gutenberg and the

art of printing to the world, the Press has not yet

established a claim to a title so imposing. To the growth and

power of a Free Press are needed liberal laws and

institutions, with freedom of political opinion and civil

action for the subject. Hitherto these fundamental conditions

have been absent. During the last fifty years little has been

done to liberate the newspaper, to give it free play, to

unmuzzle it. It is the misfortune of the German Press that the

special laws for the regulation of newspapers and serial

publications have been evolved from a system of legislation

which was devised in times of great political unrest and

agitation. … Liberty of the Press has been one of the leading

political watchwords of the reform party during the last

three-quarters of a century. Yet though the Press does not

stand where it stood at the beginning of the century, when

even visiting cards could not be printed without the solemn

assent of the public censor, and when objectionable prints

were summarily suppressed at the mere beck of a Minister or

his subordinate, little ground has been won since the severer

features of the measures passed in 1854 for the repression of

democratic excesses were abandoned. The constitution of

Prussia says that 'Every Prussian has the right to express his

opinion freely by word, writing, print, or pictorial

representation' (Article 27). But this right is superseded by

the provision of the imperial constitution (Article 41,

Section 16) which reserves to the Empire the regulation of the

Press, and by a measure of May 7th, 1874, which gives to this

provision concrete form. This is the Press Law of Germany

to-day. The law does, indeed, concede, in principle at least,

the freedom of the Press (Pressfreiheit), and it abolishes the

formal censorship. But a severe form of control is still

exercised by the police, whose authority over the Press is

greater in reality than it seems to be from the letter of the

statute. It is no longer necessary, as it once was, and still

is in Russia, to obtain sanction for the issue of each number

before it is sent into the world, but it is the legal duty of

a publisher to lay a copy of his journal before the police

authority directly it reaches the press. This an informal

censor revises, and in the event of any article being

obnoxious he may order the immediate confiscation of the whole

issue, or a court of law, which in such matters works very

speedily, may do so for him. As the police and judicial

authorities have wide discretion in the determination of

editorial culpability, this power of confiscation is felt to

be a harsh one. While the Socialist Law existed the powers of

the police were far more extensive than now, and that they

were also real is proved by the wholesale extermination of

newspapers of Socialistic tendencies which took place between

the years 1878 and 1890. Since that law disappeared, however,

Socialist journals have sprung up again in abundance, though

the experience gained by their conductors in the unhappy past

does not enable them to steer clear of friction with the

authorities. The police, too, regulates the public sale of

newspapers and decides whether they shall be cried in the

street or not. In Berlin special editions cannot be published

without the prior sanction of this authority. … So frequent

are prosecutions of editors that many newspapers are compelled

to maintain on their staffs batches of Sitzredakteure, or

'sitting editors,' whose special function is to serve in

prison (colloquially sitzen=sit) the terms of detention that

may be awarded for the too liberal exercise of the critical

faculty. … Some measure of the public depreciation of

newspapers is due to the fact that they are largely in Hebrew

hands. In the large towns the Press is, indeed, essentially a

Jewish institution."

W. H. Dawson,

Germany and the Germans,

part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

PRINTING AND THE PRESS:

American Periodicals founded before 1870 and existing in 1894.

The following is a carefully prepared chronological list of

important newspapers and other periodicals, still published

(1894) in the United States and Canada, which have existed for

a quarter of a century or more, having been founded before

1870. The * before a title indicates that the information

given has been obtained directly from the publisher. For some

of the periodicals not so marked, the dates of beginning have

been taken from their own files. In other cases, where

publishers have neglected to answer a request for information,

the facts have been borrowed from Rowell's American Newspaper

Directory:

1764.

* Connecticut Courant (Hartford), w.;

added Courant, d., 1836.

* Quebec Gazette (French and English), weekly; ran many years

as tri-weekly, in English; discontinued for about 16 years;

now resumed as Quebec Gazette in connection with Quebec

Morning Chronicle (founded 1847).

1766 or 1767.

* Connecticut Herald and Post Boy

(New Haven); various names;

now Connecticut Herald and Weekly Journal.

1768.

* Essex Gazette; changes of name and place; suspended;

revived at Salem, Massachusetts, as Salem Mercury, 1786;

became semi-weekly, 1796; became Salem Daily Gazette, 1892.

1770.

Worcester Spy, weekly; added daily, 1845.

1771.

* Pennsylvania Packet and General Advertiser

(Philadelphia), weekly;

became Pennsylvania Packet and American Daily Advertiser,

daily, 1784;

consolidated with North American (founded 1839), 1839;

consolidated with United States Gazette (established 1789,

see 1789, Gazette of the U. S.),

as North American and United States Gazette, 1847;

became North American, 1876.

{2603}

1773.

* Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser;

merged in Baltimore American, 1799.

1778.

* Gazette (Montreal), weekly; now daily and weekly;

since 1870 absorbed Telegraph and Daily News.

1785.

*Falmouth (Maine) Gazette and Weekly Advertiser;

Cumberland Gazette, 1786;

Gazette of Maine, 1790;

Eastern Herald, 1792;

Eastern Herald and Gazette of Maine, 1796;

Jenks' Portland Gazette, 1798;

Portland Gazette and Maine Advertiser, 1805;

Portland Advertiser, semi-weekly, 1823; daily, 1831.

* Journal (Poughkeepsie, New York); established to take the

place of New York Journal, published at Poughkeepsie, 1778-1783;

consolidated with Eagle (founded 1828—see 1828,

Dutchess Intelligencer), as Journal and Eagle;

became Eagle after a few years.

1786.

Hampshire Gazette (Northampton, Massachusetts).

Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette.

1789.

* Gazette of the United States (New York);

removed to Philadelphia, 1790; daily, 1793;

became The Union, or United States Gazette and True American;

merged in North American, 1847.

Berkshire County Eagle (Pittsfield, Massachusetts), weekly.

1793.

Gazette (Cincinnati), weekly; added daily,

Commercial Gazette, 1841.

Minerva (New York), daily, and Herald, semi-weekly;

became Commercial Advertiser, and New York Spectator.

Newburyport (Massachusetts) Herald.

Utica Gazette; consolidated with Herald (founded 1847),

as Morning Herald and Gazette.

1794.

Rutland (Vermont) Herald.

1796.

* Sentinel of Freedom (Newark), weekly;

added Newark Daily Advertiser, daily, 1832.

1800.

* Salem Register, weekly; then semi-weekly; now weekly.

1801.

New York Evening Post.

Ægis and Gazette (Worcester), weekly;

added Evening Gazette, 1843.

1803.

Charleston News and Courier.

Portland (Maine) Eastern Argus.

1804.

Pittsburgh Post.

1805.

Missionary Herald (Boston), monthly.

* Quebec Mercury, tri-weekly; became daily about 1860.

1806.

* Precurser (Montpelier), weekly;

became Vermont Watchman, 1807, weekly.

1807.

* New Bedford (Massachusetts) Mercury, weekly;

added daily, 1831.

1808.

* Cooperstown(New York) Federalist;

became Freeman's Journal, weekly, 1820.

Le Canadien (Montreal).

St. Louis Republic, weekly; added daily, 1835.

1809.

* New Hampshire Patriot (Concord, New Hampshire);

consolidated with People (founded 1868)

as People and Patriot, 1878, daily and weekly.

Montreal Herald.

1810.

Kingston (Ontario) News, weekly.; added daily, 1851.

1811.

* Buffalo Gazette, weekly;

became Niagara Patriot, weekly, 1818;

became Buffalo Patriot, weekly, July 10, 1821;

added Buffalo Commercial Advertiser, daily, 1835.

* Western Intelligencer;

Western Intelligencer and Columbus Gazette, 1814;

became Ohio State Journal, 1825; daily, 1839.

1812.

* Columbian Weekly Register (New Haven);

added Evening Register, daily, 1848.

1813.

Albany Argus.

Boston Advertiser.

Acadian Recorder (Halifax).

1815.

North American Review (New York), monthly.

1816.

* Boston Recorder; merged in Congregationalist, weekly, 1867.

Knoxville Tribune, weekly; added daily, 1865.

Rochester Union and Advertiser, weekly; added daily, 1826.

1817.

* Hartford Times, weekly; added daily., 1841.

1819.

* Cleveland Herald;

consolidated with Evening News (founded 1868), 1885.

See 1848. Cleveland Leader.

Arkansas Gazette (Little Rock).

* Oswego Palladium, weekly; added daily about 1860.

1820.

Nova Scotian (Halifax), weekly;

added Chronicle, 3 times a week, 1845;

added Morning Chronicle, 1865.

* Manufacturers' and Farmers' Journal

(Providence), semi-weekly; added Daily Journal, 1829.

1821.

* Christian Register (Boston), weekly.

Indianapolis Sentinel.

Mobile Register.

1822.

Broome Republican (Binghamton, New York), weekly;

added Republican, daily, 1849.

* Old Colony Memorial (Plymouth, Massachusetts), weekly;

has absorbed Plymouth Rock, and Old Colony Sentinel.

1823.

Auburn (New York) News and Democrat, weekly;

added Bulletin, daily, 1870.

Zion's Herald (Boston), weekly.

* New Hampshire Statesman (Concord), weekly;

consolidated with Independent Democrat (founded 1845),

as Independent Statesman, 1871; added daily,

Concord Evening Monitor, 1864.

* Western Censor and Emigrant's Guide (Indianapolis);

became Indianapolis Journal, weekly,

and semi-weekly during session of the Legislature;

became weekly and daily, 1850.

* Observer (New York), weekly.

* Register (New York), weekly; became Examiner, 1855.

Poughkeepsie News-Telegraph, weekly;

added News-Press, daily, 1852.

1824.

* Springfield (Massachusetts) Republican, weekly;

added daily, 1844.

1825.

Kennebec Journal, weekly; added daily, 1870.

* Rome (New York) Republican, weekly; became Telegram;

became Sentinel, 1837; added daily, 1852-1860;

added daily, 1881.

1826.

Detroit Free Press, weekly; added daily, 1835.

* Lowell Courier, weekly; added daily, 1845;

weekly now called Lowell Weekly Journal.

* La Minerve (Montreal), daily and weekly.

Christian Advocate (New York), weekly.

Journal of the Franklin Institute (Philadelphia), monthly.

* St. Lawrence Republican (Potsdam, New York) weekly;

removed to Canton, N. Y., 1827; removed to Ogdensburg, 1830,

and consolidated with St. Lawrence Gazette (founded 1815);

purchased by Ogdensburg Journal (founded 1855), daily, 1858;

both papers continue.

Rochester Democrat; consolidated with

Chronicle (founded 1868) as Democrat and Chronicle.

{2604}

1827.

* Youth's Companion (Boston), weekly.

* Independent News Letter (Cleveland);

became Advertiser, 1832; became Plain Dealer, 1842.

Columbus (Ohio) Press.

New York Journal of Commerce.

1828.

* Orleans Republican (Albion, New York), weekly.

Burlington (Vermont) Free Press, weekly, added daily, 1844.

Montgomery (Alabama) Advertiser.

* Dutchess Intelligencer (Poughkeepsie, New York);

consolidated with Dutchess Republican, as Poughkeepsie Eagle,

weekly, 1833; consolidated with Poughkeepsie Journal

(see 1785, Journal), as Journal and Eagle, 1844; now Eagle;

added daily, 1860.

1829.

* Auburn (New York) Journal, weekly;

added Daily Advertiser, 1844.

* Northwestern Journal (Detroit), weekly;

semi-weekly, then 3 times a week, 1835;

became Daily Advertiser, 1836;

consolidated with Tribune (founded 1849), as

Advertiser and Tribune, 1862;

consolidated with Daily Post (founded 1866),

as Post and Tribune, 1877; became Tribune, 1885.

* Elmira Gazette, weekly, added daily, 1860.

Philadelphia Inquirer.

* Providence Daily Journal.

* Syracuse Standard; successor to Onondaga Standard.

1830.

* Albany Evening Journal.

* Boston Transcript.

Louisville Journal; consolidated with Courier

(founded 1843) and Democrat (founded 1844),

under name of Louisville Courier-Journal, 1868.

* Evangelist (New York), weekly.

* Sunday School Journal (Philadelphia), weekly;

merged in Sunday School Times, 1859.

1831.

Orleans American (Albion, New York), weekly.

* Boston Daily Post.

Presbyterian (Philadelphia), weekly.

Illinois State Journal (Springfield), weekly;

added daily, 1848.

1832.

* Patriot (Montpelier, Vermont);

consolidated with Argus (founded 1851, Bellows Falls),

as Argus and Patriot, weekly, 1862.

* Herald (New Haven), daily; various names;

became Journal and Courier, 1849.

Morning Journal and Courier (New Haven).

1833.

* Catholic Intelligencer (Boston), weekly;

successor to Jesuit; became Pilot, 1836.

* Boston Mercantile Journal; now Boston Journal.

* The Sun (New York).

1834.

Bangor Whig and Courier.

* Western Christian Advocate (Cincinnati), weekly.

* British Whig (Kingston, Ontario), daily, 1849.

* New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, weekly; added daily, 1845

Anzeiger des Westens (St. Louis).

1835.

* New York Herald.

Schenectady Reflector, weekly; added Evening Star, 1855.

Troy Morning Telegram.

1836.

* Miner's Express, weekly;

merged in Dubuque Herald (founded 1853), now daily and weekly.

* Public Ledger and Daily Transcript (Philadelphia).

* Illinois State Register (Vandalia), weekly;

absorbed People's Advocate, 1836;

removed to Springfield, 1839;

absorbed Illinois Republican, 1839; added daily, 1848.

* Toledo Blade, weekly; added daily, 1848.

1837.

* Sun (Baltimore), daily and weekly.

Buffalo Demokrat und Weltbürger.

Burlington (Iowa) Gazette.

* Cincinnati Times, daily and weekly;

daily consolidated with Star (founded 1872),

daily and weekly, as Cincinnati Times-Star, 1880.

Southern Christian Advocate (Columbia, South Carolina), weekly.

Jackson (Mississippi) Clarion, weekly.

* Milwaukee Sentinel, weekly;

absorbed Gazette and became Sentinel-Gazette, 1846;

dropped "Gazette," 1851; daily 1844.

* New Orleans Picayune.

1838.

Bangor Commercial.

* Philadelphia Demokrat.

* St. Louis Evening Gazette;

became Evening Mirror, 1847;

became New Era, 1848;

became Intelligencer, 1849;

became Evening News, 1857;

consolidated with Dispatch, 1867;

consolidated with Evening Post, as Post Dispatch, 1878.

1839.

* Iowa Patriot (Burlington), weekly;

became Hawkeye and Iowa Patriot;

has been, at various times, semi-weekly, and daily;

now Burlington Hawkeye, daily and weekly.

* Christliche Apologete (Cincinnati), weekly.

* Madison Express, weekly;

became Wisconsin Express, 1848; daily, 1851;

consolidated with a new paper, Statesman, as Palladium,

daily and weekly, 1852;

became Wisconsin State Journal, 1852.

Freeman's Journal and Catholic Register (New York), weekly.

* North American (Philadelphia);

absorbed Pennsylvania Packet

(see 1771, Pennsylvania Packet), 1839.

Western State Journal (Syracuse), weekly;

became Syracuse Journal, 1844; added daily, 1846;

absorbed Evening Chronicle, 1856; added semi-weekly, 1893.

1840.

Chicago Tribune.

* Appeal Memphis);

consolidated with Avalanche (founded 1857),

as Appeal-Avalanche, 1890 (?);

consolidated with Commercial (founded 1889),

as Commercial Appeal, 1894.

* Union and Evangelist (Uniontown, Pennsylvania);

became Evangelist and Observer at Pittsburgh;

succeeded by Cumberland Presbyterian,

about 1846, at Uniontown; removed to Brownsville;

then to Waynesburg; to Alton, Illinois, in 1868;

and to Nashville, Tennessee, in 1874;

here consolidated with Banner of Peace

(founded, Princeton, Kentucky, 1840;

removed to Lebanon, Tennessee, 1843; then to Nashville).

* Roman Citizen, weekly; became Rome Semi-Weekly Citizen, 1888.

1841.

* Brooklyn Eagle.

* Prairie Farmer (Chicago), weekly.

* New York Tribune.

* Pittsburgh Chronicle;

consolidated with Pittsburgh Telegraph (founded 1873), as

Pittsburgh Chronicle Telegraph, 1884.

Reading Eagle, weekly; added daily, 1868.

{2605}

1842.

* Daily Mercantile Courier and Democratic Economist (Buffalo);

became Daily Courier and Economist, 1843;

became Buffalo Courier, daily, 1845.

* Cincinnati Enquirer, daily and semi-weekly.

* Galveston News.

Rural New Yorker (New York), weekly.

* Preacher (Pittsburgh), weekly;

became United Presbyterian, 1854.

1843.

* Albany Daily Knickerbocker;

consolidated with Press (founded 1877), as

Daily Press and Knickerbocker, 1877.

* Steuben Courier (Bath, New York).

1844.

Chicago Evening Journal.

* Woechentlicher Seebote (Milwaukee);

became Der Seebote, daily and Woechentlicher Seebote.

* American Baptist (New York);

became Baptist Weekly;

has absorbed Gospel Age;

became Christian Inquirer, weekly, 1888.

* Churchman (New York), weekly.

*New Yorker Demokrat; New Yorker Journal, 1862;

consolidated as New Yorker Zeitung, 1878.

Eclectic Magazine of Foreign Literature (New York), monthly.

Ledger (New York), weekly.

Oswego Times.

* Globe (Toronto).

1845.

* Binghamton Democrat, weekly; added daily, 1864.

* Buffalo Morning Express.

* Independent Democrat (Concord, New Hampshire).

See 1823, New Hampshire Statesman.

Montreal Witness, weekly; added daily, 1860.

Scientific American (New York), weekly.

* St. Joseph (Missouri) Gazette, daily and weekly.

1846.

* Boston Herald, daily and weekly.

* Evening News (Hamilton, Ontario), daily and weekly;

successor to Journal and Express, semi-weekly;

became Banner and Railway Chronicle, 1852 or 1853;

became Evening Times, 1858.

* Hamilton (Ontario) Spectator, semi-weekly; added daily, 1852.

Keokuk (Iowa) Gate City.

* Bankers' Magazine (New York), monthly.

* Newport (Rhode Island) Daily News.

Pittsburgh Dispatch.

1847.

* Albany Morning Express.

New England Historical and Genealogical Register (Boston),

quarterly.

Boston Traveller.

Illinois Staats-Zeitung (Chicago).

* Lewiston (Maine) Weekly Journal;

added Evening Journal, 1861.

London (Ontario) Free Press, weekly; added daily, 1859.

* Evening Wisconsin Milwaukee).

Iron Age (New York), weekly.

Toledo Commercial.

Utica Morning Herald; consolidated with Gazette (founded 1793),

as Morning Herald and Gazette.

1848.

* Massachusetts Teacher;

afterwards, with College Courant (founded 1866, New Haven),

Rhode Island Schoolmaster (founded 1855),

and Connecticut School Journal,

formed Journal of Education (founded 1875, Boston).

* Williamsburg Times; became Brooklyn Daily Times, 1854.

* Cleveland Leader, daily;

added, by purchase, Evening News (founded 1868), 1869;

purchased Cleveland Herald (founded 1819), and consolidated it

with Evening News, as News and Herald, 1885.

Des Moines Leader.

* Independent (New York), weekly.

1849.

* Congregationalist (Boston), weekly;

absorbed Boston Recorder (founded 1816), 1867.

* Detroit Tribune; consolidated with Post, 1877.

See 1829, Northwestern Journal.

* Irish American (New York), weekly.

* Water Cure Journal (New York);

became Herald of Health, 1863;

became Journal of Hygiene and Herald of Health, m., 1893.

* St. Paul Pioneer, weekly; daily, 1854;

consolidated with St. Paul Press (founded 1860), daily,

as Pioneer Press, 1875.

Wilkesbarre Leader, weekly; added daily, 1879.

1850.

* Buffalo Christian Advocate, weekly.

Kansas City (Missouri) Times.

Mirror and American (Manchester, New Hampshire).

Harper's New Monthly Magazine (New York).

* Oregonian (Portland), weekly; added daily, 1861.

Richmond Dispatch.

* Deseret News (Salt Lake City), weekly;

added semi-weekly, 1865; added daily, 1867.

* Morning News (Savannah, Georgia), daily and weekly;

absorbed Savannah Republican (founded 1802),

and Savannah Daily Advertiser (founded 1866), 1874.

* Watertown (New York) Weekly Reformer;

added Daily Times, 1860.

1851.

La Crosse Morning Chronicle.

* Union Democrat (Manchester, New Hampshire), weekly;

added Manchester Union, daily, 1863.

* Argus (Bellows Falls); consolidated with Patriot,

at Montpelier, under name of Argus and Patriot, weekly, 1862.

* New York Times, daily and weekly.

* Rochester Beobachter, weekly; 3 times a week, 1855;

daily, 1863; consolidated with Abendpost (founded 1880),

as Rochester Abendpost und Beobachter, daily and weekly, 1881.

St. Joseph (Mo.) Herald.

* Troy (New York) Times, daily.

1852.

Wächter am Erie (Cleveland).

St. Louis Globe–Democrat.

Wheeling Intelligencer (Wheeling, West Virginia).

1853.

Elmira Advertiser.

Frank Leslie's Illustrated Weekly (New York).

Richmond Anzeiger.

San Francisco Evening Post.

Toledo Express.

Washington Evening Star.

* Record of the Times (Wilkesbarre), weekly;

added Wilkesbarre Record, daily, 1873.

1854.

* Deutsche Zeitung (Charleston, South Carolina),

semi-weekly and weekly;

suspended during four years of Civil War.

Chicago Times, daily and weekly.

* American Israelite (Cincinnati), weekly.

* Kansas City (Missouri) Journal, weekly; added daily, 1864.

La Crosse Republican and Leader.

Herold (Milwaukee).

* Nebraska City News.

* Anzeiger des Nordens (Rochester);

became Rochester Volksblatt, weekly, 1859, added daily, 1863.

{2606}

1855.

* Ogdensburg Journal, daily;

purchased St. Lawrence Republican (founded 1826), weekly, 1858.

1856.

* Albany Times; absorbed Evening Courier, 1861;

consolidated with Evening Union (founded 1882),

as Albany Times-Union, daily and weekly, 1891.

* Buffalo Allgemeine Zeitung, weekly;

succeeded by Buffalo Freie Presse, daily 3 months,

then semi-weekly; daily, 1872.

* Iowa State Register (Des Moines), weekly; added daily, 1861.

Dubuque Times.

* Western Railroad Gazette (Chicago), weekly;

became Railroad Gazette; removed to New York, 1871.

San Francisco Call.

* Scranton Republican, weekly; added daily, 1867.

1857.

Baltimore News.

Atlantic Monthly (Boston).

* Banner of Light (Boston), weekly.

Leavenworth Times.

New Haven Union.

Harper's Weekly (New York).

* Jewish Messenger (New York), weekly.

* Scottish American (New York), weekly.

Philadelphia Press.

Courrier du Canada (Quebec).

Westliche Post (St. Louis).

Syracuse Courier.

1858.

Hartford Evening Post; Connecticut Post, weekly.

Nebraska Press (Nebraska City), daily and weekly.

Rochester Post-Express.

1859.

* Boston Commercial Bulletin, weekly.

* Rocky Mountain News (Denver), weekly; added daily, 1860.

Kansas City (Missouri) Post (German).

* Sunday School Times (Philadelphia), weekly;

succeeded Sunday School Journal (founded 1830);

absorbed Sunday School Workman (founded 1870), 1871;

absorbed National Sunday School Teacher (founded 1866), 1882.

St. John (New Brunswick) Globe.

1860.

World (New York).

1861.

Commonwealth (Boston), weekly.

1862.

* New Yorker Journal. See 1844, New Yorker Demokrat.

* Maine State Press (Portland), weekly;

Portland Press, daily.

Raleigh News and Observer.

St. John (New Brunswick) Telegraph, weekly;added daily, 1869.

1863.

* Brooklyn Daily Union;

consolidated with Brooklyn Daily Standard (founded 1884),

as Brooklyn Standard Union, 1887.

London (Ontario) Advertiser.

* New Orleans Times;

consolidated with Democrat (founded 1876),

as New Orleans Times–Democrat, 1881, all daily and weekly.

Army and Navy Journal (New York), weekly.

Portland (Oregon) Evening Telegram.

Providence Evening Bulletin.

* Sioux City Journal, weekly; added daily, 1870.

* Wheeling Register.

1864.

* Concord (New Hampshire) Evening Monitor, daily;

issued in connection with Independent Statesman

(see 1823, New Hampshire Statesman).

Reading Post (German), weekly; added daily, 1867.

* Springfield (Massachusetts) Union.

1865.

Albany Evening Post.

* Skandinaven (Chicago), weekly; daily, 1871.

Halifax Morning Chronicle.

Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville).

Memphis Public Ledger.

* Catholic World (New York City), monthly.

[https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39367 (first of many)]

* Commercial and Financial Chronicle (New York), weekly;

absorbed Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, 1870.

Nation (New York), weekly

Norfolk Virginian.

* Daily Herald (Omaha, Nebraska); consolidated with

Evening World (founded 1885), as World-Herald, 1889.

* Index (Petersburg, Virginia);

consolidated with Appeal (successor to Express,

founded in 1848), as Index-Appeal, 1873.

Philadelphia Abend Post.

San Antonio Express.

* San Francisco Chronicle.

* Union (Schenectady), daily, and weekly.

1866.

* Denver Tribune;

consolidated with Denver Republican (founded 1878),

under name of Tribune-Republican, 1884;

became Denver Republican, daily and weekly.

* Christian at Work (New York), weekly;

became Christian Work, 1894;

has absorbed The Continent, The Manhattan Magazine,

Every Thursday, and others.

Engineering and Mining Journal (New York), weekly.

Sanitarian (New York), monthly.

1867.

* Advance (Chicago), weekly.

* Evening Journal (Jersey City).

* Nebraska Commonwealth (Lincoln), weekly; became

Nebraska State Journal, weekly, 1869; added daily, 1870.

* Democrat (Madison, Wisconsin), daily and weekly.

Minneapolis Tribune.

* Le Monde (Montreal).

Engineering News (New York), weekly.

Harper's Bazaar (New York), weekly.

American Naturalist (Philadelphia), monthly.

* L'Evenement (Quebec).

* Seattle Intelligencer, weekly; daily, 1876;

consolidated with Post (founded 1878), daily,

under name of Post-Intelligencer, 1881.

Vicksburg Commercial Herald, weekly; added daily, 1869.

Wilmington (North Carolina) Messenger.

* Morning Star (Wilmington, North Carolina).

1868.

Atlanta Constitution.

* Buffalo Volksfreund, daily and weekly.

* People (Concord, New Hampshire).

See 1809, New Hampshire Patriot.

Lippincott's Magazine (Philadelphia), monthly.

St. Paul Dispatch.

* San Diego Union, weekly; added daily, 1871.

Troy Press.

1869.

* Evening Star (Montreal);

became Montreal Evening Star, then Montreal Daily Star;

added Family Herald and Weekly Star, weekly.

* Christian Union (New York), weekly; became The Outlook, 1893.

Manufacturer and Builder (New York), monthly.

* Ottawa Free Press, daily and weekly.

Scranton Times, daily and weekly.

{2607}

PRIOR.

PRIORY.

See MONASTERY.

PRIORIES, Alien.

"These were cells of foreign abbeys, founded upon estates

which English proprietors had given to the foreign houses."

E. L. Cutts,

Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,

chapter 4.

PRIORS OF THE FLORENTINE GUILDS.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1203.

PRISAGE.

See TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE.

PRISON-SHIPS, British, at New York.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777

PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS,

Confederate.

Libby.

Belle Isle.

Andersonville.

"The Libby, which is best known, though also used as a place

of confinement for private soldiers, is generally understood

to be the officers' prison. It is a row of brick buildings,

three stories high, situated on the canal [in Richmond,

Virginia], and overlooking the James river, and was formerly a

tobacco warehouse. … The rooms are 100 feet long by 40 feet

broad. In six of these rooms, 1,200 United States officers, of

all grades, from the Brigadier-General to the Second-Lieutenant,

were confined for many months, and this was all

the space that was allowed them in which to cook, eat, wash,

sleep, and take exercise. … Ten feet by two were all that

could be claimed by each man—hardly enough to measure his

length upon; and even this was further abridged by the room

necessarily taken for cooking, washing and clothes-drying. At

one time they were not allowed the use of benches, chairs, or

stools, nor even to fold their blankets and sit upon them, but

those who would rest were obliged to huddle on their haunches,

as one of them expresses it, 'like so many slaves on the

middle passage.' After awhile this severe restriction was

removed, and they were allowed to make chairs and stools for

themselves, out of the barrels and boxes which they had

received from the North. They were overrun with vermin in

spite of every precaution and constant ablutions. Their

blankets, which averaged one to a man, and sometimes less, had

not been issued by the rebels, but had been procured in

different ways; sometimes by purchase, sometimes through the

Sanitary Commission. The prisoners had to help themselves from

the refuse accumulation of these articles. … The prison did

not seem to be under any general and uniform army regulations,

but the captives were subject to the caprices of Major Turner,

the officer in charge, and Richard Turner, inspector of the

prison. It was among the rules that no one should go within

three feet of the windows, a rule which seems to be general in

all Southern prisons of this character. … Often by accident,

or unconsciously, an officer would go near a window, and be

instantly shot at without warning. The reports of the sentry's

musket were heard almost every day, and frequently a prisoner

fell either killed or wounded. It was even worse with a large

prison near by, called the Pemberton Buildings, which was

crowded with enlisted men. … The daily ration in the officers'

quarter of Libby Prison was a small loaf of bread about the

size of a man's fist, made of Indian meal. Sometimes it was

made from wheat flour, but of variable quality. It weighed a

little over half a pound. With it was given a piece of beef

weighing two ounces. … But there is a still lower depth of

suffering to be exposed. The rank of the officers, however

disregarded in most respects, induced some consideration, but

for the private soldiers there seemed to be no regard

whatever, and no sentiment which could restrain. It is to this

most melancholy part of their task that the Commissioners now

proceed. Belle Isle is a small island in the James river,

opposite the Tredegar Iron–works, and in full sight from the

Libby windows. … The portion on which the prisoners are

confined is low, sandy, and barren, without a tree to cast a

shadow, and poured upon by the burning rays of a Southern sun.

Here is an enclosure, variously estimated to be from three to

six acres in extent, surrounded by an earthwork about three

feet high, with a ditch on either side. … The interior has

something of the look of an encampment, a number of Sibley

tents being set in rows, with 'streets' between. These tents,

rotten, torn, full of holes,—poor shelter at any

rate,—accommodated only a small proportion of the number who

were confined within these low earth walls. The number varied

at different periods, but from 10,000 to 12,000 men have been

imprisoned in this small space at one time, turned into the

enclosure like so many cattle, to find what resting place they

could. … Thousands had no tents, and no shelter of any kind.

Nothing was provided for their accommodation. Lumber was

plenty in a country of forests, but not a cabin or shed was

built. … Every day, during the winter season, numbers were

conveyed away stiff and stark, having fallen asleep in

everlasting cold. … They were fed as the swine are fed. A

chunk of corn-bread, 12 or 14 ounces in weight, half-baked,

full of cracks as if baked in the sun, musty in taste,

containing whole grains of corn, fragments of cob, and pieces

of husks; meat often tainted, suspiciously like mule–meat, and

a mere mouthful at that; two or three spoonfuls of rotten

beans; soup thin and briny, often with worms floating on the

surface. None of these were given together, and the whole

ration was never one-half the quantity necessary for the

support of a healthy man."

V. Mott, and others,

Report of United States Sanitary Commission Com. of

Inquiry on the Sufferings of Prisoners of War in

the hands of the Rebel Authorities,

chapters 2-3.

The little hamlet of Anderson, so named, in 1853, after John

W. Anderson, of Savannah, but called Andersonville by the Post

Office Department, is situated in the heart of the richest

portion of the cotton and corn-growing region of Georgia, on

the Southwestern Railroad, 62 miles south from Macon and 9

miles north of Americus. "Here, on the 27th day of November,

1863, W. S. Winder, a captain in the rebel army, and who was

selected for the purpose, came and located the grounds, for a

'Confederate States Military Prison.' … When the site was

definitely established, it was found to be covered with a

thick growth of pines and oaks. … It was … suggested to W. S.

Winder by a disinterested spectator of his preliminary

proceedings … that the shade afforded by the trees would prove

grateful protections to the prisoners. The reply was

characteristic of the man and prophetic of their future fate.

'That is just what I am not going to do! I will make a pen

here for the d—d Yankees, where they will rot faster than they

can be sent!' … The trees were leveled to the ground, and the

space was cleared. … No buildings, barracks, houses, or huts

of any kind were built.

{2608}

The canopy of the sky was the only covering." In March, 1864,

John H. Winder, father of the W. S. Winder mentioned above,

became commandant of the post, and with him came Henry Wirz,

as superintendent of the prison. These two names are linked in

infamy with the horrors of the Andersonville Prison-Pen. "The

stockade at Andersonville was originally built, as we learn

from many sources, with a capacity for 10,000, its area being

about 18 acres. It continued without enlargement until the

month of June, 1864, when it was increased about one third,

its area then, as shown by actual survey, being 23½ acres. …

From Colonel Chandler's Inspection Report [the report of a

Confederate official], dated August 5th, 1864, I quote the

following: 'A railing around the inside of the stockade, and

about 20 feet from it, constitutes the 'dead line,' beyond

which prisoners are not allowed to pass. A small stream passes

from west to east through the inclosure, about 150 yards from

its southern limit, and furnishes the only water for washing

accessible to the prisoners. Bordering this stream, about

three quarters of an acre in the centre of the inclosure are

so marshy as to be at present unfit for occupation, reducing

the available present area to about 23½ acres, which gives

somewhat less than six square feet to each prisoner'; and, he

remarks, 'even this is being constantly reduced by the

additions to their number.' … Dr. Joseph Jones, Professor of

Chemistry in the Medical College of Georgia, … went to

Andersonville under the direction of the surgeon general of

the Confederacy, pursuant to an order dated Richmond,

Virginia, August 6th, 1864. … Dr. Jones proceeds to give a

table illustrating the mean strength of prisoners confined in

the stockade. … His table … shows the following as the mean

result: March, 7,500; April, 10,000; May, 15,000; June,

22,291; July, 29,030; August, 32,899. He says: 'Within the

circumscribed area of the stockade the Federal prisoners were

compelled to perform all the offices of life, cooking,

washing, urinating, defecation, exercise, and sleeping.' …

'The low grounds bordering the stream were covered with human

excrement and filth of all kinds, which in many cases appeared

to be alive with working maggots. An indescribable sickening

stench arose from the fermenting mass of human dung and

filth.' And again: 'There were nearly 5,000 seriously-ill

Federals in the stockade and Confederate States Military

Prison Hospital, and the deaths exceeded 100 per day. … I

visited 2,000 sick within the stockade, lying under some long

sheds which they had built at the northern portion for

themselves. At this time only one medical officer was in

attendance.'" At the close of the war, Wirz, the inhuman

jailor of Andersonville was tried for his many crimes before a

military commission, over which General Lewis Wallace

presided, was condemned and was hanged, at Andersonville,

November 10, 1865. His superior officer, Winder, escaped the

earthly tribunal by dying of a gangrenous disorder, which had

been caused, without doubt, by the poisoned air of the place.

A. Spencer,

Narrative of Andersonville,

chapters 1, 4, 5, 13, 15.

"There can be no accurate count of the mortality in rebel

prisons. The report made by the War Department to the 40th

Congress shows that about 188,000 Union soldiers were captured

by the Confederates; that half of them were paroled, and half

confined in prison; of this number 36,000 died in captivity.

The Union armies, on the other hand, captured 476,000

Confederates: of these 227,000 were retained as prisoners, and

30,000 died. While the percentage of mortality in Northern

prisons was 13 in the hundred, that in rebel prisons was 38."

J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,

Abraham Lincoln,

volume 7, chapter 16.

Report of Special Commission on Treatment of Prisoners

(H.R. Report No. 45, 40th Cong., 3d Session).

Trial of Henry Wirz.

Southern Historical Society Papers,

volume 1.

ALSO IN:

J. McElroy,

Andersonville.

[https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4257 (volume 1)]

F. F. Cavada,

Libby Life.

A. B. Isham, H. M. Davidson and H. B. Furness,

Prisoners of War and Military Prisons.

PRIVATE WARFARE, The Right of.

See LANDFRIEDE.

PRIVATEERING, American, in the War of 1812.

"The war [of 1812-14] lasted about three years, and the result

was, as near as I have been able to ascertain, a loss to Great

Britain of about 2,000 ships and vessels of every description,

including men-of-war and merchantmen. Eighteen hundred sail

are recorded as having been taken, burnt, sunk, or destroyed.

To this number may be added 200 more, which were either

destroyed or considered too insignificant to be reported;

making an aggregate of 2,000 sail of British shipping captured

by our little navy, with the aid of privateers and

letters-of-marque. … I have not had sufficient time in giving

this summary to ascertain, precisely, what proportion of these

2,000 vessels were captured by the United States government

ships; but, at a rough estimate, should judge one-third part

of the whole number, leaving two-thirds, or, say, 1330 sail,

to have been taken by American privateers and private-armed

vessels. I have found it difficult to ascertain the exact

number of our own vessels taken and destroyed by the English;

but, from the best information I can obtain, I should judge

they would not amount to more than 500 sail. It must be

recollected that the most of our losses occurred during the

first six months of the war. After that period, we had very

few vessels afloat, except privateers and letters-of–marque."

G. Coggeshall,

History of American Privateers, 1812-14,

pages 394-395.

PRIVATEERS.

LETTERS OF MARQUE.

"Until lately all maritime states have … been in the habit of

using privateers, which are vessels belonging to private

owners, and sailing under a commission of war [such

commissions being denominated letters of marque and reprisal]

empowering the person to whom it is granted to carry on all

forms of hostility which are permissible at sea by the usages

of war. … Universally as privateers were formerly employed,

the right to use them has now almost disappeared from the

world. It formed part of the Declaration adopted at the

Congress of Paris in 1856 with reference to Maritime Law that

'privateering is and remains abolished'; and all civilised

states have since become signataries of the Declaration,

except the United States, Spain, and Mexico. For the future

privateers can only be employed by signataries of the

Declaration of Paris during war with one of the last-mentioned

states."

W. E. Hall,

Treatise on International Law,

part 3, chapter 7, section 180.

{2609}

"There is a distinction between a privateer and a letter of

marque in this, that the former are always equipped for the

sole purpose of war, while the latter may be a merchantman,

uniting the purposes of commerce to those of capture. In

popular language, however, all private vessels commissioned

for hostile purposes, upon the enemy's property, are called

letters of marque."

F. H. Upton,

The Law of Nations affecting Commerce during War,

page 186.

See, also, DECLARATION OF PARIS.

PRIVILEGE OF UNION AND GENERAL PRIVILEGE OF ARAGON.

See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

PRIVILEGIUM MAJUS, THE.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

PRIVY COUNCIL, THE.

"It was in the reign of Henry VI. that the King's Council

first assumed the name of the 'Privy Council,' and it was also

during the minority of this King that a select Council was

gradually emerging from out of the larger body of the Privy

Council, which ultimately resulted in the institution of our

modern Cabinet.

See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

From the accession of Henry VII. to the reign of Charles I.

the Privy Council was wholly subservient to the royal will,

and the instrument of unconstitutional and arbitrary

proceedings. The first act of the Long Parliament was to

deprive the Council of most of its judicial power, leaving,

however, its constitution and political functions unchanged.

Since the Revolution of 1688 the Privy Council has dwindled

into comparative insignificance, when contrasted with its

original authoritative position. Its judicial functions are

now restrained within very narrow limits. The only relic of

its ancient authority in criminal matters is its power of

taking examinations, and issuing commitments for treason. It

still, however, continues to exercise an original jurisdiction

in advising the Crown concerning the grant of charters, and it

has exclusively assumed the appellate jurisdiction over the

colonies and dependencies of the Crown, which formerly

appertained to the Council in Parliament. Theoretically, the

Privy Council still retains its ancient supremacy, and in a

constitutional point of view is presumed to be the only legal

and responsible Council of the Crown. … As her Majesty can

only act through her privy councillors, or upon their advice,

all the higher and more formal acts of administration must

proceed from the authority of the Sovereign in Council, and

their performance be directed by orders issued by the

Sovereign at a meeting of the Privy Council specially convened

for that purpose. No rule can be laid down defining those

political acts of the Crown which may be performed upon the

advice of particular ministers, or those which must be

exercised only 'in Council'—the distinction depends partly on

usage and partly on the wording of Acts of Parliament. … The

ancient functions of the Privy Council are now performed by

committees, excepting those formal measures which proceed from

the authority of her Majesty in Council. The acts of these

committees are designated as those of the Lords of the

Council. These Lords of Council (who are usually selected by

the Lord President of the Council, of whom more hereafter)

constitute a high court of record for the Investigation of all

offences against the Government, and of such other

extraordinary matters as may be brought before them. … If the

matter be one properly cognisable by a legal tribunal, it is

referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This

committee, which is composed of the Lord President, the Lord

Chancellor, and such members of the Privy Council as from time

to time hold certain high judicial offices, has jurisdiction

in appeals from all colonial courts: it is also the supreme

court of maritime jurisdiction, and the tribunal wherein the

Crown exercises its judicial supremacy in ecclesiastical

cases. The Privy Council has also to direct local authorities

throughout the kingdom in matters affecting the preservation

of the public health. A committee of the Privy Council is also

appointed to provide 'for the general management and

superintendence of Education,' and subject to this committee

is the Science and Art Department for the United Kingdom. …

Formerly meetings of the Council were frequently held, but

they now seldom occur oftener than once in three or four

weeks, and are always convened to assemble at the royal

residence for the time being. The attendance of seven Privy

Councillors used to be regarded as the quorum necessary to

constitute a Council for ordinary purposes of state, but this

number has been diminished frequently to only three. No Privy

Councillor presumes to attend upon any meeting of the Privy

Council unless specially summoned. The last time the whole

Council was convoked was in 1839. Privy Councillors are

appointed absolutely, without patent or grant, at the

discretion of the Sovereign. Their number is unlimited. …

Since the separate existence of the Cabinet Council, meetings

of the Privy Council for purposes of deliberation have ceased

to be held. The Privy Council consists ordinarily of the

members of the Royal Family, the Archbishops of Canterbury and

York, the Bishop of London, all the Cabinet Ministers, the

Lord Chancellor, the chief officers of the Royal Household,

the Judges of the Courts of Equity, the Chief Justices of the

Courts of Common Law, and some of the Puisne Judges, the

Ecclesiastical and Admiralty Judges and the Judge-Advocate,

the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, the Speaker of the House of

Commons, the Ambassadors and the Chief Ministers

Plenipotentiary, the Governors of the chief colonies, the

Commander-in-Chief, the Vice-President of the Committee of

Council for Education, certain other officials I need not

particularise, and occasionally a Junior Lord of the

Admiralty, though it is not usual for Under Secretaries of

State or Junior Lords of the Treasury or Admiralty to have

this rank conferred upon them. A seat in the Privy Council is

sometimes given to persons retiring from the public service,

who have filled responsible situations under the Crown, as an

honorary distinction. A Privy Councillor is styled Right

Honourable, and he takes precedence of all baronets, knights,

and younger sons of viscounts and barons."

A. C. Ewald,

The Crown and its Advisers,

lecture 2.

ALSO IN:

A. V. Dicey,

The Privy Council.

{2610}

PROBULI, The.

A board of ten provisional councillors, instituted at Athens

during the later period of the Peloponnesian War, after the

great calamity at Syracuse. It was intended to introduce a

conservative agency into the too democratic constitution of

the state; to be "a board composed of men of mature age, who

should examine all proposals and motions, after which only

such among the latter as this board had sanctioned and

approved should come before the citizens. This new board was,

at the same time, in urgent cases itself to propose the

necessary measures."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 4, chapter 5.

See ATHENS; B. C. 413-411.

PROBUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 276-282.

PROBUS, Wall of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 277.

PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, Controversy on.

See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.

PROCONSUL AND PROPRÆTOR, ROMAN.

"If a Consul was pursuing his operations ever so successfully,

he was liable to be superseded at the year's close by his

successor in the Consulship: and this successor brought with

him new soldiers and new officers; everything, it would seem,

had to be done over again. This was always felt in times of

difficulty, and the constitutional usages were practically

suspended. … In the year 328 B. C. the Senate first assumed

the power of decreeing that a Consul or Prætor might be

continued in his command for several successive years, with

the title of Proconsul, or Proprætor, the power of these

officers being, within their own district, equal to the power

of the Consul or Prætor himself. The Proconsul also was

allowed to keep part of his old army, and would of course

continue his Tribunes and Centurions in office. … Almost all

the great successes of Marcellus and Scipio were gained in

Proconsular commands."

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 4, chapter 35.

PROCURATOR.

PROCTOR.

See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

PROHIBITIONISTS.

A party in American politics which contends for the enactment

of laws to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating

liquors.

PROMANTY, The Right of.

See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

PROPAGANDA, The College of the.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1622.

PROPHESYINGS.

In the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, among those

English reformers who were subsequently known as Puritans,

"the clergy in several dioceses set up, with encouragement

from their superiors, a certain religious exercise, called

prophesyings. They met at appointed times to expound and

discuss together particular texts of Scripture, under the

presidency of a moderator appointed by the bishop, who

finished by repeating the substance of their debate, with his

own determination upon it. These discussions were in public,

and it was contended that this sifting of the grounds of their

faith, and habitual argumentation, would both tend to edify

the people, very little acquainted as yet with their religion,

and supply in some degree the deficiencies of learning among

the pastors themselves." The prophesyings, however, were

suppressed by the queen and Archbishop Parker.

H. Hallam,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

J. B. Marsden,

History of the Early Puritans,

chapter 4. sections 7-25.

PROPHETS, The Hebrew.

"The Hebrew word 'Nabi' is derived from the verb 'naba.' … The

root of the verb is said to be a word signifying 'to boil or

bubble over,' and is thus taken from the metaphor of a

fountain bursting forth from the heart of man, into which God

has poured it. Its actual meaning is 'to pour forth excited

utterances,' as appears from its occasional use in the sense

of 'raving.' Even to this day, in the East, the ideas of

prophet and madman are closely connected. The religious sense,

in which, with these exceptions, the word is always employed,

is that of 'speaking' or 'singing under a divine afflatus or

impulse,' to which the peculiar form of the word, as just

observed, lends itself. … It is this word that the Seventy

translated by a Greek term not of frequent usage in classical

authors, but which, through their adoption of it, has passed

into all modern European languages; namely, the word …

Prophet. … The English words 'prophet,' 'prophecy,'

'prophesying,' originally kept tolerably close to the Biblical

use of the word. The celebrated dispute about 'prophesyings,'

in the sense of 'preachings,' in the reign of Elizabeth, and

the treatise of Jeremy Taylor on 'The Liberty of Prophesying,'

i. e. the liberty of preaching, show that even down to the

seventeenth century the word was still used, as in the Bible,

for 'preaching,' or 'speaking according to the will of God.'

In the seventeenth century, however, the limitation of the

word to the sense of 'prediction' had gradually begun to

appear. … The Prophet then was 'the messenger or interpreter

of the Divine will.'"

Dean Stanley,

Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,

lecture 19 (volume 1).

PROPHETS, Schools of the.

See EDUCATION, ANCIENT; JUDÆA.

PROPONTIS, The.

The small sea which intervenes between the Pontus Euxinus

(Black Sea) and the Ægean. So-called by the Greeks; now called

the Sea of Marmora.

PROPRÆTOR, Roman.

See PROCONSUL.

PROPYLÆA OF THE ACROPOLIS, The.

See ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS.

PROTECTIVE TARIFFS.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION.

PROTECTORATE, Cromwell's.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (DECEMBER); 1654-1658.

PROTESTANT, Origin of the name.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

PROTESTANT FLAIL, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

----------PROTESTANT REFORMATION: Start--------

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:

Bohemia.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415. and after.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:

England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534, to 1558-1588.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:

France.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535; and

FRANCE; A. D. 1532-1547, and after.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:

Germany.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521, 1521-1522,

1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531, 1537-1563;

also, GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523, and 1530-1532,

to 1552-1561;

also PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1518-1572.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:

Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:

Ireland: its failure.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:

Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555, and after.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:

Piedmont.

See SAVOY: A. D. 1559-1580.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:

Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557; 1557; 1558-1560;

and 1561-1568.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:

Sweden and Denmark.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES; A. D. 1397-1527.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:

Switzerland.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524;

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531;

and GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.

----------PROTESTANT REFORMATION: End--------

PROTOSEVASTOS.

See SEVASTOS.

{2611}

PROVENCE:

Roman origin.

"The colonization of Narbo [Narbonne, B. C. 118] may be

considered as the epoch when the Romans finally settled the

province of southern Gallia, which they generally named Gallia

Provincia, and sometimes simply Provincia. From the time of

Augustus it was named Narbonensis Provincia, and sometimes

Gallia Braccata. It comprehended on the east all the country

between the Rhone and the Alps. The most northeastern town in

the Provincia was Geneva in the territory of the Allobroges.

Massilia, the ally of Rome, remained a free city. On the west

side of the Rhone, from the latitude of Lugdunum (Lyon), the

Cevenna, or range of the Cévennes, was the boundary of the

Provincia. … The limits of the Provincia were subsequently

extended to Carcaso (Carcassone) and Tolosa (Toulouse); and it

will appear afterwards that some additions were made to it

even on the other side of the Cévennes. This country is a part

of France which is separated by natural boundaries from the

rest of that great empire, and in climate and products it is

Italian rather than French. In the Provincia the Romans have

left some of the noblest and most enduring of their great

works."

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 1, chapter 22.

The Provincia of the Romans became the Provence of mediæval

times.

PROVENCE:

Cession to the Visigoths.

"The fair region which we now call Provence, nearly the

earliest formed and quite the latest lost 'Provincia' of Rome,

that region in which the Latin spirit dwelt so strongly that

the Roman nobles thought of migrating thither in 401, when

Alaric first invaded Italy, refused to submit to the rule of

the upstart barbarian [Odovacar, or Odoacer, who subverted the

Western Empire in 476]. The Provençals sent an embassy to

Constantinople to claim the protection of Zeno for the still

loyal subjects of the Empire." But Zeno "inclined to the cause

of Odovacar. The latter, however, who perhaps thought that he

had enough upon his hands without forcing his yoke on the

Provençals, made over his claim to Euric king of the

Visigoths, whose influence was at this time predominant in

Gaul."

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 4, chapter 4 (volume 3).

See, also,

ARLES: A. D. 508-510.

PROVENCE: A. D. 493-526.

Embraced in the Ostrogothic kingdom of Theodoric.

See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

PROVENCE: A. D. 536.

Cession to the Franks.

Out of the wreck of the Visigothic kingdom in Gaul, when it

was overthrown by the Frank king, Clovis, the Ostrogothic king

of Italy, Theodoric, seems to have secured Provence. Eleven

years after the death of Theodoric, and on the eve of the

subversion of his own proudly planted kingdom, in 536, his

successor Witigis, or Vitigis, bought the neutrality of the

Franks by the cession to them of all the Ostrogothic

possessions in Gaul, which were Provence and part of Dauphiné.

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and her Invaders,

book 4, chapter 3 (volume 3),

and book 5, chapter 3 (volume 4).

PROVENCE: A. D. 877-933.

The Kingdom.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092.

The Kings become Counts.

The Spanish connection.

"Southern France, … after having been the inheritance of

several of the successors of Charlemagne, was elevated in 870

to the rank of an independent kingdom, by Bozon, who was

crowned at Mantes under the title of King of Arles, and who

reduced under his dominion Provence, Dauphiny, Savoy, the

Lyonnese, and some provinces of Burgundy. The sovereignty of

this territory exchanged, in 943, the title of King for that

of Count, under Bozon II.; but the kingdom of Provence was

preserved entire, and continued in the house of Burgundy, of

which Bozon I. was the founder. This noble house became

extinct in 1092, in the person of Gilibert, who left only two

daughters, between whom his possessions were divided. One of

these, Faydide, married Alphonso, Count of Toulouse; and the

other, Douce, became the wife of Raymond Berenger, Count of

Barcelona. … The accession of Raymond Berenger, Count of

Barcelona and husband of Douce, to the throne of Provence,

gave a new direction to the national spirit, by the mixture of

the Catalans with the Provençals. … Raymond Berenger and his

successors introduced into Provence the spirit both of liberty

and chivalry, and a taste for elegance and the arts, with all

the sciences of the Arabians. The union of these noble

sentiments gave birth to that poetical spirit which shone out,

at once, over Provence and all the south of Europe, like an

electric flash in the midst of the most palpable darkness,

illuminating all things by the brightness of its flame."

J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,

Literature of the South of Europe,

chapter 3 (volume l).

See, also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

Before the Albigensian Crusade.

"At the accession of Philippe Auguste [crowned as joint-king

of France, 1179, succeeded his father, 1180], the greater part

of the south of France was holden, not of him, but of Pedro of

Arragon, as the supreme suzerain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

To the Arragonese king belonged especially the counties of

Provence, Forcalquier, Narbonne, Beziers, and Carcassonne. His

supremacy was acknowledged by the Counts of Bearn, of

Armagnac, of Bigorre, of Comminges, of Foix, of Roussillon,

and of Montpellier; while the powerful Count of Toulouse,

surrounded by his estates and vassals, maintained with

difficulty his independence against him. To these extensive

territories were given the names sometimes of Provence, in the

larger and less exact use of that word, and sometimes of

Languedoc, in allusion to the rich, harmonious, picturesque,

and flexible language which was then vernacular there.

See LANGUE D'OC.

They who used it called themselves Provençaux or Aquitanians,

to indicate that they were not Frenchmen, but members of a

different and indeed of a hostile nation. Tracing their

descent to the ancient Roman colonists and to the Gothic

invaders of Southern Gaul, the Provençaux regarded with a

mixture of contempt, of fear, and ill will, the inhabitants of

the country north of the Loire, who had made far less progress

than themselves, either in civil liberty, or in the arts and

refinements of social life. … Toulouse, Marseilles, Arles,

Beziers, and many other of their greater cities, emulous of

the Italian republics, with whom they traded and formed

alliances, were themselves living under a government which was

virtually republican. Each of these free cities being,

however, the capital of one of the greater lords among whom

the whole of Aquitaine was parceled out, became the seat of a

princely and luxurious court.

{2612}

A genial climate, a fertile soil, and an active commerce,

rendered the means of subsistence abundant even to the poor,

and gave to the rich ample resources for indulging in all the

gratifications which wealth can purchase. … They lived as if

life had been one protracted holiday. Theirs was the land of

feasting, of gallantry, and of mirth. … They refined and

enhanced the pleasures of appetite by the pleasures of the

imagination. They played with the stern features of war in

knightly tournaments. They parodied the severe toils of

justice in their courts of love. They transferred the poet's

sacred office and high vocation to the Troubadours, whose

amatory and artificial effusions posterity has willingly let

die, notwithstanding the recent labours of MM. Raynouard and

Fauriel to revive them."

Sir J. Stephen,

Lectures on the History of France,

lecture 7.

"In the south of France, more particularly, peace, riches, and

a court life, had introduced, amongst the nobility, an extreme

laxity of manners. Gallantry seems to have been the sole

object of their existence. The ladies, who only appeared in

society after marriage, were proud of the celebrity which

their lovers conferred on their charms. They were delighted

with becoming the objects of the songs of their Troubadour;

nor were they offended at the poems composed in their praise,

in which gallantry was often mingled with licentiousness. They

even themselves professed the Gay Science, 'el Gai Saber,' for

thus poetry was called; and, in their turn, they expressed

their feelings in tender and impassioned verses. They

instituted Courts of Love, where questions of gallantry were

gravely debated and decided by their suffrages. They gave, in

short, to the whole south of France the character of a

carnival, affording a singular contrast to the ideas of

reserve, virtue, and modesty, which we usually attribute to

those good old times."

J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,

Literature of the South of Europe,

chapter 3 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

C. C. Fauriel,

History of Provençal Poetry.

See, also, TROUBADOURS.

PROVENCE: A. D. 1209-1242.

The Albigensian Crusades.

See ALBIGENSES.

PROVENCE: A. D. 1246.

The count becomes founder of the Third House of Anjou.

See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

PROVENCE: A. D. 1348.

Sale and transfer of Avignon to the Pope.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

PROVENCE: A. D. 1536-1546.

Invasion by Charles V.

Defensive wasting of the country.

Massacre of Waldenses.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

PROVENCE: 16th Century.

Strength of Protestantism.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

----------PROVENCE: End--------

PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND:

The Plantation and the City.

See RHODE ISLAND.

PROVISIONS OF OXFORD AND WESTMINSTER.

See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.

PROVISORS, Statute of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.

PROXENI.

In ancient Sparta, "the so-called Proxeni, whose number was

fluctuating, served as the subordinates of the kings in their

diplomatic communication with foreign States."

G. Schömann,

Antiquity of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapter 1, section 9.

PRUSA: A. D. 1326.

The first capital of the Ottomans.

See TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326.

----------PRUSSIA: Start--------

PRUSSIA:

The original country and its name.

"Five–hundred miles, and more, to the east of Brandenburg,

lies a Country then [10th century] as now called Preussen

(Prussia Proper), inhabited by Heathens, where also endeavours

at conversion are going on, though without success hitherto. …

Part of the great plain or flat which stretches, sloping

insensibly, continuously, in vast expanse, from the Silesian

Mountains to the amber–regions of the Baltic; Preussen is the

seaward, more alluvial part of this,—extending west and east,

on both sides of the Weichsel (Vistula), from the regions of

the Oder river to the main stream of the Memel.

'Bordering-on-Russia' its name signifies: Bor-Russia,

B'russia, Prussia; or—some say it was only on a certain

inconsiderable river in those parts, river Reussen, that it

'bordered,' and not on the great Country, or any part of it,

which now in our days is conspicuously its next neighbour. Who

knows?—In Henry the Fowler's time, and long afterwards,

Preussen was a vehemently Heathen country; the natives a

Miscellany of rough Serbic Wends, Letts, Swedish Goths, or

Dryasdust knows not what;—very probably a sprinkling of

Swedish Goths, from old time, chiefly along the coasts.

Dryasdust knows only that these Preussen were a strong-boned,

iracund herdsman-and-fisher people; highly averse to be

interfered with, in their religion especially. Famous

otherwise, through all the centuries, for the amber they had

been used to fish, and sell in foreign parts. … Their

knowledge of Christianity was trifling; their aversion to

knowing anything of it was great."

T. Carlyle,

Frederick the Great,

book 2, chapter 2.

PRUSSIA: 13th Century.

Conquered and Christianized by the Teutonic Knights.

The first Christian missionary who ventured among the savage

heathen of Prussia Proper was Adalbert, bishop of Prague, who

fell a martyr to his zeal in 997. For two centuries after that

tragedy they were little disturbed in their paganism; but

early in the 13th century a Pomeranian monk named Christian

succeeded in establishing among them many promising churches.

The heathen party in the country, however, was enraged by the

progress of the Christians and rose furiously against them,

putting numerous converts to the sword. "Other agencies were

now invoked by Bishop Christian, and the 'Order of Knights

Brethren of Dobrin,' formed on the model of that which we have

already encountered in Livonia, was bidden to coerce the

people into the reception of Christianity. But they failed to

achieve the task assigned them, and then it was that the

famous 'Order of Teutonic Knights,' united with the 'Brethren

of the Sword' in Livonia, concentrated their energies on this

European crusade. Originally instituted for the purpose of

succouring German pilgrims in the Holy Land, the 'Order of

Teutonic Knights,' now that the old crusades had become

unpopular, enrolled numbers of eager adventurers determined to

expel the last remains of heathenism from the face of Europe.

After the union of the two Orders had been duly solemnized at

Rome, in the presence of the Pope, in the year A. D. 1238,

they entered the Prussian territory, and for a space of nearly

fifty years continued a series of remorseless wars against the

wretched inhabitants.

{2613}

Slowly but surely they made their way into the very heart of

the country, and secured their conquests by erecting castles,

under the shadow of which rose the towns of Culm, Thorn,

Marienwerder, and Elbing, which they peopled with German

colonists. The authority of the Order knew scarcely any

bounds. Themselves the faithful vassals of the Pope, they

exacted the same implicit obedience, alike from the German

immigrant, or colonist, and the converted Prussians. … In A.

D. 1243 the conquered lands were divided by the Pope into

three bishoprics, Culm, Pomerania, and Ermeland, each of which

was again divided into three parts, one being subject to the

bishop, and the other two to the brethren of the Order."

G. F. Maclear,

Apostles of Mediæval Europe,

chapter 16.

"None of the Orders rose so high as the Teutonic in favour

with mankind. It had by degrees landed possessions far and

wide over Germany and beyond, … and was thought to deserve

favour from above. Valiant servants, these; to whom Heaven had

vouchsafed great labours and unspeakable blessings. In some

fifty or fifty-three years they had got Prussian Heathenism

brought to the ground; and they endeavoured to tie it well

down there by bargain and arrangement. But it would not yet

lie quiet, nor for a century to come; being still secretly

Heathen; revolting, conspiring ever again, ever on weaker

terms, till the Satanic element had burnt itself out, and

conversion and composure could ensue."

T. Carlyle,

History of Frederick the Great,

book 2, chapter 6 (volume l).

See, also, LIVONIA: 12-13TH CENTURIES.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1466-1618.

Conquest and annexation to the Polish crown.

Surrender by the Teutonic Knights.

Erection into a duchy.

Union with the electorate of Brandenburg.

See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572;

and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1626-1629.

Conquests of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden

in his war with Poland.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1656-1688.

Complete sovereignty of the duchy acquired by

the Great Elector of Brandenburg.

His curbing of the nobles.

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700.

The Dukedom erected into a Kingdom.

In the last year of the 17th century, Europe was on the verge

of the great War of the Spanish Succession. The Emperor was

making ready to contest the will by which Charles II. of Spain

had bequeathed his crown to Philip, Duke of Anjou, grandson of

Louis XIV. of France.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

"He did not doubt that he would speedily involve England,

Holland, and the Germanic diet in his quarrel. Already several

German princes were pledged to him; he had gained the Duke of

Hanover by an elector's hat, and a more powerful prince, the

Elector of Brandenburg, by a royal crown. By a treaty of

November 16, 1700, the Emperor had consented to the erection

of ducal Prussia into a kingdom, on condition that the new

King should furnish him an aid of 10,000 soldiers. The Elector

Frederick III. apprised his courtiers of this important news

at the close of a repast, by drinking 'to the health of

Frederick I. King of Prussia'; then caused himself to be

proclaimed King at Konigsberg, January 15, 1701."

H. Martin,

History of France: Age of Louis XIV.

(translated by M. L. Booth),

volume 2, chapter 5.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1713.

Neufchatel and Spanish Guelderland acquired.

Orange relinquished.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1717-1809.

Abolition of serfdom.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1720.

Acquisition of territory from Sweden, including Stettin.

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

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1720-1794.

Reign of Frederick William I., and after.

The later history of Prussia, under Frederick William,

Frederick the Great, and their successors, will be found

included in that of GERMANY.

----------PRUSSIA: End--------

PRUSSIAN LANGUAGE, The Old.

"The Old Prussian, a member of the Lithuanic family of

languages, was spoken here as late as the 16th century,

remains of which, in the shape of a catechism, are extant.

This is the language of the ancient Æstyi, or 'Men of the

East,' which Tacitus says was akin to the British, an error

arising from the similarity of name, since a Slavonian … would

call the two languages by names so like as 'Prytskaia' and

'Brytskaia,' and a German … by names so like as 'Pryttisc' and

'Bryttisc.' The Guttones, too, of Pliny, whose locality is

fixed from the fact of their having been collectors of the

amber of East Prussia and Courland, were of the same stock."

R. G. Latham,

The Ethnology of Europe,

chapter 8.

PRUTH, The Treaty of the (1711).

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

PRYDYN.

See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.

PRYTANES.

PRYTANEUM.

The Council of Four Hundred, said to have been instituted at

Athens by Solon, "was divided into sections, which, under the

venerable name of prytanes, succeeded each other throughout

the year as the representatives of the whole body. Each

section during its term assembled daily in their session

house, the prytaneum, to consult on the state of affairs, to

receive intelligence, information, and suggestions, and

instantly to take such measures as the public interest

rendered it necessary to adopt without delay. … According to

the theory of Solon's constitution, the assembly of the people

was little more than the organ of the council, as it could

only act upon the propositions laid before it by the latter."

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 11.

"Clisthenes … enlarged the number of the senate, 50 being now

elected by lot from each tribe, so as to make in all 500. Each

of these companies of 50 acted as presidents of both the

senate and the assemblies, for a tenth part of the year, under

the name of Prytanes: and each of these tenth parts, of 35 or

36 days, so as to complete a lunar year, was called a

Prytany."

G. F. Schömann,

Dissertation on the Assemblies of the Athenians,

page 14.

See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 594.

PRYTANIS.

A title frequently recurring among the Greeks was that of

Prytanis, which signified prince, or supreme ruler. "Even

Hiero, the king or tyrant of Syracuse, is addressed by Pindar

as Prytanis. At Corinth, after the abolition of the monarchy,

a Prytanis, taken from the ancient house of the Bacchiadæ, was

annually appointed as supreme magistrate

See CORINTH: B. C. 745-725.

… The same title was borne by the supreme magistrate in the

Corinthian colony of Corcyra. … In Rhodes we find in the time

of Polybius a Prytany lasting for six months."

G. Schömann,

Antiquity of Greece: The State,

part 2, chapter 5.

{2614}

PSALTER OF CASHEL.

PSALTER OF TARA.

See TARA, HILL AND FEIS OF.

PSEPHISM.

A decree, or enactment, in ancient Athens.

PSEUDO-ISIDORIAN DECRETALS, The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

PTOLEMAIS, Syria.

See ACRE.

PTOLEMIES, The.

See EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.

PTOLEMY KERAUNOS, The intrigues and death of.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280;

and GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

PTOLEMY SOTER, and the Wars of the Diadochi.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316, to 297-280;

and EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.

PTOLEMY'S CANON.

An important chronological list of Chaldean, Persian,

Macedonian and Egyptian kings, compiled or continued by

Claudius Ptolemæus, an Alexandrian mathematician and

astronomer in the reign of the Second Antoninus.

W. Hales,

New Analysis of Chronology,

volume I, book 1.

PUANS, OR WINNEBAGOES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

PUBLIC MEALS.

See SYSSITIA.

PUBLIC PEACE, The.

See LANDFRIEDE.

PUBLIC WEAL, League of the.

See FRANCE; A. D. 1461-1468; and 1453-1461.

PUBLICANI.

The farmers of the taxes, among the Romans.

See VECTIGAL.

PUBLICIANI, The.

See ALBIGENSES;

and PAULICIANS.

PUEBLA: Capture by the French (1862).

See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

PUBLILIAN LAW OF VOLERO, The.

See ROME: B. C. 472-471.

PUBLILIAN LAWS, The.

See ROME: B. C. 340.

PUEBLOS.

The Spanish word pueblo, meaning town, village, or the

inhabitants thereof, has acquired a special signification as

applied, first, to the sedentary or village Indians of New

Mexico and Arizona, and then to the singular villages of

communal houses which they inhabit.

D. G. Brinton,

The American Race,

page 113.

"The purely civic colonies of California were called pueblos

to distinguish them from missions or presidios. The term

pueblo, in its most extended meaning, may embrace towns of

every description, from a hamlet to a city. … However, in its

special significance, a pueblo means a corporate town."

F. W. Blackmar,

Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,

chapter 8.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

PUELTS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

PUERTO CAVELLO, Spanish capitulation at (1823).

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.

PUJUNAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUJUNAN FAMILY.

PULASKI, Fort: A. D. 1861.

Threatened by the Union forces.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA—GEORGIA).

PULASKI, Fort: A. D. 1862 (February-April).

Siege and capture.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

PULLANI, The.

The descendants of the first Crusaders who remained in the

East and married Asiatic women are represented as having been

a very despicable half-breed race. They were called the

Pullani. Prof. Palmer suggests a derivation of the name from

"fulani," anybodies. Mr. Keightley, on the contrary, states

that before the crusading colonists overcame their prejudice

against Oriental wives, women were brought to them from

Apulia, in Italy. Whence the name Pullani, applied

indiscriminately to an the progeny of the Latin settlers.

W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,

Jerusalem, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

T. Keightley,

The Crusaders,

chapter 2.

PULTNEY ESTATE, The.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

PULTOWA, Battle of (1709).

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

PULTUSK,

Battle of (1703).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

Battle of (1806).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.

PUMBADITHA, The. School of.

See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

PUNCAS, OR PONCAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,

and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

PUNIC.

The adjective Punicus, derived from the name of the

Phœnicians, was used by the Romans in a sense which commonly

signified "Carthaginian,"—the Carthaginians being of Phœnician

origin. Hence "Punic Wars," "Punic faith," etc., the phrase

"Punic faith" being an imputation of faithlessness and

treachery.

----------PUNIC WARS: Start--------

PUNIC WARS,

The First.

When Pyrrhus quitted Italy he is said to have exclaimed, "How

fair a battle–field are we leaving to the Romans and

Carthaginians." He may easily have had sagacity to foresee the

deadly struggle which Rome and Carthage would soon be engaged

in, and he might as easily have predicted, too, that the

beginning of it would be in Sicily. Rome had just settled her

supremacy in the whole Italian peninsula; she was sure to

covet next the rich island that lies so near to it. In fact,

there was bred quickly in the Roman mind such an eagerness to

cross the narrow strait that it waited only for the slenderest

excuse. A poor pretext was found in the year 264 B. C. and it

was so despicably poor that the proud Roman senators turned

over to the popular assembly of the Comitia the responsibility

of accepting it. There came to Rome from Messene, in Sicily—or

Messana, as the Romans called the city—an appeal. It did not

come from the citizens of Messene, but from a band of

freebooters who had got possession of the town. These were

mercenaries from Campania (lately made Roman territory by the

Samnite conquest) who had been in the pay of Agathocles of

Syracuse. Disbanded on that tyrant's death, they had

treacherously seized Messene, slain most of the male

inhabitants, taken to themselves the women, and settled down

to a career of piracy and robbery, assuming the name of

Mamertinl,—children of Mamers, or Mars. Of course, all Sicily,

both Greek and Carthaginian, was roused against them by the

outrages they committed. Being hard pressed, the Mamertines

invoked, as Italians, the protection of Rome; although one

party among them appears to have preferred an arrangement of

terms with the Carthaginians.

{2615}

The Roman Senate, being ashamed to extend a friendly hand to

the Mamertine cutthroats, but not having virtue enough to

decline an opportunity for fresh conquests, referred the

question to the people at large. The popular vote sent an army

into Sicily, and Messene, then besieged by Hiero of Syracuse

on one side and by a Carthaginian army on the other, was

relieved of both. The Romans thereon proceeded, in two

aggressive campaigns, against Syracusans and Carthaginians

alike, until Hiero bought peace with them, at a heavy cost,

and became their half-subject ally for the remainder of his

life. The war with the Carthaginians was but just commenced.

Its first stunning blow was struck at Agrigentum, the splendid

city of Phalaris, which the Carthaginians had destroyed, B. C.

405, which Timoleon had rebuilt, and which one of the

Hannibals ("son of Gisco") now seized upon for his stronghold.

In a great battle fought under the walls of Agrigentum (B. C.

262) Hannibal lost the city and all but a small remnant of his

army. But the successes of the Romans on land were worth

little to them while the Carthaginians commanded the sea.

Hence they resolved to create a fleet, and are said to have

built a hundred ships of the quinquereme order and twenty

triremes within sixty days, while rowers for them were trained

by all imitative exercise on land. The first squadron of this

improvised navy was trapped at Lipara and lost; the remainder

was successful in its first encounter with the enemy. But

where naval warfare depended on good seamanship the Romans

were no match for the Carthaginians. They contrived therefore

a machine for their ships, called the Corvus, or raven, by

which, running straight on the opposing vessel, they were able

to grasp it by the throat, so to speak, and force fighting at

close quarters. That accomplished, they were tolerably sure of

victory. With their corvus they half annihilated the

Carthaginian fleet in a great sea-fight at Mylæ, B. C. 260,

and got so much mastery of the sea that they were able to

attack their Punic foes even in the island of Sardinia, but

without much result. In 257 B. C. another naval battle of

doubtful issue was fought at Tyndaris, and the following year,

in the great battle of Ecnomus, the naval power of the

Carthaginians, for the time being, was utterly crushed. Then

followed the invasion of Carthaginian territory by Regulus,

his complete successes at first, his insolent proposal of hard

terms, and the tremendous defeat which overwhelmed him at Adis

a little later, when he, himself, was taken prisoner. The

miserable remnant of the Roman army which held its ground at

Clypea on the African coast was rescued the next year (B. C.

255) by a new fleet, but only to be destroyed on the voyage

homeward, with 260 ships, in a great storm on the south coast

of Sicily. Then Carthaginians reappeared in Sicily and the war

in that unhappy island was resumed. In 254 B. C. the Romans

took the strong fortified city of Panormus. In 253, having

built and equipped another fleet, they were robbed of it again

by a storm at sea, and the Carthaginians gained ground and

strength in Sicily. In 251 the Roman consul, Cæcilius

Metellus, drove them back from the walls of Panormus and

inflicted on them so discouraging a defeat, that they sent

Regulus, their prisoner, on parole, with an embassy, to

solicit peace at Rome. How Regulus advised his countrymen

against peace, and how he returned to Carthage to meet a cruel

death—the traditional story is familiar to all readers, but

modern criticism throws doubt upon it. In 250 B. C. the Romans

undertook the siege of Lilybæum, which, with the neighboring

port of Drepana, were the only strongholds left to the

Carthaginians. The siege then commenced was one of the most

protracted in history, for when the First Punic War ended,

nine years later, Lilybæum was still resisting, and the Romans

only acquired it with all the rest of Sicily, under the terms

of the treaty of peace. Meantime the Carthaginians won a

bloody naval victory at Drepana (B. C. 249) over the Roman

fleet, and the latter, in the same year, had a third fleet

destroyed on the coast by relentless storms. In the year 247

B. C. the Carthaginian command in Sicily was given to the

great Hamilcar, surnamed Barca, who was the father of a yet

greater man, the Hannibal who afterwards brought Rome very

near to destruction. Hamilcar Barca, having only a few

mutinous mercenary soldiers at his command, and almost

unsupported by the authorities at Carthage, established

himself, first, on the rocky height of Mount Ercte, or Hercte,

near Panormus, and afterwards on Mount Eryx, and harassed the

Romans for six years. The end came at last as the consequence

of a decisive naval victory near the Ægatian Isles, which the

Romans achieved, with a newly built fleet, in March B. C. 241.

The Carthaginians, discouraged, proposed peace, and purchased

it by evacuating Sicily and paying a heavy war indemnity. Thus

Rome acquired Sicily, but the wealth and civilization of the

great island had been ruined beyond recovery.

R. B. Smith,

Carthage and the Carthaginians,

chapters 4-7.

ALSO IN:

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 4, chapter 3.

Polybius,

Histories,

book l.

A. J. Church,

The Story of Carthage,

part 4, chapters 1-3.

See, also, ROME: B. C. 264-241.

PUNIC WARS:

The Second.

Between the First Punic War and the Second there was an

interval of twenty-three years. Carthage, meantime, had been

brought very near to destruction by the Revolt of the

Mercenaries and had been saved by the capable energy of

Hamilcar Barca.

See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.

Then the selfish faction which hated Hamilcar had regained

power in the Punic capital, and the Barcine patriot could do

no more than obtain command of an army which he led, on his

own responsibility, into Spain, B. C. 237. The Carthaginians

had inherited from the Phœnicians a considerable commerce with

Spain, but do not seem to have organized a control of the

country until Hamilcar took the task in hand. Partly by

pacific influences and partly by force, he established a rule,

rather personal than Carthaginian, which extended over nearly

all southern Spain. With the wealth that he drew from its gold

and silver mines he maintained his army and bought or bribed

at Carthage the independence he needed for the carrying out of

his plans. He had aimed from the first, no doubt, at

organizing resources with which to make war on Rome. Hamilcar

was killed in battle, B. C. 228, and his son-in-law,

Hasdrubal, who succeeded him, lived only seven years more.

Then Hannibal, the son of Hamilcar, in his twenty–sixth year,

was chosen to the command in Spain.

{2616}

He waited two years, for the settling of his authority and for

making all preparations complete, and then he threw down a

challenge to the Romans for the war which he had sworn to his

father that he would make the one purpose of his life. The

provocation of war was the taking of the city of Saguntum, a

Greek colony on the Spanish coast, which the Romans had formed

an alliance with. It was taken by Hannibal after a siege of

eight months and after most of the inhabitants had destroyed

themselves, with their wealth. When Rome declared war it was

with the expectation, no doubt, that Spain and Africa would be

the battle grounds. But Hannibal did not wait for her attack.

He led his Spanish army straight to Italy, in the early summer

of B. C. 218, skirting the Pyrenees and crossing the Alps. The

story of his passage of the Alps is familiar to every reader.

The difficulties he encountered were so terrible and the

losses sustained so great that Hannibal descended into Italy

with only 20,000 foot and 6,000 horse, out of 50,000 of the

one and 9,000 of the other which he had led through Gaul. He

received some reinforcement and co-operation from the

Cisalpine Gauls, but their strength had been broken by recent

wars with Rome and they were not efficient allies. In the

first encounter of the Romans with the dread invader, on the

Ticinus, they were beaten, but not seriously. In the next, on

the Trebia, where Scipio, the consul, made a determined stand,

they sustained an overwhelming defeat. This ended the campaign

of B. C. 218. Hannibal wintered in Cisalpine Gaul and passed

the Apennines the following spring into Etruria, stealing a

march on the Roman army, under the popular consul Flaminius,

which was watching to intercept him. The latter pursued and

was caught in ambush at Lake Trasimene, where Flaminius and

15,000 of his men were slain, while most of the survivors of

the fatal field were taken prisoners and made slaves. Rome

then seemed open to the Carthaginian, but he knew, without

doubt, that his force was not strong enough for the besieging

of the city, and he made no attempt. What he aimed at was the

isolating of Rome and the arraying of Italy against her, in a

great and powerfully handled combination of the jealousies and

animosities which he knew to exist. He led his troops

northward again, after the victory of Lake Trasimene, across

the mountains to the Adriatic coast, and rested them during

the summer. When cooler weather came he moved southward along

the coast into Apulia. The Romans meantime had chosen a

Dictator, Q. Fabius Maximus, a cautious man, whose plan of

campaign was to watch and harass and wear out the enemy,

without risking a battle. It was a policy which earned for him

the name of "The Cunctator," or Lingerer. The Roman people

were discontented with it, and next year (B. C. 216) they

elected for one of the consuls a certain Varro who had been

one of the mouth-pieces of their discontent. In opposition to

his colleague, Æmilius Paullus, Varro soon forced a battle

with Hannibal at Cannæ, in Apulia, and brought upon his

countrymen the most awful disaster in war that they ever knew.

Nearly 50,000 Roman citizens were left dead on the field,

including eighty senators, and half the young nobility of the

state. From the spoils of the field Hannibal was said to have

sent three bushels of golden rings to Carthage, stripped from

the fingers of Roman knights. Rome reeled under the blow, and

yet haughtily refused to ransom the 20,000 prisoners in

Hannibal's hands, while she met the discomfited Varro with

proud thanks, because "he had not despaired of the Republic."

Capua now opened its gates to Hannibal and became the

headquarters of his operations. The people of Southern Italy

declared generally in his favor; but he had reached and

passed, nevertheless, the crowning point of his success. He

received no effective help from Carthage; nor from his brother

in Spain, who was defeated by the elder Scipios, that same

year (B. C. 216) at Ibera, just as he had prepared to lead a

fresh army into Italy. On the other hand, the energies of the

Romans had risen with every disaster. Their Latin subjects

continued faithful to them; but they lost at this time an

important ally in Sicily, by the death of the aged Hiero of

Syracuse, and the Carthaginians succeeded in raising most of

the island against them. The war in Sicily now became for a

time more important than that in Italy, and the consul

Marcellus, the most vigorous of the Roman generals, was sent

to conduct it. His chief object was the taking of Syracuse and

the great city sustained another of the many dreadful sieges

which it was her fate to endure. The siege was prolonged for

two years, and chiefly by the science and the military

inventions of the famous mathematician, Archimides. When the

Romans entered Syracuse at last (B. C. 212) it was to pillage

and slay without restraint, and Archimides was one of the

thousands cut down by their swords. Meantime, in Italy,

Tarentum had been betrayed to Hannibal, but the Romans still

held the citadel of the town. They had gained so much strength

in the field that they were now able to lay siege to Capua and

Hannibal was powerless to relieve it. He attempted a diversion

by marching on Rome, but the threat proved idle and Capua was

left to its fate. The city surrendered soon after (B. C. 211)

and the merciless conquerors only spared it for a new

population. For three or four years after this the war in

Italy was one of minor successes and reverses on both sides,

but Hannibal lost steadily in prestige and strength. In Spain,

Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubal, had opportunely beaten and

slain (B. C. 212) both the elder Scipios; but another and

greater Scipio, P. Cornelius, son of Publius, had taken the

field and was sweeping the Carthaginians from the peninsula.

Yet, despite Scipio's capture of New Carthage and his

victories, at Bæcula, and elsewhere, Hasdrubal contrived, in

some unexplained way, in the year 208, B. C., to cross the

Pyrenees into Gaul and to recruit reinforcements there for a

movement on Italy. The next spring he passed the Alps and

brought his army safely into Cisalpine Gaul; but his

dispatches to Hannibal fell into the hands of the Romans and

revealed his plans. The swift energy of one of the consuls, C.

Claudius Nero, brought about a marvellous concentration of

Roman forces to meet him, and he and his army perished

together in an awful battle fought on the banks of the

Metaurus, in Umbria. The last hopes of Hannibal perished with

them; but he held his ground in the extreme south of Italy and

no Roman general dared try to dislodge him. When Scipio

returned next year (B. C. 206) and reported the complete

conquest of Spain, he was chosen consul with the understanding

that he would carry the war into Africa, though the senate

stood half opposed.

{2617}

He did so in the early months of the year 204 B. C. crossing

from Sicily with a comparatively small armament and laying

siege to Utica. That year he accomplished nothing, but during

the next winter he struck a terrible blow, surprising and

burning the camps of the Carthaginians and their Numidian

allies and slaughtering 40,000 of their number. This success

was soon followed by another, on the Great Plains, which lie

70 or 80 miles to the southwest of Carthage. The Numidian

king, Syphax, was now driven from his throne and the kingdom

delivered over to an outlawed prince, Massinissa, who became,

thenceforth, the most useful and unscrupulous of allies to the

Romans. Now pushed to despair, the Carthaginians summoned

Hannibal to their rescue. He abandoned Italy at the call and

returned to see his own land for the first time since as a boy

he left it with his father. But even his genius could not save

Carthage with the means at his command. The long war was ended

in October of the year 202 B. C. by the battle which is called

the battle of Zama, though it was fought at some distance

westward of that place. The Carthaginian army was routed

utterly, and Hannibal himself persuaded his countrymen to

accept a peace which stripped them of their ships and their

trade, their possessions in Spain and all the islands, and

their power over the Numidian states, besides wringing from

them a war indemnity of many millions. On those hard terms,

Carthage was suffered to exist a few years longer.

R. B. Smith,

Carthage and the Carthaginians.

ALSO IN:

T. Arnold,

History of Rome,

chapters 43-47.

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

chapters 31-34.

T. A. Dodge,

Hannibal,

chapters 11-39.

See, also, ROME: B. C. 218-211, to 211-202.

PUNIC WARS:

The Third.

See CARTHAGE: B. C. 146;

and ROME: B. C. 151-146.

----------PUNIC WARS: End--------

PUNJAB,

PUNJAUB,

PANJAB, The.

"Everything has a meaning in India, and the Panjab is only

another name for the Five Rivers which make the historic

Indus. They rise far back among the western Himalayas, bring

down their waters from glaciers twenty-five miles in length,

and peaks 26,000 feet high, and hurl their mighty torrent into

one great current, which is thrown at last into the Arabian

Sea. It is a fertile region, not less so than the Valley of

the Ganges. This Panjab is the open door, the only one by

which the European of earlier days was able to descend upon

the plains of India for conquest and a new home. … In the

Panjab every foot of the land is a romance. No one knows how

many armies have shivered in the winds of the hills of

Afghanistan, and then pounced down through the Khaibar Pass

into India, and overspread the country, until the people could

rise and destroy the stranger within the gates. Whenever a

European invader of Asia has reached well into the continent,

his dream has always been India. That country has ever been,

and still is, the pearl of all the Orient. Its perfect sky in

winter, its plenteous rains in summer, its immense rivers, its

boundless stores of wealth, an its enduring industries, which

know no change, have made it the dream of every great

conqueror."

J. F. Hurst,

Indika,

chapter 75.

"In form, the country is a great triangle, its base resting on

the Himalayan chain and Cashmere, and its apex directed due

south–west. … The five streams which confer its name, counting

them from north to south, are the Upper Indus, the Jhelum, the

Chenab, the Ravee and the Sutlej, the Indus and Sutlej

constituting respectively the western and eastern boundary. …

The four divisions enclosed by the five convergent streams are

called doabs—lands of two waters. … Besides the territory thus

delineated, the Punjab of the Sikhs included Cashmere, the

Jummoo territory to Spiti and Tibet, the trans-Indus frontier

and the Hazara highlands in the west; and to the east the

Jullundhur Doab with Kangra and Noorpoor. These last, with the

frontier, are better known as the cis- and trans-Sutlaj

states."

E. Arnold,

The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,

chapter 2 (volume 1).

The Sikhs established their supremacy in the Punjab in the

18th century, and became a formidable power, under the famous

Runjet Singh, in the early part of the 19th century. (The

English conquest of the Sikhs and annexation of the Punjab to

British India took place in 1849.

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849,

and SIKHS

PUNT, Land of.

"Under the name of Punt, the old inhabitants of Kemi [ancient

Egypt] meant a distant land, washed by the great ocean, full

of valleys and hills, abounding in ebony and other rich woods,

in incense, balsam, precious metals, and costly stones; rich

also in beasts, as cameleopards, hunting leopards, panthers,

dog-headed apes, and long-tailed monkeys. … Such was the Ophir

of the Egyptians, without doubt the present coast of the

Somauli land in sight of Arabia, but separated from it by the

sea. According to an old obscure tradition, the land of Punt

was the original seat of the gods. From Punt the holy ones had

travelled to the Nile valley, at their head Amon, Horus,

Hathor."

H. Brugsch,

History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,

chapter 8.

PURCHASE IN THE ARMY, Abolition of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.

----------PURITANS: Start--------

PURITANS:

The movement taking form.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566.

PURITANS:

First application of the Name.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1564-1565 (?).

PURITANS:

In distinction from the Independents or Separatists.

"When, in 1603, James I. became king of England, he found his

Protestant subjects divided into three classes,—Conformists,

or High Ritualists; Nonconformists, or Broad-Church Puritans;

and Separatists, popularly called Brownists [and subsequently

called Independents]. The Conformists and the Puritans both

adhered to the Church of England, and were struggling for its

control. … The Puritans objected to some of the ceremonies of

the Church, such as the ring in marriage, the sign of the

cross in baptism, the promises of god-parents, the showy

vestments, bowing in the creed, receiving evil-livers to the

communion, repetitions, and to kneeling at communion as if

still adoring the Host, instead of assuming an ordinary

attitude as did the apostles at the Last Supper. The majority

of the lower clergy and of the middle classes are said to have

favored Puritanism. … Dr. Neal says that the Puritan body took

form in 1564, and dissolved in 1644.

{2618}

During that term of eighty years the Puritans were ever 'in

and of the Church of England'; as Dr. Prince says in his

Annals (1736), those who left the Episcopal Church 'lost the

name of Puritans and received that of the Separatists.' … The

Separatists, unlike the Puritans, had no connection with the

National Church, and the more rigid of them even denied that

Church to be scriptural, or its ministrations to be valid. …

The Pilgrim Fathers, the founders of our Plymouth, the pioneer

colony of New England, were not Puritans. They never were

called by that name, either by themselves or their

contemporaries. They were Separatists, slightingly called

Brownists, and in time became known as Independents or

Congregationalists. As Separatists they were oppressed and

maligned by the Puritans. They did not restrict voting or

office-holding to their church-members. They heartily welcomed

to their little State all men of other sects, or of no sects,

who adhered to the essentials of Christianity and were ready

to conform to the local laws and customs. … Though their faith

was positive and strong, they laid down no formal creed."

J. A. Goodwin,

The Pilgrim Republic,

chapters 2 and 1.

"The reader of this history must have remarked that 'Puritan'

and 'Separatist' were by no means convertible terms; that, in

point of fact, they very often indicated hostile parties,

pitted against each other in bitter controversies. And the

inquiry may have arisen—How is this? Were not the Separatists

all Puritans? … The term 'Puritan' was originally applied to

all in the church of England who desired further reformation—a

greater conformity of church government and worship to

primitive and apostolic usages. But after awhile the term

became restricted in its application to those who retained

their respect for the church of England, and their connection

with it, notwithstanding its acknowledged corruptions; in

distinction from those who had been brought to abandon both

their respect for that church and their connection with it,

under the conviction that it was hopelessly corrupt, and could

never be reformed. The Separatists, then, were indeed all

Puritans, and of the most thorough and uncompromising kind.

They were the very essence—the oil of Puritanism. But the

Puritans were by no means all Separatists; though they agreed

with them in doctrinal faith, being all thoroughly Calvinistic

in their faith."

G. Punchard,

History of Congregationalism,

volume 3, appendix, note F.

ALSO IN:

G. E. Ellis,

The Puritan Age and Rule in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,

chapter 3.

See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS.

D. Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,

chapter 16 (volume 2).

PURITANS: A. D. 1604.

Hampton Court Conference with James I.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.

PURITANS: A. D. 1629.

Incorporation of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629 THE DORCHESTER COMPANY.

PURITANS: A. D. 1629-1630.

The exodus to Massachusetts Bay.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629; 1629-1630; and 1630.

PURITANS: A. D. 1631-1636.

The Theocracy of Massachusetts Bay.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636; and 1636.

PURITANS: A. D. 1638-1640.

At the beginning of the English Civil War.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

----------PURITANS: End--------

PURUARAN, Battle of (1814).

See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

PURUMANCIANS, The.

See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

PUT-IN-BAY, Naval Battle at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

PUTEOLI.

The maritime city of Puteoli, which occupied the site of the

modern town of Pozzuoli, about 7 miles from Naples, became

under the empire the chief emporium of Roman commerce in

Italy. The vicinity of Puteoli and its neighbor Baiæ was one

of the favorite resorts of the Roman nobility for villa

residence. It was at Puteoli that St. Paul landed on his

journey to Rome.

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 4, chapter 11.

PUTNAM, Israel, and the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (MAY-AUGUST);

1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

PYDNA, Battle of (B. C. 168).

See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.

PYLÆ CASPIÆ.

See CASPIAN GATES.

PYLÆ CILICIÆ. See

CILICIAN GATES.

PYLUS, Athenian seizure of.

See GREECE: B. C. 425.

PYRAMID.

"The name 'pyramid'—first invented by the ancients to denote

the tombs of the Egyptian kings, and still used in geometry to

this day—is of Greek origin. The Egyptians themselves denoted

the pyramid—both in the sense of a sepulchre and of a figure

in Solid Geometry—by the word 'abumir;' while, on the other

hand, the word' Pir-am-us' is equivalent to the 'edge of the

pyramid,' namely, the four edges extending from the apex of

the pyramid to each corner of the quadrangular base."

H. Brugsch

History of Egypt,

chapter 7.

PYRAMIDS, Battle of the.

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

PYRENEES, Battles of the (1813).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

PYRENEES, Treaty of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

PYRRHIC DANCE.

A spirited military dance, performed in armor, which gave much

delight to the Spartans, and is said to have been taught to

children only five years old. It was thought to have been

invented by the Cretans.

G. Schömann,

Antiquities of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapters 1-2.

PYRRHUS, and his campaigns in Italy and Sicily.

See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

PYTHIAN GAMES.

See DELPHI.

PYTHO, The Sanctuary of.

According to the Greek legend, a monstrous serpent, or dragon,

Pytho, or Python, produced from the mud left by the deluge of

Deucalion, lived in a great cavern of Mount Parnassus until

slain by the god Apollo. The scene of the exploit became the

principal seat of the worship of Apollo, the site of his most

famous temple, the home of the oracle which he inspired. The

temple and its seat were originally called Pytho; the cavern,

from which arose mephitic and intoxicating vapors was called

the Pythium; the priestess who inhaled those vapors and

uttered the oracles which they were supposed to inspire, was

the Pythia; Apollo, himself, was often called Pythius.

Subsequently, town, temple and oracle were more commonly known

by the name of Delphi.

See DELPHI.

{2619}

----------QUADI, The: Start--------

QUADI, The:

Early place and history.

See MARCOMANNI.

QUADI, The:

Campaigns of Marcus Aurelius against.

See SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS.

QUADI, The: A. D. 357-359.

War of Constantius.

See LIMIGANTES.

QUADI, The: A. D. 374-375.

War of Valentinian.

A treacherous outrage of peculiar blackness, committed by a

worthless Roman officer on the frontier, in 374, provoked the

Quadi to invade the province of Pannonia. They overran it with

little opposition, and their success encouraged inroads by the

neighboring Sarmatian tribes. In the following year, the

Emperor Valentinian led a retaliatory expedition into the

country of the Quadi and revenged himself upon it with

unmerciful severity. At the approach of winter he returned

across the Danube, but only to wait another spring, when his

purpose was to complete the annihilation of the offending

Quadi. The latter, thereupon, sent ambassadors to humbly pray

for peace. The choleric emperor received them, but their

presence excited him to such rage that a blood vessel was

ruptured in his body and he died on the spot.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 25.

QUADI, The:

Probable Modern Representatives of.

See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE.

----------QUADI, The: End--------

QUADRILATERAL, The.

A famous military position in northern Italy, formed by the

strong fortresses at Peschiera, Verona, Mantua, and Legnano,

bears this name. "The Quadrilateral … fulfils all the

requirements of a good defensive position, which are to cover

rearward territory, to offer absolute shelter to a defending

army whenever required, and to permit of ready offensive:

first, by the parallel course of the Mincio and Adige;

secondly, by the fortresses on these rivers; thirdly, by

passages offered at fortified points which insure the command

of the rivers."

Major C. Adams,

Great Campaigns in Europe from 1790 to 1870,

page 232.

QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE (A. D. 1718).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;

also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

QUÆSTIO PERPETUA.

See CALPURNIAN LAW.

QUÆSTOR, The Imperial.

In the later Roman empire, "the Quaestor had the care of

preparing the Imperial speeches, and was responsible for the

language of the laws. … His office is not unlike that of the

Chancellor of a mediaeval monarch."

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

QUÆSTORS, Roman.

"Probably created as assistants to the consuls in the first

year of the republic. At first two; in 421 B. C., four; in

241, eight; in 81, twenty; in 45, forty. Thrown open to

plebeians in 421 B. C. Elected in the Comitia Tributa. The

quæstor's office lasted as long as the consul's to whom he was

attached."

H. F. Horton,

History of the Romans,

appendix A.

"We have seen how the care of the city's treasures had been

intrusted to two city quæstors, soon after the abolition of

the monarchy. In like manner, soon after the fall of the

decemvirate, the expenditures connected with military affairs,

which had hitherto been in the hands of the consuls, were put

under the control of new patrician officers, the military

quæstors, who were to accompany the army on its march."

A. Tighe,

Development of the Roman Constitution,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

W. Ihne,

Researches into the History of the Roman Constitution,

pages 70-84.

QUÆSTORS OF THE FLEET.

See ROME: B. C. 275.

----------QUAKERS: Start--------

QUAKERS:

Origin of the Society of Friends.

George Fox and his early Disciples.

"The religious movement which began with the wandering

preacher George Fox … grew into the Society of Friends, or, as

they came to be commonly called, 'The Quakers.' George Fox was

born in 1624, the year before Charles I. came to the throne:

and he was growing up to manhood all through the troubled time

of that king's reign, while the storms were gathering which at

last burst forth in the civil wars. It was not much that he

knew of all this, however. He was growing up in a little

out-of-the-way village of Leicestershire—Fenny Drayton—where

his father was 'by profession a weaver.'" While he was still a

child, the companions of George Fox "laughed at his grave,

sober ways, yet they respected him, too; and when, by-and-by,

he was apprenticed to a shoemaker, his master found him so

utterly trustworthy, and so true and unbending in his word,

that the saying began to go about, 'If George says "verily"

there is no altering him.' … He was more and more grieved at

what seemed to him the lightness and carelessness of men's

lives. He felt as if he were living in the midst of hollowness

and hypocrisy. … His soul was full of great thoughts of

something better and nobler than the common religion, which

seemed so poor and worldly. … He wandered about from place to

place—Northampton, London, various parts of Warwickshire

—seeking out people here and there whom he could hear of as

very religious, and likely to help him through his

difficulties. … After two years of lonely, wandering life, he

began to see a little light. It came to his soul that all

these outward forms, and ceremonies, and professions that

people were setting up and making so much ado about as

'religion,' were nothing in themselves; that priestly

education and ordination was nothing—did not really make a man

any nearer to God; that God simply wanted the hearts and souls

of all men to be turned to Him, and the worship of their own

thought and feeling. And with the sense of this there arose

within him a great loathing of all the formalism, and

priestcraft, and outward observances of the Churches. … But he

did not find peace yet. … He writes: 'My troubles continued,

and I was often under great temptations; I fasted much and

walked abroad in solitary places many days.' … It was a time

like Christ's temptations in the wilderness, or Paul's three

years in Arabia, before they went forth to their great

life-mission. But to him, as to them, came, at last, light and

peace and an open way. … A voice seemed to come to him which

said, 'There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy

condition.' 'And when I heard it,' he says, 'my heart did leap

for joy.' Fixing his mind upon Christ, all things began to be

clearer to him; he saw the grand simple truth of a religion of

spirit and life.

{2620}

… It was at Dukinfield, near Manchester, in 1647, that he

began to speak openly to men of what was in his heart. … In

those days, when he was wandering away from men, and shrinking

with a sort of horror from the fashions of the world, he had

made himself a strong rough suit of leather, and this for many

years was his dress. Very white and clean indeed was the linen

under that rough leather suit, for he hated all uncleanness

either of soul or body; and very calm and clear were his eyes,

that seemed to search into men's souls, and quailed before no

danger, and sometimes lighted up with wonderful tenderness. A

tall, burly man he was, too, of great strength. … Everywhere

he saw vanity and worldliness, pretence and injustice. It

seemed laid upon him that he must testify against it all. He

went to courts of justice, and stood up and warned the

magistrates to do justly; he went to fairs and markets, and

lifted up his voice against wakes, and feasts and plays, and

also against people's cozening and cheating. … He testified

against great things and small, bade men not swear, but keep

to 'yea' and 'nay,' and this in courts of justice as

everywhere else; he spoke against lip-honour—that men should

give up using titles of compliment, and keep to plain 'thee'

and 'thou'; 'for surely,' he said, 'the way men address God

should be enough from one to another.' But all this was merely

the side-work of his life, flowing from his great central

thought of true, pure life in the light of the Spirit of God.

That was his great thought, and that he preached most of all;

he wanted men to give up all their forms, and come face to

face with the Spirit of God, and so worship Him and live to

Him. Therefore he spoke most bitterly of all against all

priestcraft. … Gradually followers gathered to him; little

groups of people here and there accepted his teachings—began

to look to him as their leader. He did not want to found a

sect; and as for a church—the Church was the whole body of

Christ's faithful people everywhere; so those who joined him

would not take any name as a sect or church. They simply

called themselves 'friends'; they used no form of worship, but

met together, to wait upon the Lord with one another;

believing that His Spirit was always with them, and that, if

anything was to be said, He would put it into their hearts to

say it." From the first, Fox suffered persecution at the hands

of the Puritans. They "kept imprisoning him for refusing to

swear allegiance to the Commonwealth; again and again he

suffered in this way: in Nottingham Castle, in 1648; then, two

years later, at Derby, for six months, at the end of which

time they tried to force him to enter the army; but he

refused, and so they thrust him into prison again, this time

into a place called the Dungeon, among 30 felons, where they

kept him another half-year. Then, two years later, in 1653, he

was imprisoned at Carlisle, in a foul, horrible hole. … He was

again imprisoned in Launceston gaol, for eight long months.

After this came a quieter time for him; for he was taken

before Cromwell, and Cromwell had a long conversation with

him. … During Cromwell's life he was persecuted no more, but

with the restoration of Charles II. his dangers and sufferings

began again. … His followers caught his spirit, and no

persecutions could intimidate them. … They made no secret of

where their meetings were to be, and at the time there they

assembled. Constables and informers might be all about the

place, it made no difference; they went in, sat down to their

quiet worship; if anyone had a word to say he said it. The

magistrates tried closing the places, locked the doors, put a

band of soldiers to guard them. The Friends simply gathered in

the street in front, held their meetings there; went on

exactly as if nothing had happened. They might all be taken

off to prison, still it made no difference. … Is it wonderful

that such principles, preached with such noble devotion to

truth and duty, rapidly made way? By the year 1665, when Fox

had been preaching for 18 years, the Society of Friends

numbered 80,000, and in another ten years it had spread more

widely still, and its founder had visited America, and

travelled through Holland and Germany, preaching his doctrine

of the inward light, and everywhere founding Meetings. Fox

himself did not pass away until [1690] he had seen his people

past all the days of persecution."

B. Herford,

The Story of Religion in England,

chapter 27.

"At a time when personal revelation was generally believed, it

was a pardonable self-delusion that he [Fox] should imagine

himself to be commissioned by the Divinity to preach a system

which could only be objected to as too pure to be practised by

man: This belief, and an ardent temperament, led him and some

of his followers into unseasonable attempts to convert their

neighbours, and unseemly intrusions into places of worship for

that purpose, which excited general hostility against them,

and exposed them to frequent and severe punishments. …

Although they, like most other religious sects, had arisen in

the humble classes of society, … they had early been joined by

a few persons of superior rank and education. … The most

distinguished of their converts was William Penn, whose

father, Admiral Sir William Penn, had been a personal friend

of the King [James II.], and one of his instructors in naval

affairs."

Sir J. Mackintosh,

History of the Revolution in England in 1688,

chapter 6.

"At one of the interviews between G. Fox and Gervas Bennet—one

of the magistrates who had committed him at Derby—the former

bade the latter 'Tremble at the word of the Lord'; whereupon

Bennet called him a Quaker. This epithet of scorn well suited

the tastes and prejudices of the people, and it soon became

the common appellation bestowed on Friends."

C. Evans,

Friends in the 17th Century,

chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

J. Gough,

History of the People called Quakers.

W. R. Wagstaff,

History of the Society of Friends.

T. Clarkson,

Portraiture of Quakerism.

American Church History,

volume 12.

QUAKERS: A. D. 1656-1661.

The persecution in Massachusetts.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

QUAKERS: A. D. 1681.

Penn's acquisition of Pennsylvania.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1681.

QUAKERS: A. D. 1682.

Proprietary purchase of New Jersey.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673-1682.

QUAKERS: A. D. 1688-1776.

Early growth of anti-slavery sentiment in the Society.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1688-1780.

----------QUAKERS: End--------

QUALIFICATION OF SUFFRAGE:

In England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

QUALIFICATION OF SUFFRAGE:

In Rhode Island.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1888.

{2621}

QUANTRELL'S GUERRILLAS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

QUAPAWS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

QUATRE BRAS, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

----------QUEBEC, CITY: Start--------

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1535.

Its Indian occupants.

Its name.

"When Jacques Cartier sailed up the St. Lawrence, in 1535, he

found an Indian village called Stadacona occupying the site of

the present city of Quebec. "The Indian name Stadacona had

perished before the time of Champlain, owing, probably, to the

migration of the principal tribe and the succession of

others." The name Quebec, afterwards given to the French

settlement on the same ground, is said by some to be likewise

of Indian origin, having reference to the narrowing of the

river at that point. "Others give a Norman derivation for the

word: it is said that Quebec was so–called after Caudebec, on

the Seine." La Potherie says that the Normans who were with

Cartier, when they saw the high cape, cried "Quel bec!" from

which came the name Quebec. "Mr. Hawkins terms this 'a

derivation entirely illusory and improbable,' and asserts that

the word is of Norman origin. He gives an engraving of a seal

belonging to William de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, dated in the

7th of Henry V., or A. D. 1420. The legend or motto is

'Sigillum Willielmi de la Pole, Comitis Suffolckiæ, Domine de

Hamburg et de Quebec.'"

E. Warburton,

The Conquest of Canada,

volume 1, chapter 2, and foot-note.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1608.

The founding of the city by Champlain.

See CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1629-1632.

Capture by the English, brief occupation

and restoration to France.

See CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1639.

The founding of the Ursuline Convent.

See CANADA: A. D. 1637–1657.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1690.

Unsuccessful attack by Sir Williams Phips

and the Massachusetts colonists.

See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1711.

Threatened by the abortive expedition of Admiral Walker.

See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1759.

Wolfe's conquest.

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

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1760.

Attempted recovery by the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1775-1776.

Unsuccessful siege by the Americans.

Death of Montgomery.

See 'CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

----------QUEBEC, CITY: End--------------

----------QUEBEC, PROVINCE: Start--------

QUEBEC, Province: A. D. 1763.

Creation of the English province.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

QUEBEC, Province: A. D. 1774.

Vast extension of the province by the Quebec Act.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

QUEBEC, Province: A. D. 1867.

On the formation of the confederated Dominion of Canada, in

1867, the eastern province formerly called Lower Canada

received the name of Quebec.

See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

----------QUEBEC, PROVINCE: End--------

QUEBEC ACT, The.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

QUEBEC RESOLUTIONS, The.

See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

QUEBRADA-SECA, Battle of (1862).

See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

QUEEN, Origin of the word.

See King.

QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.

"Her Majesty's [Queen Anne's] birthday, which was the 6th of

February, falling this year [1704] on a Sunday, its

celebration had been postponed till the next day. On that day,

then, as well beseeming her pious and princely gift, Sir

Charles Hedges as Secretary of State brought down to the House

of Commons a message from the Queen, importing that Her

Majesty desired to make a grant of her whole revenue arising

out of the First Fruits and Tenths for the benefit of the

poorer clergy. These First Fruits and Tenths had been imposed

by the Popes some centuries ago for the support of the Holy

Wars, but had been maintained long after those wars had

ceased.

See ANNATES.

The broad besom of Henry VIII. had swept them from the Papal

to the Royal treasury, and there they continued to flow. In

the days of Charles II. they had been regarded as an excellent

fund out of which to provide for the female favourites of His

Majesty and their numerous children. … Upon the Queen's

message the Commons returned a suitable address, and proceeded

to pass a bill enabling Her Majesty to alienate this branch of

the revenue, and to create a corporation by charter to apply

it for the object she desired. … This fund has ever since and

with good reason borne the name of 'Queen Anne's Bounty.' Its

application has been extended to the building of

parsonage-houses as well as to the increase of poor livings."

Earl Stanhope,

History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,

chapter 4.

QUEEN ANNE'S WAR.

The wide-ranging conflict which is known in European history

as the War of the Spanish Succession, appears in American

history more commonly under the name of Queen Anne's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

QUEENSBERRY PLOT, The.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

QUEENSLAND.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859.

QUEENSTOWN HEIGHTS, The battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

QUELCHES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

QUERANDIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

QUESNOY: A. D. 1659.

Ceded to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

QUESNOY: A. D. 1794.

Siege and capture by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

QUIBÉRON BAY,

Naval battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

Defeat of French Royalists (1795).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

QUICHES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUICHES.

QUICHUAS, The.

See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

{2622}

QUIDS, The.

John Randolph of Virginia. "had been one of the Republican

leaders while the party was in opposition [during the second

administration of Washington and the administration of John

Adams, as Presidents of the United States], but his irritable

spirit disqualified him for heading an Administration party.

He could attack, but could not defend. He had taken offense at

the President's [Jefferson's] refusal to make him Minister to

England, and immediately took sides with the Federalists

[1805] followed by a number of his friends, though not

sufficient to give the Federalists a majority. … The Randolph

faction, popularly called 'Quids,' gave fresh life to the

Federalists in Congress, and made them an active and useful

opposition party."

A. Johnston,

History of American Politics,

chapter 6, section 3.

QUIETISM.

See MYSTICISM.

QUIJO, OR NAPO, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

QUINARIUS, The.

See AS.

QUINCY RAILWAY, The.

See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

QUINDECEMVIRS, The.

The quindecemvirs, at Rome, had the custody of the Sibylline

books.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 31.

QUINNIPIACK.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.

QUIPU.

WAMPUM.

"The Peruvians adopted a … unique system of records, that by

means of the quipu. This was a base cord, the thickness of the

finger, of any required length, to which were attached

numerous small strings of different colors, lengths, and

textures, variously knotted and twisted one with another. Each

of these peculiarities represented a certain number, a

quality, quantity, or other idea, but what, not the most

fluent quipu reader could tell unless he was acquainted with

the general topic treated of. Therefore, whenever news was

sent in this manner a person accompanied the bearer to serve

as verbal commentator, and to prevent confusion the quipus

relating to the various departments of knowledge were placed

in separate storehouses, one for war, another for taxes, a

third for history, and so forth. On what principle of

mnemotechnics the ideas were connected with the knots and

colors we are totally in the dark; it has even been doubted

whether they had any application beyond the art of numeration.

Each combination had, however, a fixed ideographic value in a

certain branch of knowledge, and thus the quipu differed

essentially from the Catholic rosary, the Jewish phylactery,

or the knotted strings of the natives of North America and

Siberia, to all of which it has at times been compared. The

wampum used by the tribes of the North Atlantic coast was, in

many respects, analogous to the quipu. In early times it was

composed chiefly of bits of wood of equal size, but different

colors. These were hung on strings which were woven into belts

and bands, the hues, shapes, sizes, and combinations of the

strings hinting their general significance. Thus the lighter

shades were invariable harbingers of peaceful or pleasant

tidings, while the darker portended war and danger. The

substitution of beads or shells in place of wood, and the

custom of embroidering figures in the belts were, probably,

introduced by European influence."

D. G. Brinton,

The Myths of the New World,

chapter 1.

See, also, WAMPUM.

QUIRINAL, The.

"The Palatine city was not the only one that in ancient times

existed within the circle afterwards enclosed by the Servian

walls; opposite to it, in its immediate vicinity, there lay a

second city on the Quirinal. … Even the name has not been lost

by which the men of the Quirinal distinguished themselves from

their Palatine neighbours. As the Palatine city took the name

of 'the Seven Mounts,' its citizens called themselves the

'mount-men' ('montani'), and the term 'mount,' while applied

to the other heights belonging to the city, was above all

associated with the Palatine; so the Quirinal height—although

not lower, but on the contrary somewhat higher, than the

former—as well as the adjacent Viminal, never in the strict

use of the language received any other name than 'hill'

('collis'). … Thus the site of the Roman commonwealth was

still at this period occupied by the Mount-Romans of the

Palatine and the Hill-Romans of the Quirinal as two separate

communities confronting each other and doubtless in many

respects at feud. … That the community of the Seven Mounts

early attained a great preponderance over that of the Quirinal

may with certainty be inferred."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 1, chapter 4.

See, also, PALATINE HILL,

and SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

QUIRITES.

In early Rome the warrior-citizens, the full burgesses, were

so-called. "The king, when he addressed them, called them

'lance-men' (quirites). … We need not … regard the name

Quirites as having been originally reserved for the burgesses

on the Quirinal. … It is indisputably certain that the name·

Quirites denoted from the first, as well as subsequently,

simply the full burgess."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 1, chapters 4 and 5.

The term quirites, in fact, signified the citizens of Rome as

a body. Whether it originally meant "men of the spear," as

derived from a Sabine word, is a question in some dispute.

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 1, chapter 5.

QUITO: The ancient kingdom and the modern city.

See ECUADOR.

QUIVIRA.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

QUORATEAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUORATEAN FAMILY.

R

RAAB, Battle of.

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

RABBLING.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.

RABELAIS, on Education.

See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE.

RAB-SHAKEH.

The title of the chief minister of the Assyrian kings. The

Rab-Shakah of Sennacherib demanded the surrender of Jerusalem.

RACHISIUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 744-750.

RADAGAISUS,

RADAGAIS,

RODOGAST;

Invasion of Italy by.

"In the year 406, Italy was suddenly overrun by a vast

multitude composed of Vandals, Sueves, Burgunds, Alans, and

Goths, under the command of a king named Radagais. To what

nation this king belonged is not certain, but it seems likely

that he was an Ostrogoth from the region of the Black Sea, who

had headed a tribe of his countrymen in a revolt against the

Huns.

{2623}

The invading host is said to have consisted of 200,000

warriors, who were accompanied by their wives and families.

These barbarians were heathens, and their manners were so

fierce and cruel that the invasion excited far more terror

than did that of Alaric. … Stilicho [the able minister and

general of the contemptible Emperor of the West, Honorius]

found it hard work to collect an army capable of opposing this

savage horde, and Radagais had got as far as Florence before

any resistance was offered to him. But while he was besieging

that city, the Roman general came upon him, and, by

surrounding his army with earthworks, compelled him to

surrender. The barbarian king was beheaded, and those of the

captives whose lives were spared were sold into slavery."

H. Bradley,

Story of the Goths,

chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 1, chapter 5.

See, also, ROME: A. D. 404-408.

RÆTIA.

See RHÆTIA.

RAGA,

RAGHA,

RHAGES.

"The Median city next in importance to the two Ecbatanas was

Raga or Rhages, near the Caspian Gates, almost at the extreme

eastern limits of the territory possessed by the Medes. The

great antiquity of this place is marked by its occurrence in

the Zendavesta among the primitive settlements of the Arians.

Its celebrity during the time of the Empire is indicated by

the position which it occupies in the romances of Tobit and

Judith. … Rhages gave name to a district; and this district

may be certainly identified with the long narrow tract of

fertile territory intervening between the Elburz

mountain-range and the desert, from about Kasvin to Khaar, or

from longitude 50° to 52° 30'. The exact site of the city of

Rhages within this territory is somewhat doubtful. All

accounts place it near the eastern extremity; and, as there

are in this direction ruins of a town called Rhei or Rhey, it

has been usual to assume that they positively fix the

locality. But … there are grounds for placing Rhages very much

nearer to the Caspian Gates."

G. Rawlinson,

Five Great Monarchies: Media,

chapter 1.

See, also, CASPIAN GATES.

RAGÆ.

See RATÆ.

RAGMAN'S ROLL.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.

RAID OF RUTHVEN, The.

See SCOTLAND. A. D. 1582.

RAILROADS, The beginning of.

See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

RAISIN RIVER, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

RAJA,

RAJAH.

MAHARAJA.

Hindu titles, equivalent to king and great king.

RAJPOOTS,

RAJPUTS.

RAJPOOTANA.

"The Rajpoots, or sons of Rajas, are the noblest and proudest

race in India, … They claim to be representatives of the

Kshatriyas; the descendants of those Aryan warriors who

conquered the Punjab and Hindustan in times primeval. To this

day they display many of the characteristics of the heroes of

the Maha Bharata and Ramayana. They form a military

aristocracy of the feudal type. … The Rajpoots are the links

between ancient and modern India. In days of old they strove

with the kings of Magadha for the suzerainty of Hindustan from

the Indus to the lower Gangetic valley. They maintained

imperial thrones at Lahore and Delhi, at Kanouj and Ayodhya.

In later revolutions their seats of empire have been shifted

further west and south, but the Rajpoot kingdoms still remain

as the relics of the old Aryan aristocracy. … The dynasties of

Lahore and Delhi faded away from history, and perchance have

reappeared in more remote quarters of India. The Rajpoots

still retain their dominion in the west, whilst their power

and influence have been felt in every part of India; and to

this day a large Rajpoot element characterizes the

populations, not only of the Punjab and Hindustan, but of the

Dekhan and Peninsula. The Rajpoot empire of a remote antiquity

is represented in the present day by the three kingdoms of

Meywar, Marwar, and Jeypore. Meywar, better known as Chittore

or Udaipore, is the smallest but most important of the three.

It forms the garden of Rajpootana to the eastward of the

Aravulli range. Westward of the range is the dreary desert of

Marwar. Northward of Meywar lies the territory of Jeypore, the

intermediate kingdom between Meywar and the Mussulmans. … In

former times the sovereigns of Meywar were known as the Ranas

of Chittore; they are now known as the Ranas of Udaipore. They

belong to the blue blood of Rajpoot aristocracy."

J. T. Wheeler,

History of India,

volume 3, chapter 7.

"Everywhere [in the central region of India] Rajput septs or

petty chiefships may still be found existing in various

degrees of independence. And there are, of course, Rajput

Chiefs outside Rajputana altogether, though none of political

importance. But Rajputana proper, the country still under the

independent rule of the most ancient families of the purest

clans, may now be understood generally to mean the great tract

that would be crossed by two lines, of which one should be

drawn on the map of India from the frontier of Sind Eastward

to the gates of Agra; and the other from the Southern border

of the Punjab Government near the Sutlej Southward and

South-Eastward until it meets the broad belt of Maratha States

under the Guicowar, Holkar, and Scindia, which runs across

India from Baroda to Gwalior. This territory is divided into

nineteen States, of which sixteen are possessed by Rajput

clans, and the Chief of the clan or sept is the State's ruler.

To the Sesodia clan, the oldest and purest blood in India,

belong the States of Oodeypoor, Banswarra, Pertabgarh, and

Shahpura; to the Rathore clan, the States of Jodhpoor and

Bikanir; Jeypoor and Ulwar to the Kuchwaha, and so on."

Sir A. C. Lyall,

Asiatic Studies,

chapter 8.

RALEIGH, Sir Walter:

Colonizing undertakings in Virginia.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586, and 1587-1590.

Guiana and El Dorado expeditions.

See EL DORADO.

RAMBOUILLET, The Hôtel de.

The marquise de Rambouillet, who drew around herself, at

Paris, the famous coterie which took its name from her

hospitable house, was the daughter of a French nobleman, Jean

de Vivonne, sieur de Saint-Gohard, afterwards first marquis de

Pisani, who married a Roman lady of the noble family of the

Strozzi. Catherine de Vivonne was born of this union in 1588,

and in 1600, when less than twelve years old, became the wife

of Charles d'Angennes, vidame du Mans afterwards marquis de

Rambouillet. Her married life was more than half a century in

duration; she was the mother of seven children, and she

survived her husband thirteen years.

{2624}

During the minority of the husband the ancient residence of

his family had been sold, and from 1610 to 1617 the marquis

and marquise were engaged in building a new Hôtel de

Rambouillet, which the latter is credited with having, in

great part, designed. Her house being finished, she opened it

"to her friends and acquaintances, and her receptions, which

continued until the Fronde (1648), brought together every

evening the choicest society of the capital, and produced a

profound influence upon the manners and literature of the day.

The marquise ceased attending court some years before the

death of Henry IV., her refinement and pure character finding

there an uncongenial atmosphere. The marquise was not alone a

woman of society, but was carefully educated and fond of

literature. Consequently the reunions at the Hôtel de

Rambouillet were distinguished by a happy combination of rank

and letters. Still more important was the new position assumed

by the hostess and the ladies who frequented her house. Until

the XVIIth century the crudest views prevailed as to the

education and social position of woman. It was at the Hôtel de

Rambouillet that her position as the intellectual companion of

man was first recognized, find this position of equality, and

the deferential respect which followed it, had a powerful

influence in refining the rude manners of men of rank whose

lives had been passed in camps, and of men of letters who had

previously enjoyed few opportunities for social polish. The

two classes met for the first time on a footing of equality,

and it resulted in elevating the occupation of letters, and

imbuing men of rank with a fondness for intellectual pursuits.

The reunions at the Hôtel de Rambouillet began, as has been

said, about 1617, and extend until the Fronde (1648) or a few

years later. This period Larroumet ('Précieuses Ridicules,'

page 14) divides into three parts: from 1617 to about 1629;

from 1630 to 1640; and from 1640 to the death of the marquise

in 1665. During the first period the habitués of the Hôtel de

Rambouillet were": the marquis du Vigean, the maréchal de

Souvré, the duke de la Tremoïlle, Richelieu (then bishop of

Luçon), the cardinal de la Valette, the poets Malherbe, Racan,

Gombauld, Chapelain, Marino, the preacher Cospeau, Godeau, the

grammarian Vaugelas, Voiture, Balzac, Segrais, Mlle. Paulet,

the princess de Montmorency, Mlle. du Vigean, and the

daughters of the marquise de Rambouillet, "of whom the eldest,

Julie d'Angennes, until her marriage in 1645 to the marquis de

Montausier, was the soul of the reunions of the Hôtel de

Rambouillet. The second period was that of its greatest

brilliancy. To the illustrious names just mentioned must be

added": the great Condé, the marquis de Montausier,

Saint-Évremond, La Rochefoucald, Sarrasin, Costar, Patru,

Conrart, Georges de Scudéry, Mairet, Colletet, Ménage,

Benscrade, Cotin, Desmarets, Rotrou, Scarron, P. Corneille,

Bossuet, Mlle. de Bourbon, later duchesse de Longueville,

Mlle. de Coligny, Mme. Aubry, and Mlle. de Scudéry, "yet

unknown as a writer. After 1640 the Hôtel de Rambouillet began

to decline; but two names of importance belong to this period:

Mme. de la Fayette, and Mme. de Sévigné. … Voiture died in

1648, the year which witnessed the outbreak of the Fronde,

after which the reunions at the Hôtel de Rambouillet virtually

ceased. … Until the time of Roederer ['Mémoire pour servir à

l'histoire de la société polie en France'] it was generally

supposed that the word 'Précieuse' was synonymous with Hôtel

de Rambouillet, and that it was the marquise and her friends

whom Molière intended to satirize. Roederer endeavored to show

that it was not the marquise but her bourgeois imitators, the

circle of Mlle. de Scudéry …; Victor Cousin attempts to prove

that it was neither the marquise nor Mlle. de Scudéry, but the

imitators of the latter. … The editor of Molière in the

'Grands Écrivains de la France,' M. Despois (volume 2, page 4)

believes that the Hôtel de Rambouillet, including Mlle. de

Scudéry, was the object of Moliere's satire, although he had

no intention of attacking any particular person among the

'Précieuses,' but confined himself to ridiculing the

eccentricities common to them all. It is with this last view

that the editor of the present work unhesitatingly agrees, for

reasons which he hopes some day to give in detail in an

edition of the two plays of Molière mentioned above

['Precieuses Ridicules,' and 'Les Femmes Savantes']. From

Paris the influence of the 'Précieuses' spread into the

provinces, doubtless with all the exaggerations of an

unskilful imitation."

T. F. Crane,

Introduction to "La Société Française au

Dix-Septième Siècle."

ALSO IN:

A. G. Mason,

The Women of the French Salons,

chapters 2-7.

RAMBOUILLET DECREE, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.

RAMESES,

RAAMSES,

RAMSES,

Treasure-city of.

See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

RAMESSIDS, The.

The nineteenth dynasty of Egyptian kings, sprung from Rameses

I. [in the] fourteenth to twelfth centuries B. C.

See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1400-1200.

RAMILLIES, Battle of (1706).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

RAMIRO I.'

King of Aragon, A. D. 1035-1063.

Ramiro I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 842-850.

Ramiro II., King of Aragon, 1134-1137.

Ramiro II., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 930-950.

Ramiro III., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 967-982.

RAMNES.

RAMNIANS, The.

See ROME: BEGINNINGS AND NAME.

RAMOTH-GILEAD.

The strong fortress of Ramoth-Gilead, on the frontier of

Samaria and Syria, was the object and the scene of frequent

warfare between the Israelites and the Arameans of Damascus.

It was there that king Ahab of Samaria, in alliance with

Judah, was killed in battle, fighting against Ben-hadad of

Damascus.

1 Kings, xxii.

ALSO IN:

Dean Stanley,

Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,

lecture 33.

RANAS OF UDAIPORE OR CHITTORE.

See RAJPOOTS.

RANDOLPH, Edmund,

and the framing and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

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

In the Cabinet of President Washington.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

RANJIT SINGH,

RUNJIT SINGH,

The conquests of.

See SIKHS.

{2625}

RANTERS.

MUGGLETONIANS.

"'These [the Ranters] made it their business,' says Baxter,

'to set up the Light of Nature under the name of Christ in

Man, and to dishonour and cry down the Church, the Scripture,

and the present Ministry, and our worship and ordinances; and

called men to hearken to Christ within them. But withal they

conjoined a cursed doctrine of Libertinism, which brought them

to all abominable filthiness of life. They taught, as the

Familists, that God regardeth not the actions of the outward

man, but of the heart, and that to the pure all things are

pure.' … Of no sect do we hear more in the pamphlets and

newspapers between 1650 and 1655, though there are traces of

them of earlier date. … Sometimes confounded with the Ranters,

but really distinguishable, were some crazed men, whose crazes

had taken a religious turn, and whose extravagances became

contagious.—Such was a John Robins, first heard of about 1650,

when he went about, sometimes as God Almighty, sometimes as

Adam raised from the dead. … One heard next, in 1652, of two

associates, called John Reeve and Ludovick Muggleton, who

professed to be 'the two last Spiritual Witnesses (Revelation

xi.) and alone true Prophets of the Lord Jesus Christ, God

alone blessed to all eternity,' They believed in a real

man-shaped God, existing from all eternity, who had come upon

earth as Jesus Christ, leaving Moses and Elijah to represent

him in Heaven." Muggleton died in 1698, "at the age of 90,

leaving a sect called The Muggletonians, who are perhaps not

extinct yet."

D. Masson,

Life of John Milton,

volume 5, pages 17-20.

RAPALLO,

Battle of (1425).

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

Massacre at (1494).

See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

RAPE OF THE SABINE WOMEN, The.

See ROME: B. C. 753-510.

RAPES OF SUSSEX.

"The singular division of Sussex [England] into six 'rapes'

[each of which is subdivided into hundreds] seems to have been

made for military purposes. The old Norse 'hreppr' denoted a

nearly similar territorial division."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead,

English Constitutional History,

chapter 1, foot-note.

"The 'reebning,' or mensuration by the rope or line, supplied

the technical term of 'hrepp' to the glossary of Scandinavian

legislation: archæologists have therefore pronounced an

opinion that the 'Rapes' of Sussex, the divisions ranging from

the Channel shore to the Suthrige border, were, according to

Norwegian fashion, thus plotted out by the Conqueror."

Sir F. Palgrave,

History of Normandy and England,

book 1, chapter 5.

RAPHIA, Battle of (B. C. 217).

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

RAPID INDIANS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: RAPID INDIANS.

RAPIDAN, Campaign of Meade and Lee on the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

RAPPAHANNOCK STATION, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

RAPPAREES.

TORIES.

"Ejected proprietors [in Ireland, 17th and 18th centuries]

whose names might be traced in the annals of the Four Masters,

or around the sculptured crosses of Clonmacnoise, might be

found in abject poverty hanging around the land which had

lately been their own, shrinking from servile labour as from

an intolerable pollution, and still receiving a secret homage

from their old tenants. In a country where the clan spirit was

intensely strong, and where the new landlords were separated

from their tenants by race, by religion, and by custom, these

fallen and impoverished chiefs naturally found themselves at

the head of the discontented classes; and for many years after

the Commonwealth, and again after the Revolution, they and

their followers, under the names of tories and rapparees,

waged a kind of guerrilla war of depredations upon their

successors. After the first years of the 18th century,

however, this form of crime appears to have almost ceased; and

although we find the names of tories and rapparees on every

page of the judicial records, the old meaning was no longer

attached to them, and they had become the designations of

ordinary felons, at large in the country."

W. E. H. Lecky,

History of England, 18th Century,

chapter 7 (volume 2).

"The distinction between the Irish foot soldier and the Irish

Rapparee had never been very strongly marked. It now

disappeared [during the war in Ireland between James II. and

William of Orange—A. D. 1691]. Great part of the army was

turned loose to live by marauding."

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 17 (volume 4).

"The Rapparee was the lowest of the low people. … The Rapparee

knew little difference between friend and foe; receiving no

mercy, they gave none."

Sir J. Dalrymple,

Memoirs or Great Britain and Ireland,

part 2, book 5 (volume 3).

"Political disaffection in Ireland has been the work, on the

one hand, of the representatives of the old disinherited

families—the Kernes, and Gallowglasses of one age, the

Rapparees of the next, the houghers and ravishers of a third;

on the other, of the restless aspirations of the Catholic

clergy."

J. A. Froude,

The English in Ireland,

book 9, chapter 1 (volume 3).

RARITANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

RAS.

RASENNA.

See ETRUSCANS.

RASCIA.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,

7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, ETC.).

RASCOL.

RASKOL.

RASKOLNIKS.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.

RASTA, The.

See LEUGA.

RASTADT, Congress of.

Murder of French envoys.

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

RASTADT, The Treaty of (1714).

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

RATÆ,

RAGÆ.

A Roman town in Britain—"one of the largest and most important

of the midland cities, adorned with rich mansions and temples,

and other public buildings. Its site is now occupied by the

town of Leicester."

T. Wright,

Celt, Roman and Saxon,

chapter 5.

RATHMINES, Battle of (1649).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1646-1649.

RATHS.

"Of those ancient Raths, or Hill-fortresses, which formed the

dwellings of the old Irish chiefs, and belonged evidently to a

period when cities were not yet in existence, there are to be

found numerous remains throughout the country. This species of

earthen work is distinguished from the artificial mounds, or

tumuli, by its being formed upon natural elevations, and

always surrounded by a rampart,"

T. Moore,

History of Ireland,

chapter 9.

RATHSMANN,

RATHSMEISTER, etc.

See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.

{2626}

RATISBON:

Taken by the Swedish-German forces (1633).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

RATISBON, Battle of.

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

RATISBON, Catholic League of.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

RAUCOUX, Battle of (1746).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.

RAUDINE PLAIN, Battle of the.

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

RAURACI, The.

An ancient tribe "whose origin is perhaps German, established

on both banks of the Rhine, towards the elbow which that river

forms at Bâle."

Napoleon III.,

History of Cæsar,

book 3, chapter 2, foot–note.

RAVENIKA, The Parliament of.

Henry, the second emperor of the Latin empire of Romania, or

empire of Constantinople, convened a general parliament or

high-court of all his vassals, at Ravenika, in 1209, for the

determining of the feudal relations of all the subjects of the

empire. Ravenika is in ancient Chalkidike, some fifty miles

from Thessalonica.

G. Finlay,

History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,

chapter 4, section 4.

----------RAVENNA: Start--------

RAVENNA: B. C. 50.

Cæsar's advance on Rome.

See ROME: B. C. 52-50.

RAVENNA: A. D. 404.

Made the capital of the Western Empire.

"The houses of Ravenna, whose appearance may be compared to

that of Venice, were raised on the foundation of wooden piles.

The adjacent country, to the distance of many miles, was a

deep and impassable morass; and the artificial causeway which

connected Ravenna with the continent might be easily guarded,

or destroyed, on the approach of a hostile army. These

morasses were interspersed, however, with vineyards; and

though the soil was exhausted by four or five crops, the town

enjoyed a more plentiful supply of wine than of fresh water.

The air, instead of receiving the sickly and almost

pestilential exhalations of low and marshy grounds, was

distinguished, like the neighbourhood of Alexandria, as

uncommonly pure and salubrious; and this singular advantage

was ascribed to the regular tides of the Adriatic. … This

advantageous situation was fortified by art and labour; and,

in the twentieth year of his age, the Emperor of the West

[Honorius, A. D. 395-423] anxious only for his personal

safety, retired to the perpetual confinement of the walls and

morasses of Ravenna. The example of Honorius was imitated by

his feeble successors, the Gothic kings, and afterwards the

exarchs, who occupied the throne and palace of the emperors;

and till the middle of the eighth century Ravenna was

considered as the seat of government and the capital of

Italy."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 30.

ALSO IN:

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

chapter 9.

See, also, ROME: A. D. 404-408.

RAVENNA: A. D. 490-493.

Siege and capture by Theodoric.

Murder of Odoacer.

Capital of the Ostrogothic kingdom.

See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

RAVENNA: A. D. 493-525.

The capital of Theodoric the Ostrogoth.

"The usual residence of Theodoric was Ravenna, with which city

his name is linked as inseparably as those of Honorius or

Placidia. The letters of Cassiodorus show his zeal for the

architectural enrichment of this capital. Square blocks of

stone were to be brought from Faenza, marble pillars to be

transported from the palace on the Pincian Hill: the most

skilful artists in mosaic were invited from Rome, to execute

some of those very works which we still wonder at in the

basilicas and baptisteries of the city by the Ronco. The chief

memorials of his reign which Theodoric has left at Ravenna are

a church, a palace, and a tomb."

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 4, chapter 8 (volume 3).

RAVENNA: A. D. 540.

Surrender to Belisarius.

See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

RAVENNA: A. D. 554-800.

The Exarchate.

See ROME: A. D. 554-800.

RAVENNA: A. D. 728-751.

Decline and fall of the Exarchate.

See PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

RAVENNA: A. D. 1275.

The Papal sovereignty confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

RAVENNA: A. D. 1512.

Taken by the French.

Battle before the city.

Defeat of the Spaniards.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

----------RAVENNA: End--------

RAVENSPUR.

The landing place of Henry of Lancaster, July 4, 1399, when he

came back from banishment to demand the crown of England from

Richard II. It is on the coast of Yorkshire.

RAYMOND, of Toulouse, The Crusade of.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;

also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099; and 1099-1144.

RAYMOND, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

REAL, Spanish.

See SPANISH COINS.

REAMS'S STATION, Battle of.

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

REASON, The Worship of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (NOVEMBER).

REBECCAITES.

DAUGHTERS OF REBECCA.

Between 1839 and 1844, a general outbreak occurred in Wales

against what were thought to be the excessive tolls collected

on the turnpike roads. Finding that peaceful agitation was of

no avail the people determined to destroy the turnpike gates,

and did so very extensively, the movement spreading from

county to county. They applied to themselves the Bible promise

given to the descendants of Isaac's wife, that they should

possess the "gate" of their enemies, and were known as the

Daughters, or Children of Rebecca, or Rebeccaites. Their

proceedings assumed at last a generally riotous and lawless

character, and were repressed by severe measures. At the same

time Parliament removed the toll-gate grievance by an amended

law.

W. N. Molesworth,

History of England, 1830-1874,

volume 2, page 131.

RECESS.

Certain decrees of the Germanic diet were so called.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

RECHABITES, The.

An ascetic religious association, or order, formed among the

Israelites, under the influence of the prophet Elijah, or

after his death. Like the monks of a later time, they mostly

withdrew into the desert. "The vow of their order was so

strict that they were not allowed to possess either vineyards

or corn-fields or houses, and they were consequently rigidly

confined for means of subsistence to the products of the

wilderness."

H. Ewald,

History of Israel,

book 4, section 1 (volume 4).

{2627}

RECIPROCITY TREATY, Canadian.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION, &C.

(UNITED STATES AND CANADA): A. D. 1854-1866.

RECOLLECTS,

RÉCOLLETS.

This name is borne by a branch of the Franciscan order of

friars, to indicate that the aim of their lives is the

recollection of God and the forgetfulness of worldly things.

RECONSTRUCTION:

President Lincoln's Louisiana plan.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

President Johnson's plan.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

The question in Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-JUNE),

1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH), 1867 (MARCH).

See, also:

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1876;

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866;

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.

RECULVER, Roman origin of.

See REGULBIUM.

RED CAP OF LIBERTY, The.

See LIBERTY CAP.

RED CROSS, The.

"A confederation of relief societies in different countries,

acting under the Geneva Convention, carries on its work under

the sign of the Red Cross. The aim of these societies is to

ameliorate the condition of wounded soldiers in the armies in

campaign on land or sea. The societies had their rise in the

conviction of certain philanthropic men, that the official

sanitary service in wars is usually insufficient, and that the

charity of the people, which at such times exhibits itself

munificently, should be organized for the best possible

utilization. An international public conference was called at

Geneva, Switzerland, in 1863, which, though it had not an

official character, brought together representatives from a

number of Governments. At this conference a treaty was drawn

up, afterwards remodeled and improved, which twenty-five

Governments have signed. The treaty provides for the

neutrality of all sanitary supplies, ambulances, surgeons,

nurses, attendants, and sick or wounded men, and their safe

conduct, when they bear the sign of the organization, viz: the

Red Cross. Although the Convention which originated the

organization was necessarily international, the relief

societies themselves are entirely national and independent;

each one governing itself and making its own laws according to

the genius of its nationality and needs. It was necessary for

recognizance and safety, and for carrying out the general

provisions of the treaty, that a uniform badge should be

agreed upon. The Red Cross was chosen out of compliment to the

Swiss Republic, where the first convention was held, and in

which the Central Commission has its headquarters. The Swiss

colors being a white cross on a red ground, the badge chosen

was these colors reversed. There are no 'members of the Red

Cross,' but only members of societies whose sign it is. There

is no 'Order of the Red Cross.' The relief societies use, each

according to its convenience, whatever methods seem best

suited to prepare in times of peace for the necessities of

sanitary service in times of war. They gather and store gifts

of money and supplies; arrange hospitals, ambulances, methods

of transportation of wounded men, bureaus of information,

correspondence, &c. All that the most ingenious philanthropy

could devise and execute has been attempted in this direction.

In the Franco–Prussian war this was abundantly tested. … This

society had its inception in the mind of Monsieur Henri

Dunant, a Swiss gentleman, who was ably seconded in his views

by Monsieur Gustave Moynier and Dr. Louis Appia, of Geneva."

History of the Red Cross

(Washington, 1883).

RED FORTRESS, The.

The Alhambra.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

RED LAND, The.

See VEHMGERICHTS.

RED LEGS.

See JAYHAWKERS.

RED RIVER COMPANY AND SETTLEMENT.

RIEL'S REBELLION.

See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

RED RIVER EXPEDITION.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

RED ROBE, Counsellors of the.

See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

RED TERROR, The.

The later period of the French Reign of Terror, when the

guillotine was busiest, is sometimes so called.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL,).

REDAN, Assaults on the (1855).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

REDEMPTIONERS.

"Redemptioners, or term slaves, as they were sometimes called,

constituted in the early part of the 18th century a peculiar

feature of colonial society. They were recruited from among

all manner of people in the old world, and through this

channel Europe emptied upon America, not only the virtuous

poor and oppressed of her population, but the vagrants,

felons, and the dregs of her communities. … There were two

kinds of redemptioners: 'indented servants,' who had bound

themselves to their masters for a term of years previous to

their leaving the old country; and 'free–willers,' who, being

without money and desirous of emigrating, agreed with the

captains of ships to allow themselves and their families to be

sold on arrival, for the captain's advantage, and thus repay

costs of passage and other expenses."

A. D. Mellick, Jr.,

The Story of an Old Farm,

chapter 11.

REDEMPTORISTS, The.

The members of the congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer,

founded by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, in 1732, are

commonly known as Redemptorists. The congregation is

especially devoted to apostolic work among neglected classes

of people. It has monasteries in several parts of Europe.

REDONES, The.

See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

REDSTICKS, The.

This name was given to the hostile Creek Indians of Florida.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

REDUCTIONS IN PARAGUAY, The Jesuit.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

REEVE.

See GEREFA; and MARGRAVE.

REFERENDARIUS.

See CHANCELLOR.

REFERENDUM AND INITIATIVE, The Swiss.

"A popular vote under the name Referendum was known in the

valleys of Graubunden and Wallis as early as the 16th century.

Here existed small federations of communities who regulated

certain matters of general concern by means of assemblies of

delegates from each village. These conventions were not

allowed to decide upon any important measure finally, but must

refer the matter to the various constituencies. If a majority

of these approved, the act might be passed at the next

assembly.

{2628}

This primitive system lasted till the French invasion of 1798,

and was again established in Graubünden in 1815. The word

Referendum was also used by the old federal diets, in which

there were likewise no comprehensive powers of legislation. If

not already instructed the delegates must vote 'ad referendum'

and carry all questions to the home government. The

institution as now known is a product of this century. It

originated in the canton of St. Gallen in 1830, where at the

time the constitution was undergoing revision. As a compromise

between the party which strove for pure democracy and that

desiring representative government, it was provided that all

laws should be submitted to popular vote if a respectable

number of voters so demanded. Known at first by the name Veto,

this system slowly found its way into several of the

German-speaking cantons, so that soon after the adoption of

the federal constitution five were employing the optional

Referendum. Other forms of popular legislation were destined

to find wider acceptance, but at present [1891] in eight

states, including three of the Romance tongue, laws must be

submitted on request. … The usual limit of time during which

the petition must be signed is 30 days. These requests are

directed to the Executive Council of the state, and that body

is obliged, within a similar period after receiving the same,

to appoint a day for the vote. The number of signers required

varies from 500 in the little canton Zug to 6,000 in St.

Gallen, or from one-tenth to one–fifth of all the voters. Some

states provide that in connection with the vote on the bill as

a whole, an expression may be taken on separate points. Custom

varies as to the number of votes required to veto a law. Some

fix the minimum at a majority of those taking part in the

election, and others at a majority of all citizens, whether

voting or not. In case the vote is against the bill, the

matter is referred by the Executive Council to the

legislature. This body, after examining into the correctness

of the returns, passes a resolution declaring its own act to

be void. By means of the Initiative or Imperative Petition,

the order of legislation just described is reversed, since the

impulse to make law is received from below instead of above.

The method of procedure is about as follows: Those who are

interested in the passage of a new law prepare either a full

draft of such a bill or a petition containing the points

desired to be covered, with the reasons for its enactment, and

then bring the matter before the public for the purpose of

obtaining signatures. Endorsement may be given either by

actually signing the petition or by verbal assent to it. The

latter form of consent is indicated either in the town

meetings of the communes or by appearing before the official

in charge of the petition and openly asking that his vote be

given for it. If, in the various town meetings of the canton

taken together, a stated number of affirmative votes are given

for the petition, the effect is the same as if the names of

voters had been signed. … The number of names required is

about the same in proportion to the whole body of voters as

for the Optional Referendum. The requisite number of

signatures having been procured, the petition is carried to

the legislature of the canton. This body must take the matter

into consideration within a specified time (Solothurn, two

months), and prepare a completed draft in accordance with the

request. It may also at the same time present an alternate

proposition which expresses its own ideas of the matter, so

that voters may take their choice. In any case the legislature

gives an opinion on the project, as to its desirability or

propriety, and the public has thus a report of its own select

committee for guidance. The bill is then submitted to the

voters, and on receiving the assent of a majority, and having

been promulgated by the executive authority, becomes a law of

the land."

J. M. Vincent,

State and Federal Government in Switzerland,

chapter 13.

"Between 1874 and 1886, the federal legislature passed 113

laws and resolutions which were capable of being submitted to

the referendum. Of these only 19 were subjected to the popular

vote, and of these last 13 were rejected and 6 adopted. The

strong opposing views, which are held in Switzerland regarding

the expediency of the referendum, indicate that this is one of

the features of the government which is open to future

discussion."

B. Moses,

The Federal Government of Switzerland,

page 119.

See, also, SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

"A plébiscite is a mass vote of the French people by which a

Revolutionary or Imperial Executive obtains for its policy, or

its crimes, the apparent sanction or condonation of France.

Frenchmen are asked at the moment, and in the form most

convenient to the statesmen or conspirators who rule in Paris,

to say 'Aye' or 'No' whether they will, or will not, accept a

given Constitution or a given policy. The crowd of voters are

expected to reply in accordance to the wishes or the orders of

the Executive, and the expectation always has met, and an

observer may confidently predict always will meet, with

fulfilment. The plébiscite is a revolutionary, or at least

abnormal, proceeding. It is not preceded by debate. The form

and nature of the question to be submitted to the nation is

chosen and settled by the men in power. Rarely, indeed, when a

plébiscite has been taken, has the voting itself been either

free or fair. Taine has a strange tale to tell of the methods

by which a Terrorist faction, when all but crushed by general

odium, extorted from the country by means of the plébiscite a

sham assent to the prolongation of revolutionary despotism.

The credulity of partisanship can nowadays hardly induce even

Imperialists to imagine that the plébiscites which sanctioned

the establishment of the Empire, which declared Louis Napoleon

President for life, which first re-established Imperialism,

and then approved more or less Liberal reforms, fatal at

bottom to the Imperial system, were the free, deliberate,

carefully considered votes of the French nation given after

the people had heard all that could be said for and against

the proposed innovation. … The essential characteristics,

however, the lack of which deprives a French plébiscite of all

moral significance, are the undoubted properties of the Swiss

Referendum. When a law revising the Constitution is placed

before the people of Switzerland, every citizen throughout the

land has enjoyed the opportunity of learning the merits and

demerits of the proposed alteration. The subject has been

'threshed out,' as the expression goes, in Parliament; the

scheme, whatever its worth, has received the deliberately

given approval of the elected Legislature; it comes before the

people with as much authority in its favour as a Bill which in

England has passed through both Houses."

A. V. Dicey,

The Referendum,

(Contemporary Review, April, 1890).

{2629}

"A judgment of the referendum must be based on the working of

the electoral machinery, on the interest shown by the voters,

and on the popular discrimination between good and bad

measures. The process of invoking and voting on a referendum

is simple and easily worked, if not used too often. Although

the Assembly has, in urgent cases, the constitutional right to

set a resolution in force at once, it always allows from three

to eight months' delay so as to permit the opponents of a

measure to lodge their protests against it. Voluntary

committees take charge of the movement, and, if a law is

unpopular, little difficulty is found in getting together the

necessary thirty thousand or fifty thousand signatures. Only

thrice has the effort failed when made. When, as in 1882, the

signatures run up to 180,000, the labor is severe, for every

signature is examined by the national executive to see whether

it is attested as the sign manual of a voter; sometimes, in an

interested canton, as many as 70 per cent. of the voters have

signed the demand. The system undoubtedly leads to public

discussion: newspapers criticise; addresses and counter

addresses are issued; cantonal councils publicly advise

voters; and of late the federal Assembly sends out manifestoes

against pending initiatives. The federal Executive Council

distributes to the cantons enough copies of the proposed

measure, so that one may be given to each voter. The count of

the votes is made by the Executive Council as a

returning-board. Inasmuch as the Swiss are unfamiliar with

election frauds, and there has been but one very close vote in

the national referenda, the count is not difficult, but there

are always irregularities, especially where more than one

question is presented to the voters at the same time. What is

the effect of the popular votes, thus carried out? The

following table, based on official documents, shows the

results for the twenty years, 1875-1894;

Passed  Rejected  Total

(a.) Constitutional amendments

proposed by the Assembly

(referendum obligatory)             1       6         7

(b.) Constitutional amendments

proposed by popular initiative      2       1        *4

(50,000 signatures)

(c.) Laws passed by the Assembly        14       6        20

(referendum demanded by 30,000).

Total                                   17      13        31

* One measure still pending.

Making allowances for cases where more than one question has

been submitted at the same time, there have been twenty-four

popular votes in twenty years. In addition, most of the

cantons have their own local referenda; in Zurich, for

example, in these twenty years, more than one hundred other

questions have been placed before the sovereign people. These

numbers are large in themselves, but surprising in proportion

to the total legislation. Out of 158 general acts passed by

the federal Assembly from 1874 to 1892, 27 were subjected to

the referendum; that is, about one-sixth are reviewed and

about one-tenth are reversed. Constitutional amendments

usually get through sooner or Inter, but more than two-thirds

of the statutes attacked are annulled. To apply the system on

such a scale in any State of our Union is plainly impossible;

thirty-nine–fortieths of the statute-book must still rest, as

now, on the character of the legislators. Nevertheless it may

be worth while to excise the other fortieth, if experience

shows that the people are more interested and wiser than their

representatives, when a question is put plainly and simply

before them. I must own to disappointment over the use made by

the Swiss of their envied opportunity. On the twenty referenda

between 1879 and 1891 the average vote in proportion to the

voters was but 58.5 per cent.; in only one case did it reach

67 per cent.; and in one case—the patent law of 1887—it fell

to about 40 per cent. in the Confederation, and to 9 per cent.

in Canton Schwyz. On the serious and dangerous question of

recognizing the right to employment, this present year, only

about 56 per cent. participated. In Zurich there is a

compulsory voting law, of which the curious result is that on

both national and cantonal referenda many thousands of blank

ballots are cast. The result of the small vote is that laws,

duly considered by the national legislature and passed by

considerable majorities, are often reversed by a minority of

the voters. The most probable reason for this apathy is that

there are too many elections—in some cantons as many as

fifteen a year. Whatever the cause, Swiss voters are less

interested in referenda than Swiss legislators in framing

bills. … 'I am a friend of the referendum,' says an eminent

member of the Executive Council, 'but I do not like the

initiative.' The experience of Switzerland seems to show four

things: that the Swiss voters are not deeply interested in the

referendum; that the referendum is as likely to kill good as

bad measures; that the initiative is more likely to suggest

bad measures than good; that the referendum leads straight to

the initiative. The referendum in the United States would

therefore probably be an attempt to govern great communities

by permanent town meeting."

Prof. A. B. Hart,

Vox Populi in Switzerland

(Nation, September 13, 1894).

ALSO IN:

A. L. Lowell,

The Referendum in Switzerland and America

(Atlantic Monthly, April, 1894).

E. P. Oberholtzer,

The Referendum in America.

REFORM, Parliamentary.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830; 1830-1832; 1865-1868,

and 1884-1885.

----------REFORMATION: Start--------

REFORMATION:

Bohemia.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415; and 1419-1434, and after.

REFORMATION:

England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534, to 1558-1588.

REFORMATION:

France.

See PAPACY; A. D. 1521-1535;

and FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547, and after.

REFORMATION:

Germany.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521, 1521-1522,

1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531, 1537-1563;

also GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523, 1530-1532, 1533-1546,

1546-1552, 1552-1561;

also PALATINATE OF THE RHINE; A. D. 1518-1572.

REFORMATION:

Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567

REFORMATION:

Ireland; its failure.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.

REFORMATION:

Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555, and after.

REFORMATION:

Piedmont.

See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.

{2630}

REFORMATION:

Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557; 1557; 1558-1560;

and 1561-1568.

REFORMATION:

Sweden and Denmark.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

REFORMATION:

Switzerland.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524;

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531;

and GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535; and 1536-1564.

----------REFORMATION: End--------

REFORMATION, The Counter.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1534-1540; 1537-1563; 1555-1603.

REGED.

See CUMBRIA.

REGENSBURG.

See RATISBON-under which name the town is more commonly

known to English readers.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY, New York.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.

REGICIDES AT NEW HAVEN, The.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.

REGILLUS, Lake, Battle at.

In the legendary history of the Roman kings it is told that

the last of the Tarquins strove long to regain his throne,

with the help of the Etruscans first, afterwards of the

Latins, and that the question was finally settled in a great

battle fought with the latter, near the Lake Regillus, in

which the Romans were helped by Castor and Pollux, in person.

Livy,

History,

II. 19.

REGNI, The.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

REGULATORS OF NORTH CAROLINA.

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

REGULBIUM.

One of the fortified Roman towns in Britain on the Kentish

coast,—modern Reculver.

T. Wright,

Celt, Roman and Saxon,

chapter 5.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

REGULUS, and the Carthaginians.

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

REICHSTAG.

See DIET, THE GERMANIC.

REIGN OF TERROR, The.

See TERROR.

REIS EFFENDI.

See SUBLIME PORTE.

REMI, The.

See BELGÆ.

REMO, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

REMONSTRANTS AND COUNTER-REMONSTRANTS.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.

RENAISSANCE, The.

"The word Renaissance has of late years received a more

extended significance than that which is implied in our

English equivalent—the Revival of Learning. We use it to

denote the whole transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern

World; and though it is possible to assign certain limits to

the period during which this transition took place, we cannot

fix on any dates so positively as to say—between this year and

that the movement was accomplished. To do so would be like

trying to name the days on which spring in any particular

season began and ended. Yet we speak of spring as different

from winter and from summer. … By the term Renaissance, or new

birth, is indicated a natural movement, not to be explained by

this or that characteristic, but to be accepted as an effort

of humanity for which at length the time had come, and in the

onward progress of which we still participate. The history of

the Renaissance is not the history of arts, or of sciences, or

of literature, or even of nations. It is the history of the

attainment of self-conscious freedom by the human spirit

manifested in the European races. It is no mere political

mutation, no new fashion of art, no restoration of classical

standards of taste. The arts and the inventions, the knowledge

and the books which suddenly became vital at the time of the

Renaissance, had long lain neglected on the shores of the Dead

Sea which we call the Middle Ages. It was not their discovery

which caused the Renaissance. But it was the intellectual

energy, the spontaneous outburst of intelligence, which

enabled mankind at that moment to make use of them. The force

then generated still continues, vital and expansive, in the

spirit of the modern world. … The reason why Italy took the

lead in the Renaissance was, that Italy possessed a language,

a favourable climate, political freedom, and commercial

prosperity, at a time when other nations were still

semi-barbarous. … It was … at the beginning of the 14th

century, when Italy had lost indeed the heroic spirit which we

admire in her Communes of the 13th, but had gained instead

ease, wealth, magnificence, and that repose which springs from

long prosperity, that the new age at last began. … The great

achievements of the Renaissance were the discovery of the

world and the discovery of man. Under these two formulæ may be

classified all the phenomena which properly belong to this

period. The discovery of the world divides itself into two

branches—the exploration of the globe, and the systematic

exploration of the universe which is in fact what we call

Science. Columbus made known America in 1492; the Portuguese

rounded the Cape in 1497; Copernicus explained the solar

system in 1507. It is not necessary to add anything to this

plain statement. … In the discovery of man … it is possible to

trace a twofold process. Man in his temporal relations,

illustrated by Pagan antiquity, and man in his spiritual

relations, illustrated by Biblical antiquity: these are the

two regions, at first apparently distinct, afterwards found to

be interpenetrative, which the critical and inquisitive genius

of the Renaissance opened for investigation. In the former of

these regions we find two agencies at work, art and

scholarship. … Through the instrumentality of art, and of all

the ideas which art introduced into daily life, the

Renaissance wrought for the modern world a real resurrection

of the body. … It was scholarship which revealed to men the

wealth of their own minds, the dignity of human thought, the

value of human speculation, the importance of human life

regarded as a thing apart from religious rules and dogmas. …

The Renaissance opened to the whole reading public the

treasure-houses of Greek and Latin literature. At the same

time the Bible in its original tongues was rediscovered. Mines

of Oriental learning were laid bare for the students of the

Jewish and Arabic traditions. What we may call the Aryan and

the Semitic revelations were for the first time subjected to

something like a critical comparison. With unerring instinct

the men of the Renaissance named the voluminous subject-matter

of scholarship 'Litteræ Humaniores,' the more human

literature, the literature that humanises [hence the term

Humanism]. … Not only did scholarship restore the classics and

encourage literary criticism; it also restored the text of the

Bible, and encouraged theological criticism. In the wake of

theological freedom followed a free philosophy, no longer

subject to the dogmas of the Church. … On the one side

Descartes, and Bacon, and Spinoza, and Locke are sons of the

Renaissance, champions of new-found philosophical freedom; on

the other side, Luther is a son of the Renaissance, the herald

of new-found religious freedom."

J. A. Symonds,

Renaissance in Italy: Age of the Despots,

chapter 1.

{2631}

"The Renaissance, so far as painting is concerned, may be said

to have culminated between the years 1470 and 1550. These

dates, it must be frankly admitted, are arbitrary; nor is

there anything more unprofitable than the attempt to define by

strict chronology the moments of an intellectual growth so

complex, so unequally progressive, and so varied as that of

Italian art. All that the historian can hope to do, is to

strike a mean between his reckoning of years and his more

subtle calculations based on the emergence of decisive genius

in special men. An instance of such compromise is afforded by

Lionardo da Vinci, who belongs, as far as dates go, to the

last half of the fifteenth century, but who must on any

estimate of his achievement, be classed with Michael Angelo

among the final and supreme masters of the full Renaissance.

To violate the order of time, with a view to what may here be

called the morphology of Italian art, is, in his case, a plain

duty. Bearing this in mind, it is still possible to regard the

eighty years above mentioned as a period no longer of promise

and preparation but of fulfilment and accomplishment.

Furthermore, the thirty years at the close of the fifteenth

century may be taken as one epoch in this climax of the art,

while the first half of the sixteenth forms a second. Within

the former falls the best work of Mantegna, Perugino, Francia,

the Bellini, Signorelli, Fra Bartolommeo. To the latter we may

reckon Michael Angelo, Raphael, Giorgione, Correggio, Titian,

and Andrea del Sarto. Lionardo da Vinci, though belonging

chronologically to the former epoch, ranks first among the

masters of the latter; and to this also may be given

Tintoretto, though his life extended far beyond it to the last

years of the century."

J. A. Symonds,

Renaissance in Italy: The Fine Arts,

chapters 4-6.

"It would be difficult to find any period in the history of

modern Europe equal in importance with that distinguished in

history under the name of the Renaissance. Standing midway

between the decay of the Middle Ages and the growth of modern

institutions, we may say that it was already dawning in the

days of Dante Alighieri, in whose immortal works we find the

synthesis of a dying age and the announcement of the birth of

a new era. This new era—the Renaissance—began with Petrarch

and his learned contemporaries, and ended with Martin Luther

and the Reformation, which event not only produced signal

changes in the history of those nations which remained

Catholic, but transported beyond the Alps the centre of

gravity of European culture."

P. Villari,

Niccolo Machiavelli and his Times,

volume 1, chapter 1.

J. Burckhardt,

The Civilization of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy.

On the communication of the movement of the Renaissance to

France and Europe in general, as a notable consequence of the

invasion of Italy by Charles VIII.

See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

See, also,

ITALY: 14TH CENTURY, and 15-16TH CENTURIES;

FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492;

VENICE: 16TH CENTURY;

FRANCE: A. D. 1492-1515, and 16TH CENTURY;

EDUCATION: RENAISSANCE;

ENGLAND: 10-16TH CENTURIES.

[Transcriber's note: For additional commentary on the

Renaissance by James J. Walsh, see:

The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries,      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38680

Medieval Medicine      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43300

The Century of Columbus      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35095

The Popes and Science      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34019

Catholic Churchmen in Science      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34067

Education: How Old The New      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34938

]

RÉNE

(called The Good), Duke of Anjou and Lorraine and

Count of Provence, A. D. 1434-1480.

King of Naples, A. D. 1435-1442.

See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

RENSSELAER, Van.

See VAN RENSSELAER.

RENSSELAERWICK, The Patroon colony and manor of.

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

also, LIVINGSTON MANOR.

REPARTIMIENTOS.

ENCOMIENDAS.

Columbus, as governor of Hispaniola (Hayti), made an

arrangement "by which the caciques in their vicinity, instead

of paying tribute, should furnish parties of their subjects,

free Indians, to assist the colonists in the cultivation of

their lands: a kind of feudal service, which was the origin of

the repartimientos, or distributions of free Indians among the

colonists, afterwards generally adopted, and shamefully

abused, throughout the Spanish colonies; a source of

intolerable hardships and oppressions to the unhappy natives,

and which greatly contributed to exterminate them from the

island of Hispaniola. Columbus considered the island in the

light of a conquered country, and arrogated to himself all the

rights of a conqueror, in the name of the sovereigns for whom

he fought."

W. Irving,

Life and Voyages of Columbus,

book 12, chapter 4 (volume 2).

"The words 'repartimiento' and 'encomienda' are often used

indiscriminately by Spanish authors; but, speaking accurately,

'repartimiento' means the first apportionment of

Indians,—'encomienda' the apportionment of any Spaniard's

share which might become 'vacant' by his death or banishment."

Sir A. Helps,

Spanish Conquest in America,

book 6, chapter 2, foot-note, (volume 1).

"'Repartimiento,' a distribution; 'repartir,' to divide;

'encomienda,' a charge, a commandery; 'encomendar,' to give in

charge; 'encomendero,' he who holds an encomienda. In Spain an

encomienda, as here understood, was a dignity in the four

military orders, endowed with a rental, and held by certain

members of the order. It was acquired through the liberality

of the crown as a reward for services in the wars against the

Moors. The lands taken from the Infidels were divided among

Christian commanders; the inhabitants of those lands were

crown tenants, and life-rights to their services were given

these commanders. In the legislation of the Indies, encomienda

was the patronage conferred by royal favor over a portion of

the natives, coupled with the obligation to teach them the

doctrines of the Church, and to defend their persons and

property. … The system begun in the New World by Columbus,

Bobadilla, and Ovando was continued by Vasco Nuñez, Pedrarias,

Cortés, and Pizarro, and finally became general."

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 1, page 262, foot-note.

See, also, SLAVERY, MODERN: OF THE INDIANS.

REPEAL OF THE UNION OF IRELAND WITH GREAT BRITAIN,

The Agitation for.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829, 1840-1841; and 1841-1848.

REPETUNDÆ.

See CALPURNIAN LAW.

REPHAIM, The.

See HORITES, THE.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

{2632}

REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.

"This [representative government] is the great distinction

between free states of the modern type, whether kingly or

republican, and the city-commonwealths of old Greece. It is

the great political invention of Teutonic Europe, the one form

of political life to which neither Thucydides, Aristotle, nor

Polybios ever saw more than the faintest approach. In Greece

it was hardly needed, but in Italy a representative system

would have delivered Rome from the fearful choice which she

had to make between anarchy and despotism."

E. A. Freeman,

History of Federal Government,

chapter 2.

"Examples of nearly every form of government are to be found

in the varied history of Greece: but nowhere do we find a

distinct system of political representation. There is, indeed,

a passage in Aristotle which implies a knowledge of the

principles of representation. He speaks of 'a moderate

oligarchy, in which men of a certain census elect a council

entrusted with the deliberative power, but bound to exercise

this power agreeably to established laws.' There can be no

better definition of representation than this: but it appears

to express his theoretical conception of a government, rather

than to describe any example within his own experience. Such a

system was incompatible with the democratic constitutions of

the city republics: but in their international councils and

leagues, we may perceive a certain resemblance to it. There

was an approach to representation in the Amphictyonic Council,

and in the Achaian League; and the several cities of the

Lycian League had a number of votes in the assembly,

proportioned to their size—the first example of the kind—being

a still nearer approximation to the principles of

representation. But it was reserved for later ages to devise

the great scheme of representative government, under which

large States may enjoy as much liberty as the walled cities of

Greece, and individual citizens may exercise their political

rights as fully as the Athenians, without the disorders and

perils of pure democracy."

Sir T. E. May,

Democracy in Europe,

volume 1, chapter 3.

"The most interesting, and on the whole the most successful,

experiments in popular government, are those which have

frankly recognised the difficulty under which it labours. At

the head of these we must place the virtually English

discovery of government by Representation, which caused

Parliamentary institutions to be preserved in these islands

from the destruction which overtook them everywhere else, and

to devolve as an inheritance upon the United States."

Sir H. S. Maine,

Popular Government,

page 92.

"To find the real origin of the modern representative system

we must turn to the assemblies of the second grade in the

early German states. In these the freemen of the smaller

locality—the Hundred or Canton—came together in a public

meeting which possessed no doubt legislative power over

matters purely local, but whose most important function seems

to have been judicial—a local court, presided over by a chief

who suggested and announced the verdict, which, however,

derived its validity from the decision of the assembly, or, in

later times, of a number of their body appointed to act for

the whole. Those local courts, probably, as has been

suggested, because of the comparatively restricted character

of the powers which they possessed, were destined to a long

life. On the continent they lasted until the very end of the

middle ages, when they were generally overthrown by the

introduction of the Roman law, too highly scientific for their

simple methods. In England they lasted until they furnished

the model, and probably the suggestion, for a far more

important institution—the House of Commons. How many grades of

these local courts there were on the continent below the

national assembly is a matter of dispute. In England there was

clearly a series of three. The lowest was the township

assembly, concerned only with matters of very slight

importance and surviving still in the English vestry meeting

and the New England town-meeting. Above this was the hundred's

court formed upon a distinctly representative principle, the

assembly being composed, together with certain other men, of

four representatives sent from each township. Then, third, the

tribal assembly of the original little settlement, or, the

small kingdom of the early conquest, seems to have survived

when this kingdom was swallowed up in a larger one, and to

have originated a new grade in the hierarchy of assemblies,

the county assembly or shire court. At any rate, whatever may

have been its origin, and whatever may be the final decision

of the vigorously disputed question, whether in the Frankish

state there were any assemblies or courts for the counties

distinct from the courts of the hundreds, it is certain that

courts of this grade came into existence in England and were

of the utmost importance there. In them, too, the

representative principle was distinctly expressed, each

township of the shire being represented, as in the hundred's

court, by four chosen representatives. These courts, also,

pass essentially unchanged through the English feudal and

absolutist period, maintaining local self-government and

preserving more of the primitive freedom than survived

elsewhere. We shall see more in detail, at a later point, how

the representative principle originating in them is

transferred to the national legislature, creating our modern

national representative system—the most important single

contribution to the machinery of government made in historic

times, with the possible exception of federal government."

G. B. Adams,

Civilization during the Middle Ages,

chapter 5.

For an account of the rise and development of the

representative system in the English Parliament.

See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH.

REPRESENTATIVES, House of.

See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES,

The earlier.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1789-1792; 1798; and 1825-1828.

The later.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

Liberal and Radical wings.

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

REPUBLICANS, Independent.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

RESACA,

Battle of.

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

Hood's attack on.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

RESACA DE LA PALMA, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

{2633}

RESAINA, Battle of.

A battle, fought A. D. 241, in which Sapor I. the Persian

king, was defeated by the Roman emperor Gordian, in

Mesopotamia.

G. Rawlinson,

Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 4.

RESCH-GLUTHA, The.

The "Prince of the Captivity."

See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

RESCISSORY, Act.

See SCOTLAND: A.D. 1660-1666.

RESCRIPTS, Roman Imperial.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

RESEN.

See ROTENNU, THE.

RESIDENCIA.

"Residencia was the examination or account taken of the

official acts of an executive or judicial officer [Spanish]

during the term of his residence within the province of his

jurisdiction, and while in the exercise of the functions of

his office. … While an official was undergoing his residencia

it was equivalent to his being under arrest, as he could

neither exercise office nor, except in certain cases

specified, leave the place."

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 1, page 250, foot-note.

ALSO IN:

F. W. Blackmar,

Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,

page 69.

RESIDENT AT EASTERN COURTS, The English.

See INDIA. A. D. 1877.

RESTITUTION, The Edict of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

RETENNU, The.

See ROTENNU, THE.

RETHEL, Battle of (1650).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

RETREAT OF THE TEN THOUSAND, The.

See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

RETZ, Cardinal De, and the Fronde.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1051-1653.

REUDIGNI, The.

See AVIONES.

REUIL, Peace of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1649.

REVERE, Paul, The ride of.

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

REVIVAL OF LEARNING.

See RENAISSANCE.

REVOLUTION, The American.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765, and after.

REVOLUTION, The English, of 1688.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1688.

REVOLUTION, The French, of 1789.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1787-1789, and after.

REVOLUTION, The French, of 1830.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815-1830.

REVOLUTION, The French, of 1848.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848.

REVOLUTION, The Year of.

See

EUROPE (volume 2, pages 1098-1099):

ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849:

GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH), to 1848-1850;

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848, to 1848-1850;

HUNGARY: A. D. 1847-1849;

FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848.

REVOLUTIONARY TRIBUNAL, The.

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

REYDANIYA, Battle of (1517).

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

REYNOSA, Battle of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

----------RHÆTIA: Start--------

RHÆTIA.

Rhætians, Vindelicians, etc.

"The Alps from the Simplon pass to the sources of the Drave

were occupied by the Rhætians. Beyond the Inn and the Lake of

Constance, the plain which slopes gently towards the Danube

was known by the name of Vindelicia. Styria, the Kammergut of

Salzburg, and the southern half of the Austrian Archduchy,

belonged to the tribes of Noricum, while the passes between

that country and Italy were held by the Carnians." The Roman

conquest of this Alpine region was effected in the years 16

and 15 B. C. by the two stepsons of the Emperor Augustus,

Tiberius and Drusus. In addition to the people mentioned

above, the Camuni, the Vennones, the Brenni and the Genauni

were crushed. "The free tribes of the eastern Alps appear then

for the first time in history, only to disappear again for a

thousand years."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 35.

See, also, TYROL.

RHÆTIA:

Settlement of the Alemanni in.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

----------RHÆTIA: End--------

RHAGES.

See RAGA.

RHEGIUM, Siege of (B. C. 387).

Rhegium, an important Greek city, in the extreme south of

Italy, on the strait which separates the peninsula from

Sicily, incurred the hostility of the tyrant of Syracuse, the

elder Dionysius, by scornfully refusing him a bride whom he

solicited. The savage-tempered despot made several attempts

without success to surprise the town, and finally laid siege

to it with a powerful army and fleet. The inhabitants resisted

desperately for eleven months, at the end of which time (B. C.

387) they were starved into surrender. "Dionysius, on entering

Rhegium, found heaps of unburied corpses, besides 6,000

citizens in the last stage of emaciation. All these captives

were sent to Syracuse, where those who could provide a mina

(about £3. 17s.) were allowed to ransom themselves, while the

rest were sold as slaves. After such a period of suffering,

the number of those who retained the means of ransom was

probably very small."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 83.

RHEIMS:

Origin of the name.

See BELGÆ.

RHEIMS: A. D. 1429.

The crowning of Charles VII.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

RHEIMS: A. D. 1814.

Capture by the Allies and recovery by Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

RHEINFELDEN, Siege and Battle of (1638).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

RHETRÆ.

See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

RHINE, The Circle of the.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

RHINE, The Confederation of the.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806; 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST);

1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);

and FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

RHINE, Roman passage of the.

See USIPETES AND TENCTHERI.

RHINE LEAGUE, The.

The Rhine League was one of several Bunds, or confederations

formed among the German trading towns in the middle ages, for

the common protection of their commerce. It comprised the

towns of southwest Germany and the Lower Rhine provinces.

Prominent among its members were Cologne, Wessel and Munster.

Cologne, already a large and flourishing city, the chief

market of the trade of the Rhine lands, was a member,

likewise, of the Hanseatic League.

See HANSA TOWNS.

J. Yeats,

Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,

page 158.

See, also, CITIES, IMPERIAL, AND FREE, OF GERMANY;

and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

{2634}

----------RHODE ISLAND: Start--------

RHODE ISLAND:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1631-1636.

Roger Williams in Massachusetts.

His offenses against Boston Puritanism.

His banishment.

On the 5th of February, 1631, "the ship Lyon arrived at

Nantasket, with twenty passengers and a large store of

provisions. Her arrival was most timely, for the

[Massachusetts] colonists were reduced to the last exigencies

of famine. Many had already died of want, and many more were

rescued from imminent peril by this providential occurrence. A

public fast had been appointed for the day succeeding that on

which the ship reached Boston. It was changed to a general

thanksgiving. There was another incident connected with the

arrival of this ship, which made it an era, not only in the

affairs of Massachusetts, but in the history of America. She

brought to the shores of New England the founder of a new

State, the exponent of a new philosophy, the intellect that

was to harmonize religious differences, and soothe the

asperities of the New World; a man whose clearness of mind

enabled him to deduce, from the mass of crude speculations

which abounded in the 17th century, a proposition so

comprehensive, that it is difficult to say whether its

application has produced the most beneficial result upon

religion, or morals, or politics. This man was Roger Williams,

then about thirty-two years of age. He was a scholar, well

versed in the ancient and some of the modern tongues, an

earnest inquirer after truth, and an ardent friend of popular

liberty as well for the mind as for the body. As a 'godly

minister,' he was welcomed to the society of the Puritans, and

soon invited by the church in Salem to supply the place of the

lamented Higginson, as an assistant to their pastor Samuel

Skelton. The invitation was accepted, but the term of his

ministry was destined to be brief. The authorities at Boston

remonstrated with those at Salem against the reception of

Williams. The Court at its next session addressed a letter to

Mr. Endicott to this effect: 'That whereas Mr. Williams had

refused to join with the congregation at Boston, because they

would not make a public declaration of their repentance for

having communion with the churches of England, while they

lived there; and, besides, had declared his opinion that the

magistrate might not punish the breach of the Sabbath, nor any

other offence, as it was a breach of the first table;

therefore they marvelled that they would choose him without

advising with the council, and withal desiring him, that they

would forbear to proceed till they had conferred about it.'

This attempt of the magistrates of Boston to control the

election of a church officer at Salem, met with the rebuke it

so richly merited. The people were not ignorant of the

hostility their invitation had excited; yet on the very day

the remonstrance was written, they settled Williams as their

minister. The ostensible reasons for this hostility are set

forth in the letter above cited. That they were to a great

extent the real ones cannot be questioned. The ecclesiastical

polity of the Puritans sanctioned this interference. Their

church platform approved it. Positive statute would seem to

require it. Nevertheless, we cannot but think that, underlying

all this, there was a secret stimulus of ambition on the part

of the Boston Court to strengthen its authority over the

prosperous and, in some respects, rival colony of Salem. … As

a political measure this interference failed of its object.

The people resented so great a stretch of authority, and the

church disregarded the remonstrance. … What could not as yet

be accomplished by direct intervention of the Court was

effected in a surer manner. The fearlessness of Williams in

denouncing the errors of the times, and especially the

doctrine of the magistrate's power in religion, gave rise to a

system of persecution which, before the close of the summer,

obliged him to seek refuge beyond the jurisdiction of

Massachusetts in the more liberal colony of the Pilgrims. At

Plymouth 'he was well accepted as an assistant in the ministry

to Mr. Ralph Smith, then pastor of the church there.' The

principal men of the colony treated him with marked attention.

… The opportunities there presented for cultivating an

intimate acquaintance with the chief Sachems of the

neighboring tribes were well improved, and exerted an

important influence, not only in creating the State of which

he was to be the founder, but also in protecting all New

England amid the horrors of savage warfare. Ousamequin, or

Massasoit, as he is usually called, was the Sachem of the

Wampanoags, called also the Pokanoket tribe, inhabiting the

Plymouth territory. His seat was at Mount Hope, in what is now

the town of Bristol, R. I. With this chief, the early and

steadfast friend of the English, Williams established a

friendship which proved of the greatest service at the time of

his exile."

S. G. Arnold,

History of the State of Rhode Island and

Providence Plantations,

volume 1, chapter 1.

Williams "remained at Plymouth, teaching in the church, but

supporting himself by manual labor, nearly two years. His

ministry was popular in the main and his person universally

liked. Finally, however, he advanced some opinions which did

not suit the steady-going Plymouth elders, and therefore,

departing 'something abruptly,' he returned to Salem. There he

acted as assistant to Mr. Skelton, the aged pastor of the

church, and when Mr. Skelton died, less than a year later,

became his successor. At Salem he was again under the

surveillance of the rulers and elders of the Bay, and they

were swift to make him sensible of it. He had written in

Plymouth, for the Plymouth Governor and Council a treatise on

the Massachusetts Patent, in which he had maintained his

doctrine that the King could not give the settlers a right to

take away from the natives their land without paying them for

it. He was not a lawyer but an ethical teacher, and it was

doubtless as such that he maintained this opinion. In our day

its ethical correctness is not disputed. It has always been

good Rhode Island doctrine. He also criticised the patent

because in it King James claimed to be the first Christian

prince who discovered New England, and because he called

Europe Christendom or the Christian World. Williams did not

scruple to denounce these formal fictions in downright Saxon

as lies. He does not appear to have been, at any period of his

life, a paragon of conventional propriety. A rumor of the

treatise got abroad, though it remained unpublished. The

patent happened to be a sensitive point with the magistrates.

{2635}

It had been granted in England to an English trading company,

and its transfer to Massachusetts was an act of questionable

legality. Moreover it was exceedingly doubtful whether the

rulers, in exercising the extensive civil jurisdiction which

they claimed under it, did not exceed their authority. They

were apprehensive of proceedings to forfeit it, and therefore

were easily alarmed at any turning of attention to it. When

they heard of the treatise they sent for it, and, having got

it, summoned the author 'to be censured.' He appeared in an

unexpectedly placable mood, and not only satisfied their minds

in regard to some of its obscurer passages, but offered it,

since it had served its purpose, to be burnt. The magistrates,

propitiated by his complaisance, appeared to have accepted the

offer as equivalent to a promise of silence, though it is

impossible that he, the uncompromising champion of aboriginal

rights, can ever have meant to give, or even appear to give,

such a promise. Accordingly when they heard soon afterwards

that he was discussing the patent they were deeply incensed,

though it was doubtless the popular curiosity excited by their

own indiscreet action which elicited the discussion. Their

anger was aggravated by another doctrine then put forth by

him, namely, that an oath ought not to be tendered to an

unregenerate, or, as we should say, an unreligious man,

because an oath is an act of worship, and cannot be taken by

such a man without profanation. … He also taught that an oath

being an act of worship, could not properly be exacted from

anyone against his will, and that even Christians ought not to

desecrate it by taking it for trivial causes. … The

magistrates again instituted proceedings against him, at first

subjecting him to the ordeal of clerical visitation, then

formally summoning him to answer for himself before the

General Court. At the same time the Salem church was arraigned

for contempt in choosing him as pastor while he was under

question. The court, however, did not proceed to judgment, but

allowed them both further time for repentance. It so happened

that the inhabitants of Salem had a petition before the court

for 'some land at Marblehead Neck, which they did challenge as

belonging to their town.' The court, when the petition came

up, refused to grant it until the Salem church should give

satisfaction for its contempt, thus virtually affirming that

the petitioners had no claim to justice even, so long as they

adhered to their recusant pastor. Williams was naturally

indignant. He induced his church—'enchanted his church,' says

Cotton Mather—to send letters to the sister churches,

appealing to them to admonish the magistrates and deputies of

their 'heinous sin.' He wrote the letters himself. His

Massachusetts contemporaries say he was 'unlamblike.'

Undoubtedly they heard no gentle bleating in those letters,

but rather the reverberating roar of the lion chafing in his

rage. The churches repelled the appeal; and then turning to

the Salem church, besieged it only the more assiduously,

laboring with it, nine with one, to alienate it from its

pastor. What could the one church do,—with the magistracy

against it, the clergy against it, the churches and the people

against it, muttering their vague anathemas, and Salem town

suffering unjustly on its account,—what could it do but

yield? It yielded virtually if not yet in form; and Williams

stood forth alone in his opposition to the united power of

Church and State. … The fateful court day came at last. The

court assembles, magistrates and deputies, with the clergy to

advise them. Williams appears, not to be tried, but to be

sentenced unless he will retract. He reaffirms his opinions.

Mr. Hooker, a famous clerical dialectician, is chosen to

dispute with him, and the solemn mockery of confutation

begins. … Hour after hour, he argues unsubdued, till the sun

sinks low and the weary court adjourns. On the morrow [Friday,

October 9, 1635], still persisting in his glorious

'contumacy,' he is sentenced, the clergy all save one

advising, to be banished, or, to adopt the apologetic but

felicitous euphemism of his great adversary, John Cotton,

'enlarged' out of Massachusetts. He was allowed at first six

weeks, afterwards until spring, to depart. But in January the

magistrates having heard that he was drawing others to his

opinion, and that his purpose was to erect a plantation about

Narragansett Bay, 'from whence the infection would easily

spread,' concluded to send him by ship, then ready, to England

[see MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636]. The story is familiar how

Williams, advised of their intent, baffled it by plunging into

the wilderness, where, after being 'sorely tost for one

fourteen weeks, in a bitter winter season, not knowing what

bread or bed did mean,' he settled with the opening spring, on

the east bank of the Seekonk, and there built and planted."

T. Durfee,

Historical Discourse: Two hundred and fiftieth

Anniversary of the Settlement of Providence, 1886.

"The course pursued towards Roger Williams was not

exceptional. What was done to him had been done in repeated

instances before. Within the first year of its settlement the

colony had passed sentence of exclusion from its territory

upon no less than fourteen persons. It was the ordinary method

by which a corporate body would deal with those whose presence

no longer seemed desirable. Conceiving themselves to be by

patent the exclusive possessors of the soil,—soil which they

had purchased for the accomplishment of their personal and

private ends,—the colonists never doubted their competency to

fix the terms on which others should be allowed to share in

their undertaking. … While there is some discrepancy in the

contemporary accounts of this transaction, there is entire

agreement on one point, that the assertion by Roger Williams

of the doctrine of 'soul-liberty' was not the head and front

of his offending. Whatever was meant by the vague charge in

the final sentence that he had 'broached and divulged new and

dangerous opinions, against the authority of magistrates,' it

did not mean that he had made emphatic the broad doctrine of

the entire separation of church and state. We have his own

testimony on this point. In several allusions to the subject

in his later writings,—and it can hardly be supposed that in a

matter which he felt so sorely his memory would have betrayed

him,—he never assigns to his opinion respecting the power of

the civil magistrate more than a secondary place. He

repeatedly affirms that the chief causes of his banishment

were his extreme views regarding separation, and his

denouncing of the patent. Had he been himself conscious of

having incurred the hostility of the Massachusetts colony for

asserting the great principle with which he was afterwards

identified, he would surely have laid stress upon it. …

{2636}

It is … clear that in the long controversy it had become

covered up by other issues, and that his opponents, at least,

did not regard it as his most dangerous heresy. So far as it

was a mere speculative opinion it was not new. … To upbraid

the Puritans as unrelenting persecutors, or extol Roger

Williams as a martyr to the cause of Religious liberty, is

equally wide of the real fact. On the one hand, the

controversy had its origin in the passionate and precipitate

zeal of a young man whose relish for disputation made him

never unwilling to encounter opposition, and on the other, in

the exigencies of a unique community, where the instincts of a

private corporation had not yet expanded into the more liberal

policy of a body politic. If we cannot impute to the colony

any large statesmanship, so neither can we wholly acquit Roger

Williams of the charge of mixing great principles with some

whimsical conceits. The years which he passed in Massachusetts

were years of discipline and growth, when he doubtless already

cherished in his active brain the germs of the principles

which he afterwards developed; but the fruit was destined to

be ripened under another sky."

J. L. Diman,

Orations and Essays,

pages 114-117.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.

The wanderings of the exiled Roger Williams.

His followers.

The settlement at Providence.

The little that is known of the wanderings of Roger Williams

after his banishment from Salem, until his settlement at

Providence, is derived from a letter which he wrote more than

thirty years afterwards (June 22, 1670) to Major Mason, the

hero of the Pequot War. In that letter he says: "When I was

unkindly and unchristianly, as I believe, driven from my house

and land and wife and children, (in the midst of a New England

winter, now about thirty-five years past,) at Salem, that ever

honored Governor, Mr. Winthrop, privately wrote to me to steer

my course to Narragansett Bay and Indians, for many high and

heavenly and public ends, encouraging me, from the freeness of

the place from any English claims or patents. I took his

prudent motion as a hint and voice from God, and waving all

other thoughts and motions, I steered my course from Salem

(though in winter snow, which I feel yet) unto these parts,

wherein I may say Peniel, that is, I have seen the face of

God. … I first pitched, and began to build and plant at

Seekonk, now Rehoboth, but I received a letter from my ancient

friend, Mr. Winslow, then Governor of Plymouth, professing his

own and others love and respect to me, yet lovingly advising

me, since I was fallen into the edge of their bounds, and they

were loath to displease the Bay, to remove but to the other

side of the water, and then he said, I had the country free

before me, and might be as free as themselves, and we should

be loving neighbors together. These were the joint

understandings of these two eminently wise and Christian

Governors and others, in their day, together with their

counsel and advice as to the freedom and vacancy of this

place, which in this respect, and many other Providences of

the Most Holy and Only Wise, I called Providence. … Some time

after, the Plymouth great Sachem, (Oufamaquin,) upon occasion

affirming that Providence was his land, and therefore

Plymouth's land, and some resenting it, the then prudent and

godly Governor, Mr. Bradford, and others of his godly council,

answered, that if, after due examination, it should be found

true what the barbarian said, yet having to my loss of a

harvest that year, been now (though by their gentle advice) as

good as banished from Plymouth as from the Massachusetts, and

I had quietly and patiently departed from them, at their

motion to the place where now I was, I should not be molested

and tossed up and down again, while they had breath in their

bodies; and surely, between those, my friends of the Bay and

Plymouth, I was sorely tossed, for one fourteen weeks, in a

bitter winter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean,

beside the yearly loss of no small matter in my trading with

English and natives, being debarred from Boston, the chief

mart and port of New England."

Letters of Roger Williams;

edited by J. R. Bartlett,

pages 335-336.

"According to the weight of authority, and the foregoing

extract, when Williams left Salem he made his way from there

by sea, coasting, probably, from place to place during the

'fourteen weeks' that 'he was sorely tossed,' and holding

intercourse with the native tribes, whose language he had

acquired, as we have before stated, during his residence at

Plymouth. Dr. Dexter and Professer Diman interpret this and

other references differently, and conclude that the journey

must have been by land. See Dexter, page 62, note; Nar. Club

Pub., Vol. II, page 87. Perhaps the true interpretation is

that the journey was partly by sea and partly by land; that

is, from the coast inward—to confer with the natives—was by

land, and the rest by sea."

O. S. Straus,

Roger Williams,

chapter 5, and foot-note.

Mr. Hider, the well-known critical student of Rhode Island

history, has commented on the above passage in Mr. Straus's

work as follows: "The distance from Salem by sea to Seekonk

was across Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod Bay, the Atlantic

Ocean, Vineyard Sound, Buzzard's Bay, the Atlantic Ocean

again, and Narragansett Bay,—a distance scarcely less than 500

miles, in and out, by the line of the coast; all of which had

to be covered either in a birch bark canoe or in a shallop; if

in a canoe, then to be paddled, but if in a shallop, where did

Williams get it, and what became of it? history does not

answer. If Williams was in a boat sailing into Narragansett

Bay, 'the pleasure of the Most High to direct my steps into

the Bay' would become a positive absurdity unless the Most

High meant that Williams should jump overboard! He certainly

could have taken no steps in a boat. But if Williams was in a

boat, what sense could there be in his saying 'I was sorely

tossed for one fourteen weeks, in a bitter (hyperbole again)

winter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean.' Did

they not have beds in boats, nor bread? As to the expression

in the Cotton Letter, it was his soul and not his body, which

was exposed to poverties, &c.; observe the quotation. … When

Mr. Straus in his foot-note, speaks of Williams's journey,

'partly by sea and partly by land, that is from the coast

inward, to confer with the natives,' he is dealing solely with

the imagination. No such conference ever took place."

S. S. Rider,

Roger Williams

(Book Notes, volume 11, page 148).

{2637}

It was the opinion of Prof. Gammell that, when Roger Williams

fled from Salem, "he made his way through the forest to the

lodges of the Pokanokets, who occupied the country north from

Mount Hope as far as Charles River. Ousemaguin, or Massasoit,

the famous chief of this tribe, had known Mr. Williams when he

lived in Plymouth, and had often received presents and tokens

of kindness at his hands; and now, in the days of his

friendless exile, the aged chief welcomed him to his cabin at

Mount Hope, and extended to him the protection and aid he

required. He granted to him a tract of land on the Seekonk

River, to which, at the opening of spring, he repaired, and

where 'he pitched and began to build and plant ' [near the

beautiful bend in the river, now known as 'Manton's Cove,' a

short distance above the upper bridge, directly eastward of

Providence.—Foot-note]. At this place, also, at the same time,

he was joined by a number of his friends from Salem. … But

scarcely had the first dwelling been raised … when he was

again disturbed, and obliged to move still further from

Christian neighbors and the dwellings of civilized men," as

related in his letter quoted above. "He accordingly soon

abandoned the fields which he had planted, and the dwelling he

had begun to build, and embarked in a canoe upon the Seekonk

River, in quest of another spot where, unmolested, he might

rear a home and plant a separate colony. There were five

others, who, having joined him at Seekonk, bore him company."

Coasting along the stream and "round the headlands now known

as Fox Point and India Point, up the harbor, to the mouth of

the Mooshausic River," he landed, and, "upon the beautiful

slope of the hill that ascends from the river, he descried the

spring around which he commenced the first 'plantations of

Providence.' It was in the latter part of June, 1636, as well

as can be ascertained, that Roger Williams and his companions

began the settlement at the mouth of the Mooshausic River. A

little north of what is now the centre of the city, the spring

is still pointed out, which drew the attention of the humble

voyagers from Seekonk. Here, after so many wanderings, was the

weary exile to find a home, and to lay the foundations of a

city, which should be a perpetual memorial of pious gratitude

to the superintending Providence which had protected him and

guided him to the spot. … The spot at which he had landed …

was within the territory belonging to the Narragansetts.

Canonicus, the aged chief of the tribe, and Miantonomo, his

nephew, had visited the colonies of Plymouth and Massachusetts

Bay, while Williams resided there, and had learned to regard

him, in virtue of his being a minister, as one of the sachems

of the English. He had also taken special pains to conciliate

their good-will and gain their confidence. … Indeed, there is

reason to believe that, at an early period after his arrival

in New England, on finding himself so widely at variance with

his Puritan brethren, he conceived the design of withdrawing

from the colonies, and settling among the Indians, that he

might labor as a missionary. … In all his dealings with the

Indians, Mr. Williams was governed by a strict regard to the

rights which, he had always contended, belonged to them as the

sole proprietors of the soil. … It was by his influence, and

at his expense, that the purchase was procured from Canonicus

and Miantonomo, who partook largely of the shyness and

jealousy of the English so common to their tribe. He says, 'It

was not thousands nor tens of thousands of money that could

have bought of them an English entrance into this bay.'"

W. Gammell,

Life of Roger Williams

(Library of American Biographies,

series 2, volume 4), chapters 6-7.

ALSO IN:

S. G. Arnold,

History of Rhode Island,

volume 1, chapters 1 and 4.

W. R Staples,

Annals of Providence,

chapter 1.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636-1661,

Sale and gift of lands by the Indians to Roger Williams.

His conveyance of the same to his associates.

"The first object of Mr. Williams would naturally be, to

obtain from the sachems a grant of land for his new colony. He

probably visited them, and received a verbal cession of the

territory, which, two years afterwards, was formally conveyed

to him by a deed, This instrument may properly be quoted here.

'At Narraganset, the 24th of the first month, commonly called

March, the second year of the plantation or planting at

Moshassuck, or Providence [1638]; Memorandum, that we,

Canonicus and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of

Narraganset, having two years since sold unto Roger Williams

the lands and meadows upon the two fresh rivers, called

Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, do now, by these presents,

establish and confirm the bounds of these lands, from the

river and fields of Pawtucket, the great hill of

Notaquoncanot, on the northwest, and the town of Mashapaug, on

the west. We also in consideration of the many kindnesses and

services he hath continually done for us, both with our

friends of Massachusetts, as also at Connecticut, and Apaum,

or Plymouth, we do freely give unto him all that land from

those rivers reaching to Pawtuxet river; as also the grass and

meadows upon the said Pawtuxet river. In witness whereof, we

have hereunto set our hands. [The mark (a bow) of Canonicus.

The mark (an arrow) of Miantonomo]. In the presence of [The

mark of Sohash. The mark of Alsomunsit].' … The lands thus

ceded to Mr. Williams he conveyed to twelve men, who

accompanied, or soon joined, him, reserving for himself an

equal part only." Twenty-three years later, on the 20th of

December, 1661, he executed a more formal deed of conveyance

to his associates and their heirs of the lands which had

unquestionably been partly sold and partly given to himself

personally by the Indians. This latter instrument was in the

following words. "'Be it known unto all men by these presents,

that I, Roger Williams, of the town of Providence, in the

Narraganset Bay, in New England, having, in the year one

thousand six hundred thirty-four, and in the year one thousand

six hundred thirty-five had several treaties with Canonicus

and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of the Narraganset, and

in the end purchased of them the lands and meadows upon the

two fresh rivers called Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, the two

sachems having, by a deed under their hands, two years after

the sale thereof, established and confirmed the bounds of

these lands from the rivers and fields of Pawtucket, the great

hill of Notaquoncanot on the northwest, and the town of

Mashapaug on the west, notwithstanding I had the frequent

promise of Miantinomo, my kind friend, that it should not be

land that I should want about these bounds mentioned, provided

that I satisfied the Indians there inhabiting. I having made

covenant of peaceable neighborhood with all the sachems and

natives round about us, and having, of a sense of God's

merciful Providence unto me in my distress, called the place

Providence, I desired it might be for a shelter for persons

distressed for conscience.

{2638}

I then considering the condition of divers of my distressed

countrymen, I communicated my said purchase unto my loving

friends, John Throckmorton, William Arnold, William Harris,

Stukely Westcott, John Greene, Senior, Thomas Olney, Senior,

Richard Waterman, and others, who then desired to take shelter

here with me, and in succession unto so many others as we

should receive into the fellowship and society of enjoying and

disposing of the said purchase; and besides the first that

were admitted, our town records declare, that afterwards we

received Chad Brown, William Field, Thomas Harris, Senior,

William Wickenden, Robert Williams, Gregory Dexter, and

others, as our town book declares; and whereas, by God's

merciful assistance, I was the procurer of the purchase, not

by monies nor payment, the natives being so shy and jealous

that monies could not do it, but by that language,

acquaintance and favor with the natives, and other advantages,

which it pleased God to give me, and also bore the charges and

venture of all the gratuities, which I gave to the great

sachems and other sachems and natives round about us, and lay

engaged for a loving and peaceable neighborhood with them, to

my great charge and travel; it was therefore thought fit by

some loving friends, that I should receive some loving

consideration and gratuity, and it was agreed between us, that

every person, that should be admitted into the fellowship of

enjoying land and disposing of the purchase, should pay thirty

shillings unto the public stock; and first, about thirty

pounds should be paid unto myself, by thirty shillings a

person, as they were admitted; this sum I received, and in

love to my friends, and with respect to a town and place of

succor for the distressed as aforesaid, I do acknowledge the

said sum and payment as full satisfaction; and whereas in the

year one thousand six hundred and thirty-seven, so called, I

delivered the deed subscribed by the two aforesaid chief

sachems, so much thereof as concerneth the aforementioned

lands, from myself and from my heirs, unto the whole number of

the purchasers, with all my power, right and title therein,

reserving only unto myself one single share equal unto any of

the rest of that number; I now again, in a more formal way,

under my hand and seal, confirm my former resignation of that

deed of the lands aforesaid, and bind myself, my heirs, my

executors, my administrators and assigns, never to molest any

of the said persons already received, or hereafter to be

received, into the society of purchasers, as aforesaid; but

that they, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns,

shall at all times quietly and peaceably enjoy the premises

and every part thereof, and I do further by these presents

bind myself, my heirs, my executors, my administrators and

assigns never to lay any claim, nor cause any claim to be

laid, to any of the lands aforementioned, or unto any part or

parcel thereof, more than unto my own single share, by virtue

or pretence of any former bargain, sale or mortgage

whatsoever, or jointures, thirds or entails made by me, the

said Roger Williams, or of any other person, either for, by,

through or under me. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set

my hand and seal, the twentieth day of December, in the

present year one thousand six hundred sixty-one. Roger

Williams.' … From this document, it appears, that the twelve

persons to whom the lands, on the Moshassuck and

Wanasquatucket rivers, were conveyed by Mr. Williams, did not

pay him any part of the thirty pounds, which he received; but

that the sum of thirty shillings was exacted of every person

who was afterwards admitted, to form a common stock. From this

stock, thirty pounds were paid to Mr. Williams, for the

reasons mentioned in the instrument last quoted."

J. D. Knowles,

Memoir of Roger Williams,

chapter 8.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1637.

The Pequot War.

"Williams was banished in 1636 and settled at Providence. The

Pequot war took place the next year following. The Pequots

were a powerful tribe of Indians, dwelling … in the valley of

the Thames at the easterly end of Connecticut, and holding the

lands west to the river of that name. The parties to this war

were, the Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut colonies,

assisted by the Narragansett and Mohegan tribes of Indians on

one side, against the Pequots, single-handed, on the other.

The Pequots undertook to make an alliance with the

Narragansetts and the Mohegans (Hubbard's Indian Wars, 1677,

page 118), and but for Williams would have succeeded, (Narr.

Club, volume 6, page 269). Williams had obtained a powerful

influence over Canonicus and Miantinomi, the great Sachems of

the Narragansetts, (Narr. Club, volume 6, page 17,) and

Massachusetts having just banished him, sent at once to him to

prevent if possible this alliance, (Narr. Club, volume 6, page

269). By his influence a treaty of alliance was made with

Miantinomi, Williams being employed by both sides as a friend,

the treaty was deposited with him and he was made interpreter

by Massachusetts for the Indians upon their motion,

(Winthrop's Hist. N. E., 1853, volume 1, page 237). The

Narragansetts, the Mohegans, the Niantics, the Nipmucs, and

the Cowesets, were by this treaty either neutrals or fought

actively for the English in the war."

S. S. Rider,

Political results of the Banishment of Williams

(Book Notes, volume 8, number 17).

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

The purchase, the settlement, and the naming of the island.

The founding of Newport.

Early in the spring of 1638, while Mrs. Anne Hutchinson was

undergoing imprisonment at Boston (see MASSACHUSETTS: A. D.

1636-1638), "Mr's. Hutchinson's husband, Coddington, John

Clarke, educated a physician, and other principal persons of

the Hutchinsonian party, were given to understand that, unless

they removed of their own accord, proceedings would be taken

to compel them to do so. They sent, therefore, to seck a place

of settlement, and found one in Plymouth patent; but, as the

magistrates of that colony declined to allow them an

independent organization, they presently purchased of the

Narragansets, by the recommendation of Williams, the beautiful

and fertile Is]and of Aquiday [or Aquetnet, or Aquidneck]. The

price was 40 fathoms of white wampum; for the additional

gratuity of ten coats and twenty hoes, the present inhabitants

agreed to remove. The purchasers called it the Isle of

Rhodes—a name presently changed by use to Rhode Island.

Nineteen persons, having signed a covenant 'to incorporate

themselves into a body politic,' and to submit to 'our Lord

Jesus Christ,' and to his 'most perfect and absolute laws,'

began a settlement at its northern end, with Coddington as

their judge or chief magistrate, and three elders to assist

him. They were soon joined by others from Boston; but those

who were 'of the rigid separation, and savored Anabaptism,'

removed to Providence, which now began to be well peopled."

R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

volume 1, chapter 9.

{2639}

"This little colony increased rapidly, so that in the

following spring some of their number moved to the south-west

part of the island and began the settlement of Newport. The

northern part of the island which was first occupied was

called Portsmouth. Both towns, however, were considered, as

they were in fact, as belonging to the same colony. To this

settlement, also, came Anne Hutchinson with her husband and

family after they had been banished from Massachusetts. There

is no record that in this atmosphere of freedom she occasioned

any trouble or disturbance. Here she led a quiet and peaceable

life until the death of her husband in 1642, when she removed

to the neighborhood of New York, where she and all the members

of her family, sixteen in number, were murdered by the

Indians, with the exception of one daughter, who was taken

into captivity. In imitation of the form of government which

existed under the judges of Israel, during the period of the

Hebrew Commonwealth, the two settlements, Rhode Island and

Portsmouth, chose Coddington to be their magistrate, with the

title of Judge, and a few months afterward they elected three

elders to assist him. This form of government continued until

1640."

O. S. Straus,

Roger Williams,

chapter 6.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1647.

The Constitution of Providence Plantation.

The charter and the Union.

Religious liberty as understood by Roger Williams.

"The colonists of Plymouth had formed their social compact in

the cabin of the Mayflower. The colonists of Providence formed

theirs on the banks of the Mooshausick. 'We, whose names are

hereunder,' it reads, 'desirous to inhabit in the town of

Providence, do promise to subject ourselves in active or

passive obedience to all such orders or agreements as shall be

made for public good for the body, in an orderly way, by the

major assent of the present inhabitants, masters of families,

incorporated together into a town fellowship, and such others

as they shall admit unto them only in civil things.' Never

before, since the establishment of Christianity, has the

separation of Church from State been definitely marked out by

this limitation of the authority of the magistrate to civil

things; and never, perhaps, in the whole course of history,

was a fundamental principle so vigorously observed.

Massachusetts looked upon the experiment with jealousy and

distrust, and when ignorant or restless men confounded the

right of individual opinion in religious matters with a right

of independent action in civil matters, those who had

condemned Roger Williams to banishment, eagerly proclaimed

that no well ordered government could exist in connection with

liberty of conscience. … Questions of jurisdiction also arose.

Massachusetts could not bring herself to look upon her sister

with a friendly eye, and Plymouth was soon to be merged in

Massachusetts. It was easy to foresee that there would he

bickerings and jealousies, if not open contention between

them. Still the little Colony grew apace. The first church was

founded in 1639. To meet the wants of an increased population

the government was changed, and five disposers or selectmen

charged with the principal functions of administration,

subject, however, to the superior authority of monthly town

meetings; so early and so naturally did municipal institutions

take root in English colonies. A vital point was yet

untouched. Williams, indeed, held that the Indians, as

original occupants of the soil, were the only legal owners of

it, and carrying his principle into all his dealings with the

natives, bought of them the land on which he planted his

Colony. The Plymouth and Massachusetts colonists, also, bought

their land of the natives, but in their intercourse with the

whites founded their claim upon royal charter. They even went

so far as to apply for a charter covering all the territory of

the new Colony. Meanwhile two other colonies had been planted

on the shores of the Narragansett Bay: the Colony of

Aquidnick, on the Island of Rhode Island, and the colony of

Warwick. The sense of a common danger united them, and, in

1643, they appointed Roger Williams their agent to repair to

England and apply for a royal charter. It has been treasured

up as a bitter memory that he was compelled to seek a

conveyance in New York, for Massachusetts would not allow him

to pass through her territories. His negotiations were crowned

with full success. … He found the King at open war with the

Parliament, and the administration of the colonies entrusted

to the Earl of Warwick and a joint committee of the two

Houses. Of the details of the negotiation little is known, but

on the 14th of March of the following year [1644], a 'free and

absolute charter was granted as the Incorporation of

Providence Plantations in Narragansett Bay in New England.' …

Civil government and civil laws were the only government and

laws which it recognized; and the absence of any allusion to

religious freedom in it shows how firmly and wisely Williams

avoided every form of expression which might seem to recognize

the power to grant or to deny that inalienable right. … Yet

more than three years were allowed to pass before it went into

full force as a bond of union for the four towns. Then, in

May, 1647, the corporators met at Portsmouth in General Court

of Election, and, accepting the charter, proceeded to organize

a government in harmony with its provisions. Warwick, although

not named in the charter, was admitted to the same privileges

with her larger and more flourishing sisters. This new

government was in reality a government of the people, to whose

final decision in their General Assembly all questions were

submitted. 'And now,' says the preamble to the code, … 'it is

agreed by this present Assembly thus incorporate and by this

present act declared, that the form of government established

in Providence Plantations is Democratical.'"

G. W. Greene,

Short History of Rhode Island,

chapters 3 and 5.

"The form of government being settled, they now prepared such

laws as were necessary to enforce the due administration of

it: but the popular approbation their laws must receive,

before they were valid, made this a work of time; however,

they were so industrious in it, that in the month of May,

1647, they completed a regular body of laws, taken chiefly

from the laws of England, adding a very few of their own

forming, which the circumstances and exigencies of their

present condition required.

{2640}

These laws, for securing of right, for determining

controversies, for preserving order, suppressing vice, and

punishing offenders, were, at least, equal to the laws of any

of the neighbouring colonies; and infinitely exceeded those of

all other Christian countries at that time in this

particular,—that they left the conscience free, and did not

punish men for worshipping God in the way, they were

persuaded, he required. … It was often objected to Mr.

Williams, that such great liberty in religious matters, tended

to licentiousness, and every kind of disorder: To such

objections I will give the answer he himself made, in his own

words [Letter to the Town of Providence, January, 1654-5].

'Loving Friends and Neighbours, It pleaseth God yet to

continue this great liberty of our town meetings, for which,

we ought to be humbly thankful, and to improve these liberties

to the praise of the Giver, and to the peace and welfare of

the town and colony, without our own private ends. I thought

it my duty, to present you with this my impartial testimony,

and answer to a paper sent you the other day from my

brother,—"That it is blood-guiltiness, and against the rule of

the gospel, to execute judgment upon transgressors, against

the private or public weal." That ever I should speak or write

a tittle that tends to such an infinite liberty of conscience,

is a mistake; and which I have ever disclaimed and abhorred.

To prevent such mistakes, I at present shall only propose this

case.—There goes many a ship to sea, with many a hundred souls

in one ship, whose weal and wo is common; and is a true

picture of a commonwealth, or an human combination, or

society. It hath fallen out sometimes, that both Papists and

Protestants, Jews and Turks, may be embarked into one ship.

Upon which supposal, I do affirm, that all the liberty of

conscience that ever I pleaded for, turns upon these two

hinges, that none of the Papists, Protestants, Jews, or Turks,

be forced to come to the ship's prayers or worship; nor,

secondly, compelled from their own particular prayers or

worship, if they practise any. I further add, that I never

denied that, notwithstanding this liberty, the commander of

the ship ought to command the ship's course; yea, and also to

command that justice, peace, and sobriety, be kept and

practised, both among the seamen and all the passengers. If

any seamen refuse to perform their service, or passengers to

pay their freight;—if any refuse to help in person or purse,

towards the common charges, or defence;—if any refuse to obey

the common laws and orders of the ship, concerning their

common peace and preservation;—if any shall mutiny and rise up

against their commanders, and officers;—if any shall preach or

write, that there ought to be no commanders, nor officers,

because all are equal in Christ, therefore no masters, nor

officers, no laws, nor orders, no corrections nor

punishments—I say I never denied, but in such cases, whatever

is pretended, the commander or commanders may judge, resist,

compel, and punish such transgressors, according to their

deserts and merits. This, if seriously and honestly minded,

may, if it so please the Father of lights, let in some light,

to such as willingly shut not their eyes. I remain, studious

of our common peace and liberty,—Roger Williams.' This

religious liberty was not only asserted in words, but

uniformly adhered to and practised; for in the year. 1656,

soon after the Quakers made their first appearance in New

England, and at which most of these colonies were greatly

alarmed and offended;. Those at that time called the four

united colonies, which were the Massachusetts, Plymouth,

Connecticut, and New Haven, wrote to this colony, to join with

them in taking effectual methods to suppress them, and prevent

their pernicious doctrines being spread and propagated in the

country.—To this request the Assembly of this colony gave the

following worthy answer; 'We shall strictly adhere to the

foundation principle on which this colony was first settled;.

to wit, that every man who submits peaceably to the civil

authority, may peaceably worship God according to the dictates

of his own conscience, without molestation.' And not to the

people of the neighbouring governments only, was this

principle owned; but it was asserted in their applications to

the ruling powers in the mother country; for in the year 1659,

in an address of this colony to Richard Cromwell, then lord

protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland, there is this

paragraph,—'May it please your highness to know, that this

poor colony of Providence Plantations, mostly consists of a

birth and breeding of the providence of the Most High.—We

being an outcast people, formerly from our mother nation, in

the bishops' days; and since from the rest of the New English

over-zealous colonies: Our frame being much like the present

frame and constitution of our dearest mother England; bearing

with the several judgments, and consciences, each of other, in

all the towns of our colony.—The which our neighbour colonies

do not; which is the only cause of their great offence against

us.' But as every human felicity has some attendant

misfortune, so the people's enjoyment of very great liberty,

hath ever been found to produce some disorders, factions, and

parties amongst them. … It must be confessed, the historians

and ministers of the neighbouring colonies, in all their

writings for a long time, represented the inhabitants of this

colony as a company of people who lived without any order, and

quite regardless of all religion; and this, principally,

because they allowed an unlimited liberty of conscience, which

was then interpreted to be profane licentiousness, as though

religion could not subsist without the support of human laws,

and Christians must cease to be so, if they suffered any of

different sentiments to live in the same country with them.

Nor is it to be wondered at, if many among them that first

came hither, being tinctured with the same bitter spirit,

should create much disturbance; nor that others, when got

clear of the fear of censure and punishment should relax too

much, and behave as though they were become indifferent about

religion itself. With people of both these characters, the

fathers of this colony had to contend. …In this age it seemed

to be doubted whether a civil government could be kept up and

supported without some particular mode of religion was

established by its laws, and guarded by penalties and tests:

And for determining this doubt, by an actual trial, appears to

have been the principal motive with King Charles the Second,

for granting free liberty of conscience to the people of this

colony, by his charter of 1663,—in which he makes use of these

words: 'That they might hold forth a lively experiment, that a

most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be

maintained, and that amongst our English subjects, with a full

liberty in religious concernments. And that true piety,

rightly grounded on gospel principles, will give the best and

greatest security to sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts

of men the strongest obligations to true loyalty.'"

Stephen Hopkins,

Historical Account of the Planting and Growth of Providence

(Massachusetts Historical Society Collections,

2d Series, volume 9).

ALSO IN:

S. G. Arnold,

History of Rhode Island,

volume 1, chapter 4.

Records of the Colony of Rhode Island

and Providence Plantations,

volume 1.

{2641}

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1639.

The first Baptist Church.

"There can be little doubt, as to what were the religious

tenets of the first settlers of Providence. At the time of

their removal here, they were members of Plymouth and

Massachusetts churches. Those churches, as it respects

government, were Independent or Congregational, in doctrine,

moderately Calvinistic and with regard to ceremonies,

Pedobaptists. The settlers of Providence, did not cease to be

members of those churches, by their removal, nor did the fact

of their being members, constitute them a church, after it.

They could not form themselves into a church of the faith and

order of the Plymouth and Massachusetts churches, until

dismissed from them; and after such dismissal, some covenant

or agreement among themselves was necessary in order to effect

it. That they met for public worship is beyond a doubt; but

such meetings, though frequent and regular, would not make

them a church. Among the first thirteen, were two ordained

ministers, Roger Williams and Thomas James. That they preached

to the settlers is quite probable, but there is no evidence of

any intent to form a church, previous to March 1689. When they

did attempt it, they had ceased to be Pedobaptists, for

Ezekiel Holyman, a layman, had baptized Roger Williams, by

immersion, and Mr. Williams afterwards had baptized Mr.

Holyman and several others of the company, in the same manner.

By this act they disowned the churches of which they had been

members, and for this, they were soon excommunicated, by those

churches. After being thus baptized, they formed a church and

called Mr. Williams to be their pastor. This was the first

church gathered in Providence. It has continued to the present

day, and is now known as The First Baptist Church. … Mr.

Williams held the pastoral office about four years, and then

resigned the same. Mr. Holyman was his colleague. … A letter

of Richard Scott, appended to 'A New England Fire-Brand

Quenched,' and published about 1678, states that Mr. Williams

left the Baptists and turned Seeker, a few months after he was

baptized. Mr. Scott was a member of the Baptist church for

some time, but at the date of this letter, had united with the

Friends. According to Mr. Williams' new views as a Seeker,

there was no regularly constituted church on earth, nor any

person authorized to administer any church ordinance, nor

could there be, until new apostles should be sent by the Great

Head of the church, for whose coming he was seeking. He was

not alone in these opinions. Many in his day believed that the

ministry and ordinances of the christian church were

irretrievably lost, during the papal usurpation. It has been

supposed, by some, that Mr. Williams held these opinions while

in Massachusetts, and that this was the reason he denied the

church of England to be a true church, and withdrew from his

connexion with the Salem church. Aside from the statement of

Mr. Scott, above quoted, that Mr. Williams turned Seeker,

after he joined the Baptists and walked with them some months,

the supposition is shown to be groundless, by his

administering baptism in Providence, as before stated, and

joining with the first Baptist church there. These acts he

could not have performed, had he then been a Seeker."

W. R. Staples,

Annals of the town of Providence,

chapter 7.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1641-1647.

Samuel Gorton and the Warwick Plantation.

"Among the supporters of Mrs. Hutchinson, after her arrival at

Aquedneck, was a sincere and courageous, but incoherent and

crotchetty man named Samuel Gorton. In the denunciatory

language of that day he was called a 'proud and pestilent

seducer,' or, fas the modern newspaper would say, a 'crank.'

It is well to make due allowances for the prejudice so

conspicuous in the accounts given by his enemies, who felt

obliged to justify their harsh treatment of him. But we have

also his own writings from which to form an opinion as to his

character and views. … Himself a London clothier, and thanking

God that he had not been brought up in 'the schools of human

learning,' he set up as a preacher without ordination, and

styled himself 'professor of the mysteries of Christ.' He

seems to have cherished that doctrine of private inspiration

which the Puritans especially abhorred. … Gorton's temperament

was such as to keep him always in an atmosphere of strife.

Other heresiarchs suffered persecution in Massachusetts, but

Gorton was in hot water everywhere. His arrival in any

community was the signal for an immediate disturbance of the

peace. His troubles began in Plymouth, where the wife of the

pastor preferred his teachings to those of her husband. In

1638 he fled to Aquedneck, where his first achievement was a

schism among Mrs. Hutchinson's followers, which ended in some

staying to found the town of Portsmouth while others went away

to found Newport. Presently Portsmouth found him intolerable,

flogged and banished him, and after his departure was able to

make up its quarrel with Newport. He next made his way with a

few followers to Pawtuxet, within the jurisdiction of

Providence, and now it is the broad-minded and gentle Roger

Williams who complains of his 'bewitching and madding poor

Providence.' … Williams disapproved of Gorton, but was true to

his principles of toleration and would not take part in any

attempt to silence him. But in 1641 we find thirteen leading

citizens of Providence, headed by William Arnold, sending a

memorial to Boston, asking for assistance and counsel in

regard to this disturber of the peace. How was Massachusetts

to treat such an appeal? She could not presume to meddle with

the affair unless she could have permanent jurisdiction over

Pawtuxet; otherwise she was a mere intruder. … Whatever might

be the abstract merits of Gorton's opinions, his conduct was

politically dangerous; and accordingly the jurisdiction over

Pawtuxet was formally conceded to Massachusetts.

{2642}

Thereupon that colony, assuming jurisdiction, summoned Gorton

and his men to Boston, to prove their title to the lands they

occupied. They of course regarded the summons as a flagrant

usurpation of authority, and instead of obeying it they

withdrew to Shawomet [Warwick], on the western shore of

Narragansett bay, where they bought a tract of land from the

principal sachem of the Narragansetts, Miantonomo."

J. Fiske,

The Beginnings of New England,

pages 163-168.

"Soon afterward, by the surrender to Massachusetts of a

subordinate Indian chief, who claimed the territory …

purchased by Gorton of Miantonomi [or Miantonomo], that

Government made a demand of jurisdiction there also; and as

Gorton refused their summons to appear at Boston,

Massachusetts sent soldiers, and captured the inhabitants in

their homes, took them to Boston, tried them, and sentenced

the greater part of them to imprisonment for blasphemous

language to the Massachusetts authorities. They were finally

liberated, and banished; and as Warwick was included in the

forbidden territory, they went to Rhode Island. Gorton and two

of his friends soon afterward went to England." Subsequently,

when, in 1647, the government of Providence Plantations was

organized under the charter which Roger Williams had procured

in England in 1644, "Warwick, whither Gorton and his followers

had now returned, though not named in the charter, was

admitted to its privileges."

C. Deane,

New England

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 3, chapter 9).

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1651-1652.

Coddington's usurpation.

Second mission of Roger Williams to England.

Restoration of the Charter.

First enactment against Slavery.

In 1651, William Coddington, who had been chosen President

some time before, but who had gone to England without legally

entering the office, succeeded by some means in obtaining from

the Council of State a commission which appointed him governor

of Rhode Island and Connecticut for life, with a council of

six to assist him in the government. This apparently annulled

the charter of the colony. Again the colony appealed to Roger

Williams to plead its cause in England and again he crossed

the ocean, "obtaining a hard-wrung leave to embark at Boston.

… In the same ship went John Clarke, as agent for the Island

towns, to ask for the revocation of Coddington's commission.

On the success of their application hung the fate of the

Colony. Meanwhile the Island towns submitted silently to

Coddington's usurpation, and the main-land towns continued to

govern themselves by their old laws, and meet and deliberate

as they had done before in their General Assembly. It was in

the midst of these dangers and dissensions that on the 19th of

May, in the session of 1652, it was 'enacted and ordered …

that no black mankind or white being forced by covenant, bond

or otherwise shall be held to service longer than ten years,'

and that 'that man that will not let them go free, or shall

sell them any else where to that end that they may be enslaved

to others for a longer time, hee or they shall forfeit to the

Colonie forty pounds.' This was the first legislation

concerning slavery on this continent. If forty pounds should

seem a small penalty, let us remember that the price of a

slave was but twenty. If it should be objected that the act

was imperfectly enforced, let us remember how honorable a

thing it is to have been the first to solemn]y recognize a

great principle. Soul liberty had borne her first fruits. …

Welcome tidings came in September, and still more welcome in

October. Williams and Clarke … had obtained, first, permission

for the colony to act under the charter until the final

decision of the controversy, and a few weeks later the

revocation of Coddington's commission. The charter was fully

restored."

G. W. Greene,

Short History of Rhode Island,

chapter 6.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1656.

Refusal to join in the persecution of Quakers.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.

The Charter from Charles II,

and the boundary conflicts with Connecticut.

"At its first meeting after the King [Charles II.] came to

enjoy his own again, the government of Rhode Island caused him

to be proclaimed, and commissioned Clarke [agent of the colony

in England] to prosecute its interests at court, which he

accordingly proceeded to do. … He was intrusted with his suit

about a year before Winthrop's arrival in England; but

Winthrop [the younger, who went to England on behalf of

Connecticut] had been there several months, attending to his

business, before he heard anything of the designs of Clarke.

His charter of Connecticut had passed through the preliminary

forms, and was awaiting the great seal, when it was arrested

in consequence of representations made by the agent from Rhode

Island. … Winthrop, in his new charter, had used the words

'bounded on the east by the Narrogancett River, commonly

called Narrogancett Bay, where the said river falleth into the

sea.' To this identity between Narragansett River and

Narragansett Bay Clarke objected, as will be presently

explained. A third party was interested in the settlement of

the eastern boundary of Connecticut. This was the Atherton

Company, so called from Humphrey Atherton of Dorchester, one

of the partners. They had bought of the natives a tract of

land on the western side of Narragansett Bay; and when they

heard that Connecticut was soliciting a charter, they

naturally desired that their property should be placed under

the government of that colony, rather than under the unstable

government of Rhode Island. Winthrop, who was himself one of

the associates, wrote from London that the arrangement he had

made accorded with their wish. Rhode Island, however,

maintained that the lands of the Atherton purchase belonged to

her jurisdiction. … When Winthrop thought that he had secured

for Connecticut a territory extending eastward to Narragansett

Bay, Clarke had obtained for Rhode Island the promise of a

charter which pushed its boundary westward to the Paucatuck

River, so as to include in the latter colony a tract 25 miles

wide, and extending in length from the southern border of

Massachusetts to the sea. The interference of the charters

with each other endangered both. The agents entered into a

negotiation which issued, after several months, in a

composition effected by the award of four arbiters. Two

articles of it were material. One was that Paucatuck River

should 'be the certain bounds between the two colonies, which

said river should, for the future, be also called, alias,

Narrogansett, or Narrogansett River.' The other allowed the

Atherton Company to choose 'to which of those colonies they

would belong.' The undesirable consequences of a dispute were

thus averted; though to say that 'Paucatuck River' meant

Narragansett Bay was much the same as to give to the Thames

the name of the British Channel; and if the agreement between

the agents should stand, Connecticut would be sadly curtailed

of her domain."

{2643}

On the 8th of July, 1663, "Clarke's charter, which the King

probably did not know that he had been contradicting, passed

the seals. It created 'a body corporate and politic, in fact

and name, by the name of the Governor and Company of the

English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in

New England in America.' Similar to the charter of Connecticut

in grants marked by a liberality hitherto unexampled, it added

to them the extraordinary provision that 'no person within the

said colony, at any time thereafter, should be anywise

molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any

difference of opinion in matters of religion which did not

actually disturb the civil peace of the said colony.' …

Matters were now all ripe for a conflict of jurisdiction

between Rhode Island and Connecticut. Using the privilege of

choice secured by the compact between the agents, the Atherton

Company elected to place their lands, including a settlement

known by the name of Wickford, under the government of the

latter colony. Rhode Island enacted that all persons presuming

to settle there without her leave should be 'taken and

imprisoned for such their contempt.' … This proved to be the

beginning of a series of provocations and reprisals between

the inharmonious neighbors."

J. G. Palfrey,

Compendious History of New England,

book 2, chapter 12 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

S. S. Rider,

Book Notes,

volume 10, pages 109-110.

S. G. Arnold,

History of Rhode Island,

chapter 8 (volume 1).

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1674-1678.

King Philip's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1683.

Death of Roger Williams.

Estimates of his character.

Roger Williams, having given all to his colony, seems to have

died without property, dependent upon his children. His son,

Daniel, in a letter written in 1710, says: "He never gave me

but about three acres of land, and but a little afore he

deceased. It looked hard, that out of so much at his

disposing, that I should have so little, and he so little. …

If a covetous man had that opportunity as he had, most of this

town would have been his tenants." "Of the immediate cause and

exact time of Mr. Williams' death we are not informed. It is

certain, however, that he died at some time between January

16, 1682-3, and May 10, 1683. … He was in the 84th year of his

age."

J. D. Knowles,

Memoir of Roger Williams,

pages 111 and 354.

"We call those great who have devoted their lives to some

noble cause, and have thereby influenced for the better the

course of events. Measured by that standard, Roger Williams

deserves a high niche in the temple of fame, alongside of the

greatest reformers who mark epochs in the world's history. He

was not the first to discover the principles of religious

liberty, but he was the first to proclaim them in all their

plenitude, and to found and build up a political community

with those principles as the basis of its organization. The

influence and effect of his 'lively experiment' of religious

liberty and democratic government upon the political system of

our country, and throughout the civilized world, are admirably

stated by Professor Gervinus in his 'Introduction to the

History of the Nineteenth Century.' He says: 'Roger Williams

founded in 1636 a small new society in Rhode Island, upon the

principles of entire liberty of conscience, and the

uncontrolled power of the majority in secular affairs. The

theories of freedom in Church and State, taught in the schools

of philosophy in Europe, were here brought into practice in

the government of a small community. It was prophesied that

the democratic attempts to obtain universal suffrage, a

general elective franchise, annual parliaments, entire

religious freedom, and the Miltonian right of schism would be

of short duration. But these institutions have not only

maintained themselves here, but have spread over the whole

union. They have superseded the aristocratic commencements of

Carolina and of New York, the high-church party in Virginia,

the theocracy in Massachusetts, and the monarchy throughout

America; they have given laws to one quarter of the globe,

and, dreaded for their moral influence, they stand in the

background of every democratic struggle in Europe.'"

O. S. Straus,

Roger Williams,

page 233.

"Roger Williams, as all know, was the prophet of complete

religious toleration in America. … That as no man he was

'conscientiously contentious' I should naturally be among the

last to deny; most men who contribute materially towards

bringing about great changes, religious or moral, are

'conscientiously contentious.' Were they not so they would not

accomplish the work they are here to do."

C. F. Adams,

Massachusetts: its Historians and its History,

page 25.

"The world, having at last nearly caught up with him, seems

ready to vote—though with a peculiarly respectable minority in

opposition—that Roger Williams was after all a great man, one

of the true heroes, seers, world–movers, of these latter ages.

Perhaps one explanation of the pleasure which we take in now

looking upon him, as he looms up among his contemporaries in

New England, may be that the eye of the observer, rather

fatigued by the monotony of so vast a throng of sages and

saints, all quite immaculate, all equally prim and still in

their Puritan starch and uniform, all equally automatic and

freezing, finds a relief in the easy swing of this man's gait,

the limberness of his personal movement, his escape from the

pasteboard proprieties, his spontaneity, his impetuosity, his

indiscretions, his frank acknowledgments that he really had a

few things yet to learn. Somehow, too, though he sorely vexed

the souls of the judicious in his time, and evoked from them

words of dreadful reprehension, the best of them loved him;

for indeed this headstrong, measureless man, with his flashes

of Welsh fire, was in the grain of him a noble fellow; 'a

man,' as Edward Winslow said, 'lovely in his carriage.' … From

his early manhood even down to his late old age. Roger

Williams stands in New England a mighty and benignant form,

always pleading for some magnanimous idea, some tender

charity, the rectification of some wrong, the exercise of some

sort of forbearance toward men's bodies or souls. It was one

of his vexatious peculiarities, that he could do nothing by

halves—even in logic. Having established his major and his

minor premises, he utterly lacked the accommodating judgment

which would have enabled him to stop there and go no further

whenever it seemed that the concluding member of his syllogism

was likely to annoy the brethren. To this frailty in his

organization is due the fact that he often seemed to his

contemporaries an impracticable person, presumptuous,

turbulent, even seditious."

M. C. Tyler,

History of American Literature,

chapter 9, section 4.

{2644}

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1686.

The consolidation of New England

under Governor-general Andros.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1689-1701.

The charter government reinstated and confirmed.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1701.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1690.

King William's War.

The first Colonial Congress.

See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690;

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1747.

The founding of the Redwood Library.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1754.

The Colonial Congress at Albany,

and Franklin's Plan of Union.

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

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1760-1766.

The question of taxation by Parliament.

The Sugar Act.

The Stamp Act and its repeal.

The Declaratory Act.

The Stamp Act Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1764.

The founding of Brown University.

Brown University was founded in 1764, especially in the

interest of the Baptist Church, and with aid from that

denomination in other parts of the country. It was placed

first at Warren, but soon removed to Providence, where it was

named in honor of its chief benefactor, John Brown.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1766-1768.

The Townshend Duties.

The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

RHODE ISLAND: 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.

RHODE ISLAND: 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.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1772.

The destruction of the Gaspe.

The first overt act of the Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1774.

The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,

and the Quebec Act.-

The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1774.

The further introduction of Slaves prohibited.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1774.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1775.-

The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.

Lexington.

Concord.

The country in arms and Boston beleaguered.-

Ticonderoga.

Bunker Hill.

The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1775.

Early naval enterprises in the war.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776

BEGINNING OF THE AMERICAN NAVY.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776.

Allegiance to the king renounced.

State independence declared.

The British occupation.

"The last Colonial Assembly of Rhode Island met on the 1st of

May. On the 4th, two months before the Congressional

Declaration of Independence, it solemnly renounced its

allegiance to the British crown, no longer closing its session

with 'God save the King,' but taking in its stead as

expressive of their new relations, 'God save the United

Colonies.' … The Declaration of Independence by Congress was

received with general satisfaction, and proclaimed with a

national salute and military display. At Providence the King's

arms were burned, and the Legislature assumed its legal title,

'The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.' … From

the 4th of May, 1776, the Declaration of Independence of Rhode

Island, to the battle of Tiverton Heights, on the 29th of

August, 1778, she lived with the enemy at her door, constantly

subject to invasion by land and by water, and seldom giving

her watch-worn inhabitants the luxury of a quiet pillow. … In

November … a British fleet took possession of her waters, a

British army of her principal island. The seat of government

was removed to Providence."

G. W. Greene,

Short History of Rhode Island,

chapters 24-25.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776-1783.

The War of Independence to the end.

Peace with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1778.

Failure of attempts to drive the British from Newport.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1778 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1783-1790.

After the War of Independence.

Paper-money.

Opposition to the Federal Constitution.

Tardy entrance into the Union.

Rhode Island emerged from the war of independence bankrupt.

"The first question was how to replenish the exhausted

treasury. The first answer was that money should be created by

the fiat of Rhode Island authorities. Intercourse with others

was not much thought of. Fiat money would be good at home. So

the paper was issued by order of the Legislature which had

been chosen for that purpose. A 'respectable minority' opposed

the insane measure, but that did not serve to moderate the

insanity. When the credit of the paper began to fall, and

traders would not receive it, laws were passed to enforce its

reception at par. Fines and punishments were enacted for

failure to receive the worthless promises. Starvation, stared

many in the face. Now it was the agricultural class against

the commercial class; and the former party had a large

majority in the state and General Assembly. When dealers

arranged to secure trade outside the state, that they might

not be compelled to handle the local paper currency, it was

prohibited by act. When three judges decided that the law

compelling men to receive this 'money' was unconstitutional,

they were brought before that august General Assembly, and

tried and censured for presuming to say that constitutional

authority was higher than legislative authority. At last,

however, that lesson was learned, and the law was repealed.

Before this excitement had subsided the movement for a new

national Constitution began. But what did Rhode Island want of

a closer bond of union with other states? … She feared the

'bondage' of a centralized government. She had fought for the

respective liberties of the other colonies, as an assistant in

the struggle. She had fought for her own special, individual

liberty as a matter of her own interest.

{2645}

Further her needs were comparatively small as to governmental

machinery, and taxation must be small in proportion; and she

did not wish to be taxed to support a general government. … So

when the call was made for each state to hold a convention to

elect delegates to a Constitutional Convention, Rhode Island

paid not the slightest attention to it. All the other states

sent delegates, but Rhode Island sent none; and the work of

that convention, grand and glorious as it was, was not shared

by her. … The same party that favored inflation, or paper

money, opposed the Constitution; and that party was in the

majority and in power. The General Assembly had been elected

with this very thing in view. Meanwhile the loyal party, which

was found mostly in the cities and commercial centres, did all

in its power to induce the General Assembly to call a

convention; but that body persistently refused. Once it

suggested a vote of the people in their own precincts; but

that method was a failure. As state after state came into the

Union, the Union party, by bonfire, parade, and loud

demonstration, celebrated the event."

G. L. Harney,

How Rhode Island received the Constitution

(New England Magazine, May, 1890).

"The country party was in power, and we have seen that

elsewhere as well as in Rhode Island, it was the rural

population that hated change. The action of the other states

had been closely watched and their objections noted. One thing

strikes a Rhode Islander very peculiarly in regard to the

adoption of the federal constitution. The people were not to

vote directly upon it, but only second-hand through delegates

to a state convention. No amendment to our state constitution,

even at this day, can be adopted without a majority of

three-fifths of all the votes cast, the voting being directly

on the proposition, and a hundred years ago no state was more

democratic in its notions than Rhode Island. Although the

Philadelphia Convention had provided that the federal

constitution should be ratified in the different states by

conventions of delegates elected by the people for that

purpose, upon the call of the General Assembly, yet this did

not accord with the Rhode Island idea, so in February, 1788,

the General Assembly voted to submit the question whether the

constitution of the United States should be adopted, to the

voice of the people to be expressed at the polls on the fourth

Monday in March. The federalists fearing they would be

out-voted, largely abstained from voting, so the vote stood

two hundred and thirty-seven for the constitution, and two

thousand seven hundred and eight against it, there being about

four thousand voters in the state at that time. Governor

Collins, in a letter to the president of Congress written a

few days after the vote was taken, gives the feeling then

existing in Rhode Island, in this wise:—'Although this state

has been singular from her sister states in the mode of

collecting the sentiments of the people upon the constitution,

it was not done with the least design to give any offence to

the respectable body who composed the convention, or a

disregard to the recommendation of Congress, but upon pure

republican principles, founded upon that basis of all

governments originally derived from the body of the people at

large. And although, sir, the majority has been so great

against adopting the Constitution, yet the people, in general,

conceive that it may contain some necessary articles which

could well be added and adapted to the present confederation.

They are sensible that the present powers invested with

Congress are incompetent for the great national government of

the Union, and would heartily acquiesce in granting sufficient

authority to that body to make, exercise and enforce laws

throughout the states, which would tend to regulate commerce

and impose duties and excise, whereby Congress might establish

funds for discharging the public debt.' A majority of the

voters of the country was undoubtedly against the

constitution, but convention after convention was carried by

the superior address and management of its friends. Rhode

Island lacked great men, who favored the constitution, to lead

her. … The requisite number of states having ratified the

constitution, a government was formed under it April 30, 1789.

Our General Assembly, at its September session in that year,

sent a long letter to Congress explanatory of the situation in

Rhode Island, and its importance warrants my quoting a part of

it. 'The people of this state from its first settlement,' ran

the letter, 'have been accustomed and strongly attached to a

democratical form of government. They have viewed in the new

constitution an approach, though perhaps but small, toward

that form of government from which we have lately dissolved

our connection at so much hazard and expense of life and

treasure,—they have seen with pleasure the administration

thereof from the most important trusts downward, committed to

men who have highly merited and in whom the people of the

United States place unbounded confidence. Yet, even on this

circumstance, in itself so fortunate, they have apprehended

danger by way of precedent. Can it be thought strange, then,

that with these impressions, they should wait to see the

proposed system organized and in operation, to see what

further checks and securities would be agreed to and

established by way of amendments, before they would adopt it

as a constitution of government for themselves and their

posterity? … Rhode Island never supposed she could stand

alone. In the words of her General Assembly in the letter just

referred to:—'They know themselves to be a handful,

comparatively viewed.' This letter, as well as a former one I

have quoted from, showed that she, like New Hampshire,

Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and North Carolina, hoped

to see the constitution amended. Like the latter state she

believed in getting the amendments before ratification, and so

strong was the pressure for amendments that at the very first

session of Congress a series of amendments was introduced and

passed for ratification by the states, and Rhode Island,

though the last to adopt the constitution, was the ninth state

to ratify the first ten amendments to that instrument now in

force; ratifying both constitution and amendments at

practically the same time. One can hardly wonder at the

pressure for amendments to the original constitution when the

amendments have to be resorted to for provisions that Congress

shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free use 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; that excessive bail should not be required, nor

excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments

inflicted; for right of trial by jury in civil cases; and for

other highly important provisions."

H. Rogers,

Rhode Island's Adoption of the Federal Constitution

(Rhode Island Historical Society, 1890).

{2646}

The convention which finally accepted for Rhode Island and

ratified the federal constitution met at South Kingston, in

March, 1790, then adjourned to meet at Newport in May, and

there completed its work.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1787, and 1787-1789.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1814.

The Hartford Convention.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1841-1843.

The Dorr Rebellion.

The old Charter replaced by a State Constitution.

The old colonial charter of Rhode Island remained unchanged

until 1843. Its property qualification of the right of

suffrage, and the inequality of representation in the

legislature which became more flagrant as the state and its

cities increased in population, became causes of great popular

discontent. The legislature turned a deaf ear to all demands

for a democratic basis of government, and in 1841 a serious

attempt was made by a resolute party to initiate and carry

through a revision of the constitution independently of

legislative action. A convention was held in October of that

year which framed a constitution and submitted it to the vote

of the people. It was adopted by a majority of the votes cast,

and, in accordance with its provisions, an election was held

the following April. Thomas Wilson Dorr was chosen Governor,

and on the 3d of May, 1842, the new government was formally

inaugurated by its supporters at Providence, where they were

in the majority. "If Mr. Dorr and his officers, supported by

the armed men then at their command, had taken possession of

the State House, Arsenal, and other state property, and acted

as if they had confidence in themselves and their cause, the

result might have been different. This was the course desired

and advocated by Mr. Dorr, but he was overruled by more timid

men, who dared go just far enough to commit themselves,

disturb the peace of the state, and provoke the Law and Order

government, but not far enough to give themselves a chance of

success. While the People's government was being organized in

Providence, the regularly elected General Assembly met on the

same day at Newport, inaugurated the officers as usual, and

passed resolutions declaring that an insurrection existed in

the state and calling on the President for aid, which was …

declined with good advice as to amnesty and concession, which

was not heeded. On the following day a member of the People's

legislature was arrested under the Algerine law, and this

arrest was followed by others, which in turn produced a

plentiful crop of resignations from that body. … At the

request of his legislature, Mr. Dorr now went to Washington

and unsuccessfully tried to secure the aid and countenance of

President Tyler. … During Mr. Dorr's absence, both parties

were pushing on military preparations. … The excitement at

this time was naturally great, though many were still inclined

to ridicule the popular fears, and the wildest rumors filled

the air." On the 18th, the Dorr party made an attempt to gain

possession of the state arsenal, but it failed rather

ignominiously, and Dorr himself fled to Connecticut. One more

abortive effort was made, by others less sagacious than

himself, to rally the supporters of the Constitution, in an

armed camp, formed at Chepachet; but the party in power

confronted it with a much stronger force, and it dispersed

without firing a gun. This was the end of the "rebellion." "In

June, 1842, while the excitement was still at its height, the

General Assembly had called still another convention, which

met in September and … framed the present constitution, making

an extension of the suffrage nearly equivalent to that

demanded by the suffrage party previous to 1841. In November

this constitution was adopted, and in May, 1843, went into

effect with a set of officers chosen from the leaders of the

Landholders' party, the same men who had always ruled the

state. … Early in August, Governor Dorr, who had remained

beyond the reach of the authorities, against his own will and

in deference to the wishes of his friends who still hoped,

issued an address explaining and justifying his course and

announcing that he should soon return to Rhode Island.

Accordingly, on October 31, he returned to Providence, without

concealment, and registered himself at the principal hotel.

Soon afterwards, he was arrested and committed to jail,

without bail, to await trial for treason. … The spirit in

which this trial was conducted does no credit to the fairness

or magnanimity of the court or of the Law and Order party.

Under an unusual provision of the act, although all Dorr's

acts had been done in Providence County, he was tried in

Newport, the most unfriendly county in the state. … Every

point was ruled against Mr. Dorr, and the charge to the jury,

while sound in law, plainly showed the opinion and wishes of

the court. It was promptly followed by a verdict of guilty,

and on this verdict Mr. Dorr, on June 25, just two years from

his joining the camp at Chepachet, was sentenced to

imprisonment for life. … Declining an offer of liberation if

he would take the oath to support the new constitution, Mr.

Dorr went to prison and remained in close confinement until

June, 1845, when an act of amnesty was passed, and he was

released. A great concourse greeted him with cheers at the

prison gates, and escorted him with music and banners to his

father's house, which he had not entered since he began his

contest for the establishment of the People's constitution.

The newspapers all over the country, which favored his cause,

congratulated him and spoke of the event as an act of tardy

justice to a martyr in the cause of freedom and popular

rights. … But Mr. Dorr's active life was over. He had left the

prison broken in health and visibly declining to his end. The

close confinement, dampness, and bad air had shattered his

constitution, and fixed upon him a disease from which he never

recovered. He lived nine years longer but in feeble health and

much suffering."

C. H. Payne,

The Great Dorr War

(New England Magazine, June, 1890).

ALSO IN:

D. King,

Life and Times of Thomas Wilson Dorr.

{2647}

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1888.

Constitutional Amendment.

The qualification of the Suffrage.

"The adoption of the Amendment to the Constitution of Rhode

Island, at the recent election, relating to the elective

franchise, brings to a close a political struggle which began

in earnest in 1819. Hence it has been in progress about 80

years. It makes, or will ultimately make, great political

changes here. … It may not be inopportune, upon the

consummation of so great a political change, to note briefly

some of the steps by which the change came to pass. … The

qualifications of electors was not defined by the charter.

That power was given to the General Assembly. A property

qualification was first introduced into the laws in 1665, and

has ever since been and now is in part retained. It was not at

first specified to be land, but men of competent estates,

without regard to the species of property, 'may be admitted to

be freemen.' Even so accurate a scholar as the late Judge

Potter, has erred in his statement of the case. He says that

by the act of March, 1663-4, all persons were required to be

of 'competent estate.' This is not correct. The proposition

was made two years subsequent to the establishment of the

charter, and was made by the King of England, and sent by him

by commissioners to Rhode Island and was then adopted and

enacted by the General Assembly. … This qualification was made

to depend only on land, by the act of the General Assembly of

February 1723-4, and was a purely Rhode Island measure

(Digest. of Rhode Island, 1730, p. 110). From that time until

the present, covering a period of nearly 165 years, this

qualification has in some measure remained. The value was then

(in 1723) fixed at £100, and practically, it was never

changed. It was raised or lowered from time to time to meet

the fluctuation of paper money. Sometimes it was in 'old

tenor' and sometimes in 'lawful money,' both of which were in

paper, and reckoned usually in pounds, shillings and pence. In

1760, the amount was £40 lawful money. In 1763 'lawful money'

was defined to be gold or silver. After the decimal system

came into use, the mode of reckoning was changed into dollars.

Thus in £40 are 800 shillings, which at six shillings to the

dollar, which was then New England currency, is equal to

$133.33; by the law of 1798 the sum was made $134, and so it

has always since remained, and so under the recent amendment

it remains as a qualification of an elector, who can vote on a

question of expenditure, or the levying of a tax. … There was

practically no change in the qualifications required of a man

to become an elector from the earliest times down to 1842. In

1819 a serious attempt was made to obtain a constitution. A

convention was called and a constitution was framed and

submitted to the people, that is, to the Freemen, for

adoption; but the General Assembly enacted that a majority of

three-fifths should be required for its adoption. This was the

origin of the three-fifth restriction in the present

constitution. It did not enlarge the suffrage; a proposition

to that end received only 3 votes against 61, nor was it of

any general benefit, and it was as well that it failed. The

political disabilities of men were confined to two classes, to

wit: The second son, and other younger sons of freemen, and

those other native American citizens of other states who had

moved into Rhode Island, and therein acquired a residence. To

these two classes, although possessed of abundant personal

property, and upon which the state levied and collected taxes,

and from whom the state exacted military service, the right to

vote was denied, because among their possessions there was no

land. It was taxation without representation, the very

principle upon which the Revolution had been fought. In 1828

more than one-half the taxes paid in Providence were paid by

men who could not vote upon any question. In 1830, in North

Providence, there were 200 freemen and 579 native men, over

twenty-one years, who were disfranchised. … There were in 1832

five men in Pawtucket who had fought the battles for Rhode

Island through the Revolution, but who, possessing no land,

had never been able to vote upon any question. … In another

respect a great wrong was done. It was in the representation

of the towns in the General Assembly. Jamestown had a

representative for every eighteen freemen. Providence,one to

every 275. Smithfield, one in every 206. Fifty dollars in

taxes, in Burrington, had the same power in the representation

that $750 had in Providence. The minority of legal voters

actually controlled the majority. … Such then was the

political condition of men in Rhode Island in 1830. There were

about 8,000 Freemen and about 13,000 unenfranchised Americans

with comparatively no naturalized foreigners among them. The

agitation of the question did not cease. In 1829 it was so

violent that the General Assembly referred the question to a

committee, of which Benjamin Hazard was the head, and which

committee made a report, always since known as Hazard's

Report, which it was supposed would quiet forever the

agitation. But it did not; for five years later a convention

was called and a portion of a constitution framed. The

question of foreigners was first seriously raised by Mr.

Hazard in this report. By this term Mr. Hazard intended not

only citizens of countries outside of the United States, but

he intended American citizens of other American States. He

would deny political rights to a man born in Massachusetts,

who came to dwell in Rhode Island, in the same way that he

would deny them to a Spaniard. A Massachusetts man must live

here one year, the Spaniard three, but both must own land.

These ideas were formulated in the constitution of 1834 as far

as it went. … Fortunately it fell through and by the most

disgraceful of actions; and its history when written will form

one of the darkest chapters in Rhode Island history. This

discrimination against foreign born citizens, that is, men

born in countries outside of the United States, became more

pointed in the proposed Landholders' Constitution of November

1841. A native of the United States could vote on a land

qualification, or if he paid taxes upon other species of

property. A foreigner must own land and he could not vote

otherwise. This Constitution was defeated. Then came the

People's Constitution, (otherwise known as the Dorr

Constitution). It made no restrictions upon foreigners; it

admitted all citizens of the United States upon an equal

footing; negroes were excluded in both documents. This

Constitution never went into effect. Then came the present

Constitution, adopted in September, 1842, by which all the

disabilities complained of were swept away with the exception

of the discrimination in the case of foreigners. By it negroes

were admitted, but foreigners were required to hold lands, as

all the various propositions had provided with the single

exception of the People's Constitution. Now comes the

amendment recently adopted, and parallel with it I have

reproduced the section relating to the same matter from the

People's Constitution:

{2648}

Qualification of Electors under Amendment

(Bourn) to Constitution, adopted April, 1888.

Section 1.

Every male citizen of the United States of the age of 21

years, who has had his residence and home in this State for

two years, and in the town or city in which he may offer to

vote six months next preceding the time of his voting, and

whose name shall be registered in the town or city where he

resides on or before the last day of December, in the year

next preceding to the time of his voting, shall have a right

to vote in the election of all civil officers and on all

questions in all legally organized town or ward meetings:

Provided, that no person shall at any time be allowed to vote

in that election of the City Council of any city, or upon any

proposition to impose a tax, or for the expenditure of money

in any town or city, unless he shall within the year next

preceding have paid a tax assessed upon his property therein,

valued at least at one hundred and thirty-four dollars.

Qualification of Electors under the People's

(Dorr) Constitution, 1842.

Section 1.

Every white male citizen of the United States of the age of

twenty-one years, who has resided in this State for one year,

and in any town, city or district of the same for six months

next preceding the election at which he offers to vote, shall

be an elector of all officers, who are elected, or may

hereafter be made eligible by the people. **

Section 4.

No elector who is not possessed of, and assessed for ratable

property in his own right to the amount of one hundred and

fifty dollars, or, who shall have neglected, or refused to pay

any tax assessed upon him in any town or city or district, for

one year preceding the * * meeting at which he shall offer to

vote, shall be entitled to vote on any question of taxation,

or the expenditure of any public moneys. * *

Section 7.

There shall be a strict registration of all qualified voters *

* * and no person shall be permitted to vote whose name has

not been entered upon the list of voters before the polls are

opened.

It thus appears that the people of Rhode Island have at last

adopted an amendment to the Constitution, more liberal in its

qualifications of electors, than the terms asked by Mr. Dorr,

in 1842. … All that was asked by Mr. Dorr, and even by those

of his party, more radical than himself, has been granted, and

even more. And yet they were denounced with every species of

vile epithet as Free Suffrage Men."

S. S. Rider,

The End of a great Political Struggle in Rhode Island

(Book Notes, volume 5, paged 53-57).

----------RHODE ISLAND: End--------

----------RHODES: Start--------

RHODES.

The island of Rhodes, with its picturesque capital city

identical in name, lying in the Ægean Sea, near the

southwestern corner of Asia Minor, has a place alike notable

in the history of ancient and mediæval times; hardly less of a

place, too, in prehistoric legends and myths. It has been

famed in every age for a climate almost without defect. Among

the ancients its Doric people [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK

COLONIES] were distinguished for their enterprise in commerce,

their rare probity, their courage, their refinement, their

wealth, their liberality to literature and the arts. In the

middle ages all this had disappeared, but the island and the

city had become the seat of the power of the Knights of St.

John—the last outpost of European civilization in the east,

held stoutly against the Turks until 1522. The unsuccessful

siege of Rhodes, B. C. 305 or 304, by Demetrius, the son of

Antigonus, was one of the great events of ancient military

history. It "showed not only the power but the virtues of this

merchant aristocracy. They rebuilt their shattered city with

great magnificence. They used the metal of Demetrius's

abandoned engines for the famous Colossus [see below], a

bronze figure of the sun about 100 feet high, which, however,

was thrown down and broken by the earthquake of B. C. 227, and

lay for centuries near the quays, the wonder of all visitors.

… It is said that the Saracens sold the remnants of this

statue for old metal when they captured Rhodes. … It was

doubtless during the same period that Rhodes perfected that

system of marine mercantile law which was accepted not only by

all Hellenistic states, but acknowledged by the Romans down to

the days of the empire. … We do not know what the detail of

their mercantile system was, except that it was worked by

means of an active police squadron, which put down piracy, or

confined it to shipping outside their confederacy, and also

that their persistent neutrality was only abandoned when their

commercial interests were directly attacked. In every war they

appear as mediators and peace-makers. There is an allusion in

the 'Mercator' of Plautus to young men being sent to learn

business there, as they are now sent to Hamburg or Genoa. The

wealth and culture of the people, together with the stately

plan of their city, gave much incitement and scope to artists

in bronze and marble, as well as to painters, and the names of

a large number of Rhodian artists have survived on the

pedestals of statues long since destroyed. But two famous

works—whether originals or copies seems uncertain—still

attest the genius of the school, the 'Laocoon,' now in the

Vatican, and the 'Toro Farnese.'"

J. P. Mahaffy,

Story of Alexander's Empire,

chapter 20, with foot-note.

RHODES: B. C. 412.

Revolt from Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

RHODES: B. C. 378-357.

In the new Athenian Confederacy.

Revolt and secession.

The Social War.

See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.

RHODES: B. C. 305-304.

Siege by Demetrius Poliorcetes.

One of the memorable sieges of antiquity was that in which the

brave, free citizens of Rhodes held their splendid town (B. C.

305) for one whole year against the utmost efforts of

Demetrius, called Poliorcetes, or "the Besieger," son of

Antigonus, the would-be successor of Alexander (see MACEDONIA:

B. C. 310-301). Demetrius was a remarkable engineer, for his

age, and constructed machinery for the siege which was the

wonder of the Grecian world. His masterpiece was the

Helepolis, or "city-taker," —a wooden tower, 150 feet high,

sheathed with iron, travelling on wheels and moved by the

united strength of 3,400 men. He also assailed the walls of

Rhodes with battering rams, 150 feet long, each driven by

1,000 men. But all his ingenious appliances failed and he was

forced in the end to recognize the independence of the valiant

Rhodians.

C. Torr,

Rhodes in Ancient Times,

pages 13-14, 44.

ALSO IN:

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 59.

{2649}

RHODES: B. C. 191.

Alliance with Rome.

War with Antiochus the Great.

Acquisition of territory in Caria and Lycia.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

RHODES: B. C. 88.

Besieged by Mithridates.

At the beginning of his first war with the Romans, B. C. 88,

Mithridates made a desperate attempt to reduce the city of

Rhodes, which was the faithful ally of Rome. But the Rhodians

repelled all his assaults, by sea and by land, and he was

forced to abandon the siege.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 2, chapter 20.

RHODES: A. D. 1310.

Conquest and occupation by the

Knights Hospitallers of St. John.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1310.

RHODES: A. D. 1480.

Repulse of the Turks.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.

RHODES: A. D. 1522.

Siege and conquest by the Turks.

Surrender and withdrawal of the Knights of St. John.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1522.

----------RHODES: End--------

RHODES, The Colossus of.

"In the elementary works for the instruction of young people,

we find frequent mention of the Colossus of Rhodes. The statue

is always represented with gigantic limbs, each leg resting on

the enormous rocks which face the entrance to the principal

port of the Island of Rhodes; and ships in full sail passed

easily, it is said, between its legs; for, according to Pliny

the ancient, its height was 70 cubits. This Colossus was

reckoned among the seven wonders of the world, the six others

being, as is well known, the hanging gardens of Babylon,

devised by Nitocris, wife of Nebuchadnezzar; the pyramids of

Egypt; the statue of Jupiter Olympus; the Mausoleum of

Halicarnassus; the temple of Diana at Ephesus; and the Pharos

of Alexandria, completely destroyed by an earthquake in 1303.

Nowhere has any authority been found for the assertion that

the Colossus of Rhodes spanned the entrance to the harbour of

the island and admitted the passage of vessels in full sail

between its wide-stretched limbs. … The following is the real

truth concerning the Colossus." After the abandonment of the

siege of Rhodes, in 305, by Demetrius Poliorcetes, "the

Rhodians, inspired by a sentiment of piety, and excited by

fervent gratitude for so signal a proof of the divine favour,

commanded Charès to erect a statue to the honour of their

deity [the sun-god Helios]. An inscription explained that the

expenses of its construction were defrayed out of the sale of

the materials of war left by Demetrius on his retreat from the

island of Rhodes. This statue was erected on an open space of

ground near the great harbour, and near the spot where the

pacha's seraglio now stands; and its fragments, for many years

after its destruction, were seen and admired by travellers."

O. Delepierre,

Historical Difficulties,

chapter 1.

RHODES, Knights of.

During their occupation of the island, the Knights

Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem were commonly called

Knights of Rhodes, as they were afterwards called Knights of

Malta.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

RI, The.

"The Ri or king, who was at the head of the tribe [the

'tuath,' or tribe, in ancient Ireland], held that position not

merely by election, but as the representative in the senior

line of the common ancestor, and had a hereditary claim to

their obedience. As the supreme authority and judge of the

tribe he was the Ri or king. This was his primary function. …

As the leader in war he was the 'Toisech' or Captain."

W. F. Skene,

Celtic Scotland,

volume 3, page 140.

See, also, TUATH, THE.

RIALTO: Made the seat of Venetian government.

See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

RIBBON SOCIETIES.

RIBBONISM.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1820-1826.

RIBCHESTER, Origin of.

See COCCIUM.

RICH MOUNTAIN, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

RICHARD

(of Cornwall), King of Germany, A. D. 1256-1271.

Richard I. (called Cœur de Leon), King of England, 1189-1199.

Richard II. King of England, 1377-1399.

Richard III. King of England, 1483-1485.

RICHBOROUGH, England, Roman origin of.

See RUTUPIÆ.

RICHELIEU, The Ministry of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619, to 1642-1643.

----------RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: Start--------

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: Powhatan's residence.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1781.

Lafayette's defense of the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861.

Made the capital of the Southern Confederacy.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JULY).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862.

McClellan's Peninsular Campaign against the Confederate capital.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA);

(MAY: VIRGINIA);

(JUNE: VIRGINIA);

(JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA);

and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1864 (March).

Kilpatrick's and Dahlgren's Raid.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1864 (May).

Sheridan's Raid to the city lines.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA) SHERIDAN'S RAID.

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL).

Abandonment by the Confederate army and government.

Destructive conflagration.

President Lincoln in the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

----------RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: End--------

RICIMER, Count, and his Roman imperial puppets.

See ROME: A. D. 455-476.

RICOS HOMBRES, of Aragon.

See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH

RIDGEWAY, Battle of.

See CANADA: A.D. 1866-1871.

RIDINGS OF YORKSHIRE.

The name Ridings is a corruption of the word Trithings, or

'Thirds,' which was applied to the large divisions of

Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (England) in the time of the

Angles.

T. P. Taswell-Langmead,

English Constitutional History,

chapter 1, note.

RIEL'S REBELLION.

See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

RIENZI'S REVOLUTION.

See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

{2650}

RIGA: A. D. 1621.

Siege and capture by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

RIGA: A. D. 1700. Unsuccessful siege by the King of Poland.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

"RIGHT," "LEFT," AND "CENTER," The.

In France, and several other continental European countries,

political parties in the legislative bodies are named

according to the positions of the seats which they occupy in

their respective chambers. The extreme conservatives gather at

the right of the chair of the presiding officer, and are

known, accordingly, as "The Right." The extreme radicals

similarly collected on the opposite side of the chamber, are

called "The Left." Usually, there is a moderate wing of each

of these parties which partially detaches itself and is

designated, in one case, "The Right Center," and in the other,

"The Left Center"; while, midway between all these divisions,

there is a party of independents who take the name of "The

Center."

RIGHT OF SEARCH, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.

RIGHTS, Declaration and Bill of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY),

and (OCTOBER).

RIGSDAG, The.

The legislative assembly of Denmark and Sweden.

See

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

and CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

RIGSRET.

See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

RIGVEDA, The.

See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND

CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

RIMINI,

Origin of the city.

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

RIMINI,

The Malatesta family.

See MALATESTA FAMILY.

RIMINI, A. D. 1275.

Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

RIMMON.

"The name of Rimmon, which means pomegranate,' occurs

frequently in the topography of Palestine, and was probably

derived from the culture of this beautiful tree."

J. Kenrick,

Phœnicia,

chapter 2.

RIMNIK, Battle of (1789).

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

RINGGOLD, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

RINGS OF THE AVARS.

See AVARS, RINGS OF THE.

RIOTS, Draft.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863.

RIPON, Lord, The Indian administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.

RIPON, Treaty of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

RIPUARIAN FRANKS, The.

See FRANKS.

RIPUARIANS, Law of the.

"On the death of Clovis, his son, Theodoric, was king of the

eastern Franks; that is to say, of the Ripuarian Franks; he

resided at Metz. To him is generally attributed the

compilation of their law. … According to this tradition, then,

the law of the Ripuarians should be placed between the years

511 and 534. It could not have, like the Salic, the pretension

of ascending to the right-hand bank of the Rhine, and to

ancient Germany. … I am inclined to believe that it was only

under Dagobert I., between the years 628 and 638, that it took

the definite form under which it has reached us."

F. Guizot,

History of Civilization,

volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 10.

RIVOLI, Battle of (1797).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

ROAD OF THE SWANS, The.

See NORMANS: NAME AND ORIGIN.

ROANOKE: A. D. 1585-1590.

The first attempts at English settlement in America.

The lost colony.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586; and 1587-1590.

ROANOKE: A. D. 1862.

Capture by Burnside's Expedition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

ROBE, La Noblesse de la.

See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

ROBERT,

Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1221-1228.

Robert, King of Naples, 1309-1343.

Robert I., King of France, 922-923.

Robert I. (Bruce), King of Scotland, 1306-1329.

Robert II., King of France, 996-1031.

Robert II. (first of the Stuarts), King of Scotland, 1370-1390.

Robert III., King of Scotland, 1390-1406.

ROBERTSON, James, and the early settlement of Tennessee.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772, to 1785-1796.

ROBESPIERRE, and the French Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (AUGUST-OCTOBER),

to 1794 (JULY).

ROBINSON, John, and his Congregation.

See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617;

and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

ROBOGDII, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

ROCCA SECCA, Battle of (1411).

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

ROCHAMBEAU,

Count de, and the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1780 (JULY); 1781 (JANUARY-MAY);

1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).

ROCHE-ABEILLE, La, Battle of (1569).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

----------ROCHELLE: Start--------

ROCHELLE:

Early Importance.

Expulsion of the English.

Grant of Municipal independence.

"Rochelle had always been one of the first commercial places

of France; it was well known to the English under the name of

the White Town, as they called it, from its appearance when

the sun shone and was reflected from its rocky coasts. It was

also much frequented by the Netherlanders. … The town had …

enjoyed extraordinary municipal franchises ever since the

period of the English wars.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360, and 1360-1380.

It had by its own unaided power revolted from the English

dominion [1372], for which Charles V., in his customary

manner, conferred upon the townsfolk valuable

privileges,—among others, that of independent jurisdiction in

the town and its liberties. The design of Henry II. to erect a

citadel within their walls they had been enabled fortunately

to prevent, through the favour of the Chatillons and the

Moutmorencies. Rochelle exhibited Protestant sympathies at an

early period."

L. von Ranke,

Civil Wars and Monarchy if France,

in the 16th and 17th Centuries,

chapter 14.

{2651}

ALSO IN:

H. M. Baird,

History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France,

volume 2, page 270-273.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1568.

Becomes the headquarters of the Huguenots.

Arrival of the Queen of Navarre.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1573.

Siege and successful defense.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1572-1573.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1620-1622.

Huguenot revolt in support of Navarre and Bearn.

The unfavorable Peace of Montpelier.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1625-1626.

Renewed revolt.

Second treaty of Montpelier.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1627-1628.

Revolt in alliance with England.

Siege and surrender.

Richelieu's dyke.

The decay of the city.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.

----------ROCHELLE: End--------

ROCHESTER, England:

Origin.

One of two Roman towns in Britain called Durobrivæ is

identified in site with the modern city of Rochester. It

derived its Saxon name—originally "Hrofescester"—"according to

Bede, from one of its early rulers or prefects named Hrof,

who, for some circumstance or other, had probably gained

greater notoriety than most persons of his class and rank."

T. Wright,

Celt, Roman and Saxon,

chapters 5 and 16.

ROCKINGHAM MINISTRIES, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768: and 1782-1783.

ROCROI: A. D. 1643.

Siege and Battle.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

ROCROI: A. D. 1653.

Siege by Condé in the Spanish service.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

ROCROI: A. D. 1659.

Recovered by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

RODNEY'S NAVAL VICTORY.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

RODOALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 654-659.

RODOLPH.

See RUDOLPH.

ROESKILDE, Treaty of (1658).

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

ROGATION.

With reference to the legislation of the Romans, "he word

Rogatio is frequently used to denote a Bill proposed to the

people. … After a Rogatio was passed it became a Lex; but in

practice Rogatio and Lex were used as convertible terms, just

as Bill and Law are by ourselves."

W. Ramsay,

Manual of Roman Antiquity,

chapter 4.

ROGER I.,

Count of Sicily, A. D. 1072-1101.

ROGER II.,

Count of Sicily, 1106-1129;

King of Naples and Sicily, 1129-1154.

ROGUE RIVER INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

ROHAN, Cardinal-Prince de, and the Diamond Necklace.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1784-1785.

ROHILLA WAR, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

ROIS FAINÉANS.

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

ROLAND, Madame, and the Girondists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),

to 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

ROLAND, The great Bell.

See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

ROLICA, Battle of (1808).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

ROLLO, Duke,

The conquest of Normandy by.

See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911;

and NORMANDY: A. D. 911-1000.

ROLLS OF THE PIPE.

ROLLS OF THE CHANCERY.

See EXCHEQUER.

ROMA QUADRATA.

See PALATINE HILL.

ROMAGNA.

The old exarchate of Ravenna, "as having been the chief seat

of the later Imperial power in Italy, got the name of Romania,

Romandiola, or Romagna."

E. A. Freeman,

Historical Geography of Europe,

pages 234 and 238.

ROMAGNANO, Battle of (1524).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

ROMAN AUGURS.

See AUGURS.

ROMAN CALENDAR.

ROMAN YEAR.

See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

ROMAN CAMPAGNA, OR CAMPANIA.

See CAMPAGNA.

ROMAN CATACOMBS, The.

See CATACOMBS.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

See PAPACY,

and CATHOLICS.

----------ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: Start--------

ROMAN CITIZENSHIP:

Under the Republic.

See CIVES ROMANI;

also, QUIRITES.

ROMAN CITIZENSHIP:

Under the Empire.

"While Pompeius, Cæsar, Augustus and others extended the Latin

rights to many provincial communities, they were careful to

give the full Roman qualification [the 'privileges of

Quiritary proprietorship, which gave not merely the empty

title of the suffrage, but the precious immunity from tribute

or land-tax'] to persons only. Of such persons, indeed, large

numbers were admitted to citizenship by the emperors. The full

rights of Rome were conferred on the Transalpine Gauls by

Claudius, and the Latin rights on the Spaniards by Vespasian;

but it was with much reserve that any portions of territory

beyond Italy were enfranchised, and rendered Italic or

Quiritary soil, and thus endowed with a special immunity. …

The earlier emperors had, indeed, exercised a jealous reserve

in popularizing the Roman privileges; but from Claudius

downwards they seem to have vied with one another in the

facility with which they conferred them as a boon, or imposed

them as a burden. … The practice of purchasing Civitas was

undoubtedly common under Claudius. … Neither Hadrian, as

hastily affirmed by St. Chrysostom, nor his next successor, as

has been inferred from a confusion of names, was the author of

the decree by which the Roman franchise was finally

communicated to all the subjects of the empire. Whatever the

progress of enfranchisement may have been, this famous

consummation was not effected till fifty years after our

present date, by the act of Autoninus Caracalla [A. D.

211-217]."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 67, with foot-note.

----------ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: End--------

ROMAN CITY FESTIVAL.

The "Roman chief festival or festival of the city (ludi

maximi, Romani) … was an extraordinary thanksgiving festival

celebrated in honour of the Capitoline Jupiter and the gods

dwelling along with him, ordinarily in pursuance of a vow made

by the general before battle, and therefore usually observed

on the return home of the burgess-force in autumn. A festal

procession proceeded toward the Circus staked off between the

Palatine and Aventine. … In each species of contest there was

but one competition, and that between not more that two

competitors."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 1, chapter 15.

{2652}

ROMAN COINAGE AND MONEY.

See MONEY AND BANKING: ROME.

ROMAN COMITIA.

See COMITIA CENTURIATA,

AND COMITIA CURIATA.

ROMAN CONSULS.

See CONSUL.

ROMAN CONTIONES.

See CONTIONES.

ROMAN DECEMVIRS.

See DECEMVIRS.

ROMAN EDUCATION.

See EDUCATION, ROMAN.

----------ROMAN EMPIRE: Start--------

ROMAN EMPIRE: B. C. 31.

Its beginning, and after.

See ROME: B. C. 31, and after.

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 476.

Interruption of the line of Emperors in the West.

See ROME: A. D. 455-476.

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 800.

Charlemagne's restoration of the Western Empire.

See GERMANY: A. D. 800.

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 843-951.

Dissolution of the Carolingian fabric.

See ITALY: A. D. 843-951.

----------ROMAN EMPIRE: End--------

----------ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: Start--------

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.

Founded by Otto the Great.

Later Origin of the Name.

"The Holy Roman Empire, taking the name in the sense which it

commonly bore in later centuries, as denoting the sovereignty

of Germany and Italy vested in a Germanic prince, is the

creation of Otto the Great. Substantially, it is true, as well

as technically, it was a prolongation of the Empire of Charles

[Charlemagne]; and it rested (as will be shewn in the sequel)

upon ideas essentially the same as those which brought about

the coronation of A. D. 800. … This restored Empire, which

professed itself a continuation of the Carolingian, was in

many respects different. It was less wide, including, if we

reckon strictly, only Germany proper and two-thirds of Italy;

or counting in subject but separate kingdoms, Burgundy,

Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, Denmark, perhaps Hungary. Its

character was less ecclesiastical. Otto exalted indeed the

spiritual potentates of his realm, and was earnest in

spreading Christianity among the heathen: he was master of the

Pope and De·fender of the Holy Roman Church. But religion held

a less important place in his mind and his administration. …

It was also less Roman. … Under him the Germans became not

only a united nation, but were at once raised on a pinnacle

among European peoples as the imperial race, the possessors of

Rome and Rome's authority. While the political connection with

Italy stirred their spirit, it brought with it a knowledge and

culture hitherto unknown." It was not until the reign of

Frederick Barbarossa that the epithet "Holy" was prefixed to

the title of the revived Roman Empire. "Of its earlier origin,

under Conrad II (the Salic), which some have supposed, there

is no documentary trace, though there is also no proof to the

contrary. So far as is known it occurs first in the famous

Privilege of Austria, granted by Frederick in the fourth year

of his reign, the second of his empire. … Used occasionally by

Henry VI and Frederick II, it is more frequent under their

successors. William, Richard, Rudolf, till after Charles IV's

time it becomes habitual, for the last few centuries

indispensable. Regarding the origin of so singular a title

many theories have been advanced. … We need not, however, be

in any great doubt as to its true meaning and purport. … Ever

since Hildebrand had claimed for the priesthood exclusive

sanctity and supreme jurisdiction, the papal party had not

ceased to speak of the civil power as being, compared with

that of their own chief, merely secular, earthly, profane. It

may be conjectured that, to meet this reproach, no less

injurious than insulting, Frederick or his advisers began to

use in public documents the expression 'Holy Empire'; thereby

wishing to assert the divine institution and religious duties

of the office he held. … It is almost superfluous to observe

that the beginning of the title 'Holy' has nothing to do with

the beginning of the Empire itself. Essentially and

substantially, the Holy Roman Empire was, as has been shewn

already, the creation of Charles the Great. Looking at it more

technically, as the monarchy, not of the whole West, like that

of Charles, but of Germany and Italy, with a claim, which was

never more than a claim, to universal sovereignty, its

beginning is fixed by most of the German writers, whose

practice has been followed in the text, at the coronation of

Otto the Great. But the title was at least one, and probably

two centuries later."

J. Bryce,

The Holy Roman Empire,

chapters 6, 9 and 12, with foot-note.

Otto, or Otho, the Great, the second of the Saxon line of

Germanic kings, crossed the Alps and made himself master of

the distracted kingdom of Italy in 951, on the invitation of

John XII, who desired his assistance against the reigning king

of Italy, Berengar II, and who offered him the imperial

coronation (there had been no acknowledged emperor for forty

years) as his reward. He easily reduced Berengar to vassalage,

and, after receiving the imperial crown from Pope John, he did

not scruple to depose that licentious and turbulent pontiff,

by the voice of a synod which he convoked in St. Peter's, and

to seat another in his place. Three revolts in the city of

Rome, which were stirred up by the deposed pope, the emperor

suppressed with a heavy hand, and he took away from the city

all its forms of republican liberty, entrusting the government

to the pope as his viceroy.

J. Bryce,

The Holy Roman Empire,

chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 3, part 1.

See, also,

ITALY: A. D. 843-951;

GERMANY: A. D. 936-973;

and ROMANS: KING OF THE.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 12th Century.

Rise of the College of Electors.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 13th Century.

Its degradation after the fall of the Hohenstaufen.

The Great Interregnum.

Election of Rudolf of Hapsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 15th Century.

Its character.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 1806.

Its end.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

----------ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: End--------

ROMAN EQUESTRIAN ORDER.

See EQUESTRIAN ORDER.

ROMAN FAMILY AND PERSONAL NAMES.

See GENS.

ROMAN FETIALES.

See FETIALES.

ROMAN INDICTION.

See INDICTIONS.

{2653}

ROMAN LAW, and its lasting influence.

"Roman Law as taught in the writings of the Roman jurists is a

science, a science of great perfection, a science so perfect as

to almost approach the harmonious finish of art. But Roman Law

is not only a marvellous system of the legal customs and

concepts of the Romans; its value is not restricted to

students of Roman Law; it has an absolute value for students

of any law whatever. In other words the Romans outstripped all

other nations, both ancient and modern, in the scientific

construction of legal problems. They alone offer that curious

example of one nation's totally eclipsing the scientific

achievements of all other nations. By law, however, we here

understand not all branches of law, as constitutional,

criminal, pontifical, and private law, together with

jurisprudence. By Roman Law we mean exclusively Roman Private

Law. The writings of Roman jurists on constitutional and

criminal law have been superseded and surpassed by the

writings of more modern jurists. Their writings on questions

of Private Law, on the other hand, occupy a unique place; they

are, to the present day, considered as the inexhaustible

fountain-head, and the inimitable pattern of the science of

Private Law. … A Roman lawyer, and even a modern French or

German lawyer—French and German Private Law being essentially

Roman Law—were, and are, never obliged to ransack whole

libraries of precedents to find the law covering a given case.

They approach a case in the manner of a physician: carefully

informing themselves of the facts underlying the case, and

then eliciting the legal spark by means of close meditation on

the given data according to the general principles of their

science. The Corpus juris civilis is one stout volume. This

one volume has sufficed to cover billions of cases during more

than thirteen centuries. The principles laid down in this

volume will afford ready help in almost every case of Private

Law, because they emanate from Private Law alone, and have no

tincture of non–legal elements."

E. Reich,

Graeco-Roman Institutions,

pages 3-13.

"'The Responsa prudentum,' or answers of the learned in the

law, consisted of explanations of authoritative written

documents. It was assumed that the written law was binding,

but the responses practically modified and even overruled it.

A great variety of rules was thus supposed to be educed from

the Twelve Tables [see ROME: B. C. 451-449], which were not in

fact to be found there. They could be announced by any

jurisconsult whose opinions might, if he were distinguished,

have a binding force nearly equal to enactments of the

legislature. The responses were not published by their author,

but were recorded and edited by his pupils, and to this fact

the world is indebted for the educational treatises, called

Institutes or Commentaries, which are among the most

remarkable features of the Roman system. The distinction

between the 'responses' and the 'case law' of England should

be noticed. The one consists of expositions by the bar, and

the other by the bench. It might have been expected that such

a system would have popularized the law. This was not the

fact. Weight was only attached to the responses of conspicuous

men who were masters of the principles as well as details of

jurisprudence. The great development of legal principles at

Rome was due to this method of producing law. Under the

English system no judge can enunciate a principle until an

actual controversy arises to which the rule can be applied;

under the Roman theory, there was no limit to the question to

which a response might be given, except the skill and

ingenuity of the questioner. Every possible phase of a legal

principle could thus be examined, and the result would show

the symmetrical product of a single master mind. This method

of developing law nearly ceased at the fall of the republic.

The Responses were systematized and reduced into compendia.

The right to make responses was limited by Augustus to a few

jurisconsults. The edict of the Prætor became a source of law,

and a great school of jurists, containing such men as Ulpian,

Paulus, Gaius, and Papinian, arose, who were authors of

treatises rather than of responses."

T. W. Dwight,

Introduction to Maine's "Ancient Law."

"Apart from the more general political conditions on which

jurisprudence also, and indeed jurisprudence especially

depends, the causes of the excellence of the Roman civil law

lie mainly in two features: first, that the plaintiff and

defendant were specially obliged to explain and embody in due

and binding form the grounds of the demand and of the

objection to comply with it; and secondly, that the Romans

appointed a permanent machinery for the edictal development of

their law, and associated it immediately with practice. By the

former the Romans precluded the pettifogging practices of

advocates, by the latter they obviated incapable law-making,

so far as such things can be prevented at all; and by means of

both in conjunction they satisfied, as far as is possible, the

two conflicting requirements, that law shall constantly be

fixed, and that it shall constantly be in accordance with the

spirit of the age. … This state [Rome], which made the highest

demands on its burgesses and carried the idea of subordinating

the individual to the interest of the whole further than any

state before or since has done, only did and only could do so

by itself removing the barriers to intercourse and unshackling

liberty quite as much as it subjected it to restriction. In

permission or in prohibition the law was always absolute. … A

contract did not ordinarily furnish a ground of action, but

where the right of the creditor was acknowledged, it was so

all-powerful that there was no deliverance for the poor

debtor, and no humane or equitable consideration was shown

towards him. It seemed as if the law found a pleasure in

presenting on all sides its sharpest spikes, in drawing the

most extreme consequences, in forcibly obtruding on the

bluntest understanding the tyrannic nature of the idea of

right. The poetical form and the genial symbolism, which so

pleasingly prevail in the Germanic legal ordinances, were

foreign to the Roman; in his law all was clear and precise; no

symbol was employed, no institution was superfluous. It was

not cruel; everything necessary was performed without tedious

ceremony, even the punishment of death; that a free man could

not be tortured was a primitive maxim of Roman law, to obtain

which other peoples have had to struggle for thousands of

years. Yet this law was frightful in its inexorable severity,

which we cannot suppose to have been very greatly mitigated by

humanity in practice, for it was really the law of the people;

more terrible than Venetian piombi and chambers of torture was

that series of living entombments which the poor man saw

yawning before him in the debtors' towers of the rich. But the

greatness of Rome was involved in, and was based upon, the

fact that the Roman people ordained for itself and endured a

system of law, in which the eternal principles of freedom and

of subordination, of property and of legal redress, reigned

and still at the present day reign unadulterated and

unmodified."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 1, chapters 8 and 11 (volume 1).

{2654}

"Though hard to realise, and especially so for Englishmen, it

is true that modern Europe owes to the Romans its ancient

inherited sense of the sacredness of a free man's person and

property, and its knowledge of the simplest and most rational

methods by which person and property may be secured with least

inconvenience to the whole community. The nations to come

after Rome were saved the trouble of finding out all this for

themselves; and it may be doubted whether any of them had the

requisite genius. We in England, for example, owe the peculiar

cumbrousness of our legal system to the absence of those

direct Roman influences, which, on the continent, have

simplified and illuminated the native legal material."

W. W. Fowler,

The City-State of the Greeks and Romans,

page 209.

"In all the lands which had obeyed Rome, and were included in

the nominal supremacy of the revived Western Empire, it [Roman

Law] acquired a prevalence and power not derived from the

sanction of any distinct human authority. No such authority

was for the time being strong enough to compete in men's

esteem and reverence with the shadow of majesty that still

clung to the relics of Roman dominion. Thus the Roman law was

not merely taken as (what for many purposes and in many states

it really was) a common groundwork of institutions, ideas, and

method, standing towards the actual rules of a given community

somewhat in the same relation as in the Roman doctrine ius

gentium to ius civile; but it was conceived as having, by its

intrinsic reasonableness, a kind of supreme and eminent

virtue, and as claiming the universal allegiance of civilised

mankind. If I may use a German term for which I cannot find a

good English equivalent, its principles were accepted not as

ordained by Cæsar, but as in themselves binding on the

Rechtsbewusstsein of Christendom. They were part of the

dispensation of Roman authority to which the champions of the

Empire in their secular controversy with the Papacy did not

hesitate to attribute an origin no less divine than that of

the Church itself. Even in England (though not in English

practice, for anything I know) this feeling left its mark. In

the middle of the thirteenth century, just when our legal and

judicial system was settling into its typical form, Bracton

copied whole pages of the Bolognese glossator Azo. On the

Continent, where there was no centralised and countervailing

local authority, the Roman law dwarfed everything else. Yet

the law of the Corpus Juris and the glossators was not the

existing positive law of this or that place: the Roman law was

said to be the common law of the Empire, but its effect was

always taken as modified by the custom of the country or city.

'Stadtrecht bricht Landrecht, Landrecht bricht gemein Recht.'

Thus the main object of study was not a system of actually

enforced rules, but a type assumed by actual systems as their

exemplar without corresponding in detail to any of them. Under

such conditions it was inevitable that positive authority

should be depreciated, and the method of reasoning, even for

practical purposes, from an ideal fitness of things, should be

exalted, so that the distinction between laws actually

administered and rules elaborated by the learned as in

accordance with their assumed principles was almost lost sight

of."

Sir F. Pollock,

Oxford Lectures,

pages 30-32.

"In some of the nations of modern Continental Europe (as, for

example, in France), the actual system of law is mainly of

Roman descent; and in others of the same nations (as, for

example in the States of Germany), the actual system of law,

though not descended from the Roman, has been closely

assimilated to the Roman by large importations from it.

Accordingly, in most of the nations of modern Continental

Europe, much of the substance of the actual system, and much

of the technical language in which it is clothed, is derived

from the Roman Law, and without some knowledge of the Roman

Law, the technical language is unintelligible; whilst the

order or arrangement commonly given to the system, imitates

the exemplar of a scientific arrangement which is presented by

the Institutes of Justinian. Even in our own country, a large

portion of the Ecclesiastical and Equity, and some (though a

smaller) portion of the Common, Law, is derived immediately

from the Roman Law, or from the Roman through the Canon. Nor

has the influence of the Roman Law been limited to the

positive law of the modern European nations. For the technical

language of this all-reaching system has deeply tinctured the

language of the international law or morality which those

nations affect to observe. … Much has been talked of the

philosophy of the Roman Institutional writers. Of familiarity

with Grecian philosophy there are few traces in their

writings, and the little that they have borrowed from that

source is the veriest foolishness: for example, their account

of Jus naturale, in which they confound law with animal

instincts; law, with all those wants and necessities of

mankind which are causes of its institution. Nor is the Roman

law to be resorted to as a magazine of legislative wisdom. The

great Roman Lawyers are, in truth, expositors of a positive or

technical system. Not Lord Coke himself is more purely

technical. Their real merits lie in their thorough mastery of

that system; in their command of its principles; in the

readiness with which they recall, and the facility and

certainty with which they apply them. In support of my own

opinion of these great writers I shall quote the authority of

two of the most eminent Jurists of modern times. 'The

permanent value of the Corpus Juris Civilis,' says Falck,

'does not lie in the Decrees of the Emperors, but in the

remains of juristical literature which have been preserved in

the Pandects. Nor is it so much the matter of these juristical

writings, as the scientific method employed by the authors in

explicating the notions and maxims with which they have to

deal, that has rendered them models to all succeeding ages,

and pre-eminently fitted them to produce and to develope those

qualities of the mind which are requisite to form a Jurist.'

And Savigny says, 'It has been shown above, that, in our

science, all results depend on the possession of leading

principles; and it is exactly this possession upon which the

greatness of the Roman jurists rests. The notions and maxims

of their science do not appear to them to be the creatures of

their own will; they are actual beings, with whose existence

and genealogy they have become familiar from long and intimate

intercourse.

{2655}

Hence their whole method of proceeding has a certainty which

is found nowhere else except in mathematics, and it may be

said without exaggeration that they calculate with their

ideas. If they have a case to decide, they begin by acquiring

the most vivid and distinct perception of it, and we see

before our eyes the rise and progress of the whole affair, and

all the changes it undergoes. It is as if this particular case

were the germ whence the whole science was to be developed.

Hence, with them, theory and practice are not in fact

distinct; their theory is so thoroughly worked out as to be

fit for immediate application, and their practice is uniformly

ennobled by scientific treatment. In every principle they see

a case to which it may be applied; in every case, the rule by

which it is determined; and in the facility with which they

pass from the general to the particular and the particular to

the general, their mastery is indisputable.' In consequence of

this mastery of principles, of their perfect consistency

('elegantia') and of the clearness of the method in which they

are arranged, there is no positive system of law which it is

so easy to seize as a whole. The smallness of its volume tends

to the same end."

J. Austin,

Lectures on Jurisprudence,

volume 3, pages 358-361.

"A glance at the history of those countries in Europe that did

not adopt Roman Law will prove and illustrate the political

origin of the 'reception' of this law in Germany and France

still more forcibly. The Kingdom of Hungary never adopted the

theory or practice of Roman Law. This seems all the more

strange since Hungary used Latin as the official language of

her legislature, laws, and law–courts down to the first

quarter of this century. A country so intensely imbued with

the idiom of Rome would seem to be quite likely to adopt also

the law of Rome. This, however, the Hungarians never did.

Their law is essentially similar to the common law of England,

in that it is derived mainly from precedents and usage. The

unwillingness of the Hungarians to adopt Roman Law was based

on a political consideration. Roman Law, they noticed,

requires a professional and privileged class of jurists who

administer law to the exclusion of all other classes. In

German territories the privileged class of civilians were in

the service of the rulers. But it so happened that ever since

1526 the ruler, or at least the nominal head of Hungary, was a

foreigner: the Archduke of Austria, or Emperor of Germany.

Hence to introduce Roman Law in Hungary would have been

tantamount to surrendering the law of the country to the

administration of foreigners, or of professors, who had a

vital interest to work in the interest of their foreign

employer, the Archduke of Austria. Consequently the Hungarians

prudently abstained from the establishment of numerous

Universities, and persistently refused to adopt Roman Law, the

scientific excellence of which they otherwise fully

acknowledged. For, the Hungarians always were, and to the

present moment still are, the only nation on the continent who

maintained an amount of political liberty and self·government

quite unknown to the rest of continental Europe, particularly

in the last two centuries. The same reason applies to England.

England never adopted Roman Law, because it was against the

interests of English liberty to confide the making and

interpretation of law to the hands of a privileged class of

jurists. As said before, Roman Law cannot be adopted unless

you adopt a privileged class of professional jurists into the

bargain. The hatred of the English was not so much a hatred of

civil law, but of the civilians. These jurists develop law on

the strength of theoretical principles, and actual cases are

not decided according to former judgments given in similar

cases, but by principles obtained through theoretico-practical

speculation. Hence there is no division of questions of law

and fact in civil cases; nor is there, in a system of Roman

Private Law, any room for juries, and thus law is taken

completely out of the hands of the people. This, however, the

English would not endure, and thus they naturally fell to

confiding their law to their judges. English common law is

judge-made law."

E. Reich,

Graeco-Roman Institutions,

pages 62-63.

See, also, CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS;

and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: ITALY.

ROMAN LEGION.

See LEGION, ROMAN.

ROMAN LIBRARIES.

See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: ROME.

ROMAN MEDICAL SCIENCE.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 1ST CENTURY, and 2D CENTURY.

ROMAN PEACE.

The benefits conferred upon the world by the universal

dominion of Rome were of quite inestimable value. First of

these benefits, … was the prolonged peace that was enforced

throughout large portions of the world where chronic warfare

had hitherto prevailed. The 'pax romana' has perhaps been

sometimes depicted in exaggerated colours; but as compared

with all that had preceded, and with all that followed, down

to the beginning of the nineteenth century, it deserved the

encomiums it has received."

J. Fiske,

American Political Ideas viewed from the

Standpoint of Universal History,

lecture 2.

ROMAN PONTIFICES.

See AUGURS.

ROMAN PRÆTORS.

See CONSUL.

ROMAN PROCONSUL AND PROPRÆTOR.

See PROCONSUL.

ROMAN QUESTION, The.

See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

"Four principal lines of road have been popularly known as

'the four Roman ways.' In the time of Edward the Confessor,

and probably much earlier, there were four roads in England

protected by the king's peace. These were called

Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hickenilde-strete, and Ermine-strete.

Watling-street runs from London to Wroxeter. The Fosse from

the sea coast near Seaton in Devonshire to Lincoln. The

Ikenild·street from Iclingham near Bury St. Edmund's in

Suffolk, to Wantage in Berkshire, and on to Cirencester and

Gloucester. The Erming-street ran through the Fenny district

of the east of England. These streets seem to have represented

a combination of those portions of the Roman roads which in

later times were adopted and kept in repair for the sake of

traffic. … The name of 'Watling-street' became attached to

other roads, as the Roman road beyond the Northumbrian wall,

which crossed the Tyne at Corbridge and ran to the Frith of

Forth at Cramond, bears that name; and the Roman road beyond

Uriconium (Wroxeter) to Bravinium (Leintwarden) Salop, is also

called Watling-street. The street in Canterbury through which

the road from London to Dover passes is known as

Watling-street, and a street in London also bears that name. …

Two lines of road also bear the name of the Icknield-street,

or Hikenilde-street; but there is some reason to believe that

the Icknield-street was only a British trackway and never

became a true Roman road."

H. M. Scarth,

Roman Britain,

chapter 13.

{2656}

"In the fifth year after the Conquest, inquisition was made

throughout the kingdom into the ancient laws and customs of

England. … From this source we learn, that there were, at that

time in England four great roads protected by the King's

Peace, of which two ran lengthways through the island, and two

crossed it, and that the names of the four were respectively,

Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hikenilde-strete and Erming-strete.

These are the roads which are popularly but incorrectly known

as 'the four Roman ways.' … The King's Peace was a high

privilege. Any offence committed on these high ways was tried,

not in the local court, where local influence might interfere

with the administration of justice, but before the king's own

officers."

E. Guest,

Origines Celticae,

volume 2: The Four Roman Ways.

See, also, WATLING STREET.

ROMAN ROADS IN ITALY.

See

ÆMILIAN WAY;

APPIAN WAY;

AURELIAN ROAD:

CASSIAN ROAD;

POSTUMIAN ROAD;

and ROME: B. C. 295-191.

ROMAN SENATE.

See SENATE, ROMAN.

ROMAN VESTALS.

See VESTAL VIRGINS.

ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

There were two great fortified walls constructed by the Romans

in Britain, but the name is most often applied to the first

one, which was built under the orders of the Emperor Hadrian,

from the Solway to the Tyne, 70 miles long and from 18 to 19

feet high, of solid masonry, with towers at intervals and with

ditches throughout. In the reign of Antoninus Pius a second

fortified line, farther to the north, extending from the Forth

to the Clyde, was constructed. This latter was a rampart of

earth connecting numerous forts. Hadrian's wall was

strengthened at a later time by Severus and is sometimes

called by his name. Popularly it is called "Graham's Dike."

Both walls were for the protection of Roman Britain from the

wild tribes of Caledonia.

E. Guest,

Origines Celticae,

volume 2, page 88-94.

ALSO IN:

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 66-67.

ROMANCE LANGUAGE, Earliest Monument of.

See STRASBURG: A. D. 842.

ROMANIA, The Empire of.

The new feudal empire, constituted by the Crusaders and the

Venetians, after their conquest of Constantinople, and having

the great and venerable but half ruined capital of the

Byzantines for its seat, received the name of the Empire of

Romania. The reign of its first emperor, the excellent Baldwin

of Flanders, was brought to a tragical end in little more than

a year from his coronation. Summoned to quell a revolt at

Adrianople, he was attacked by the king of Bulgaria, defeated,

taken prisoner and murdered within a year by his savage

captor. He was succeeded on the throne by his brother Henry, a

capable, energetic and valiant prince; but all the ability and

all the vigor of Henry could not give cohesion and strength to

an empire which was false in its constitution and predestined

to decay. On Henry's death, without children (A. D. 1216), his

sister Yoland's husband, Peter of Courtenay, a French baron,

was elected emperor; but that unfortunate prince, on

attempting to reach Constantinople by a forced march through

the hostile Greek territory of Epirus, was taken captive and

perished in an Epirot prison. His eldest son, Philip of Namur,

wisely refused the imperial dignity; a younger son, Robert,

accepted it, and reigned feebly until 1228, when he died. Then

the venerable John de Brienne, ex-king of Jerusalem, was

elected emperor-regent for life, the crown to pass on his

death to Baldwin of Courtenay, a young brother of Robert.

"John de Brienne died in 1237, after living to witness his

empire confined to a narrow circuit round the walls of

Constantinople. Baldwin II. prolonged the existence of the

empire by begging assistance from the Pope and the king of

France; and he collected the money necessary for maintaining

his household and enjoying his precarious position, by selling

the holy relics preserved by the Eastern Church [such, for

example, as the crown of thorns, the bonds, the sponge and the

cup of the crucifixion, the rod of Moses, etc.]. He was

fortunate in finding a liberal purchaser in St. Louis. … At

length, in the year 1261, a division of the Greek army [of the

empire of Nicæa] surprised Constantinople, expelled Baldwin,

and put an end to the Latin power, without the change

appearing to be a revolution of much importance beyond the

walls of the city."

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

G. Finlay,

History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,

chapter 4.

In the last days of the sham empire, Baldwin II. maintained

his court "by tearing the copper from the domes of the public

buildings erected by the Byzantine emperors, which he coined

into money, and by borrowing gold from Venetian bankers, in

whose hands he placed his eldest son Philip as a pledge."

G. Finlay,

History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,

book 4, chapter 1, section 3 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 61.

For an account of the creation of the Empire of Romania.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

ROMANOFFS, Origin of the dynasty of the.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

ROMANS, King of the.

Henry II.,—St. Henry by canonization—the last of the German

emperors of the House of Saxony (A. D. 1002-1024), abstained

from styling himself "Emperor," for some years, until he had

gone to Rome and received the imperial crown from the hands of

the Pope. Meantime he invented and assumed the title of King

of the Romans. His example was followed by his successors. The

King of the Romans in later history was Emperor of the Holy

Roman Empire in embryo.

S. A. Dunham,

History of the Germanic Empire,

book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

"It was not till the reign of Maximilian that the actual

coronation at Rome was dispensed with, and the title of

Emperor taken immediately after the election."

H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 3, part 1.

ROMANUS, Pope, A. D. 897-898.

Romanus I. (colleague of Constantine VII.),

Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 919-944.

Romanus II., Emperor in the East

(Byzantine, or Greek), 959-963.

Romanus III., Emperor in the East

(Byzantine, or Greek), 1028-1034.

Romanus IV., Emperor in the East

(Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1067-1071.

{2656a}

{2656b}

A Logical Outline of Roman History

IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND

INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.

Physical or material. (orange)

Social and political. (green)

Intellectual, moral and religious. (brown)

Geographical position. (Orange)

Three Latin and Sabine tribes of an early day established

their settlements on neighboring hills, by the banks of the

Tiber, in the midland of Italy, which is the midland of the

Mediterranean or midland sea. They were throned, as it were,

at the center of the only wide dominion in which a virile and

energetic civilization could rise in ancient times.

Patricians and Plebeians. (Green)

The union of these three tribes formed the patrician nucleus

of Rome. Around them gathered another population of kindred

blood, which acquired a certain footing of association with

them, but not immediately on equal terms. The precedence and

superiority of the primal families, in rank and in rights, was

jealously maintained, and the later-coming plebs were received

into a pseudo-citizenship which carried more burdens than

privileges with it.

By what impulse of character, or through what favor of

circumstance, at the beginning, this infant city-state grew

masterful in war, over all its neighbors, none can tell. But

as it did so, the sturdy plebeian populace which fought its

battles resented more and more the greedy monopoly of offices

and of conquered lands to which the patricians clung, and a

struggle between classes occurred which shaped the domestic

politics of Rome for more than two centuries.

B. C. 509, Founding of the Republic.

B. C. 492, Tribunes o£ the Plebs.

Before that contest came to the surface of history, the

oligarchy of the city had cast out the kings which were its

early chiefs, and had put two yearly-chosen consuls in their

place, thus founding the great Roman Republic, with a purely

aristocratic constitution. Then the battle of the plebs for

equality of rights and powers was promptly opened, and the

long, significant process of the democratizing of the state

began. By their first victory the commons seemed, for their

own leadership and defense, a remarkable magistracy, protected

by sanctities and armed with powers which never have been used

in government elsewhere, before or since. With that great

tribunician authority, invincible when capably and boldly

wielded, they won their way, step by step, to equality in the

high offices and sacred colleges of the state; to legislative

equality in their assembly; to legality of intermarriage with

the patrician class; and to participation in the public lands.

B. C. 480-275. Conquest of Italy.

B. C. 264-202. Punic wars

B. C. 214-146. Expanding Dominion.

But while plebs and patricians thus strove with each other at

home, they were united against their neighbors in many wars,

which seldom turned to their disadvantage. Æquians, Volscians,

Etruscans, Latin allies, Samnites, Gauls, Greeks of south

Italy, yielded in turn to their arms, until the whole Italian

peninsula had been brought under Roman rule. Then followed

intrusion in Sicily, collision with Carthage in that island,

and the half century of Punic wars, which tried the Republic

to the extremity of its powers, but which left it with no

rival in the Mediterranean world, From that time the career of

Roman conquest was rapidly pursued in widening fields. Sicily,

Spain, Greece, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Southern Gaul, Northern

Africa, submitted as provinces to the proconsuls of Rome.

Corruption. (brown)

But the health of the commonwealth waned as its greatness

waxed. It was corrupted by the spoils of conquest and the

streams of tribute money that flowed from three continents

into its hands. It was leprous in its whole system with the

infection of slavery.

Social and Political Degeneration. (green)

A middle class had practically disappeared. Freemen had been

driven from industrial callings by servile competition; the

small farms of rural Rome had been swallowed up in great slave

worked estates; public lands had been drawn by one trick of

law or another, into private hands. The greater mass of the

common people had degenerated to a worthless mob. The

democratic power which their ancestors won still belonged to

them, but they had lost the sense and the spirit to exercise

it, except fitfully and threateningly, for purposes that were

generally base. A new nobility had risen out of the plebeian

ranks; the senate, reinforced by it, and helped by the

exigencies of the long period of war, had recovered control of

government, keeping ascendancy over the mob by political arts

and bribes.

B. C. 133-121. The Gracchi.

B. C. 90-88. The Social War,

B. C. 88-45. Civil Wars.

Thus came the fatal time when demagogues played with the

passions of that fickle mob which bore the awful sovereignty

of Rome in its keeping; and when patriots were forced to be as

demagogues, if they sought to lift Roman citizenship from its

muddy degradation. In the undertakings of the Gracchi, perhaps

something of both demagogue and patriot was combined; but what

they did only shook the decaying political fabric and

unsettled it more. The extension of Roman citizenship to the

Italian allies, which Caius Gracchus contended for, and which

might have grounded the Republic on broad bases of

nationality, was yielded in the next generation, but too late,

and after a ruinous war. From the embers of that fiery Social

War broke the flames of civil strife in which the old

constitution was finally consumed. Marius, Sulla, Pompeius,

Cæsar, were distinguished among its destroyers; Cicero and

Cato earned their immortality in its defense.

B. C. 45-A. D. 486, The Empire.

By the genius of Cæsar a new sovereignty—an imperial

autocracy—was founded, on the ruins of the shattered Republic.

By the shrewdness of his wise nephew, Octavius, its enduring

organization was shaped. The mighty fabric of the Roman Empire

which then arose, to dominate the world for centuries, and to

dominate the history of the world perhaps forever, owed its

greatness altogether to the effective organization of

government which it embodied. It inherited all the corruptions

and diseases in society which had sickened and destroyed the

Republic; but it extinguished factions at the seat of power,

established authority there, and perfected a radiating

mechanism of provincial administration such as had not been

known in human experience before. Hence, emperors might be

madmen or fiends or fools, as many among them were, and Rome

might be a sink of all vices and miseries, as it commonly was,

and the whole Empire might be grievously oppressed, as it

seldom failed to be; but the working of the administrative

system went on, with little disturbance or change,—so mighty

and irresistible in its machinery that it seemed to mankind

like a part of the natural world, and they lost the ability to

think of any different political state.

Christianity. (brown)

Christianity, springing up in Judæa within the first century

of the Empire, spread through and around it like an

interlacing vine,—sweet and wholesome in its early fruits,

strong as a bond, powerful as a regenerating influence. But

when the ecclesiasticism of a politically fashioned Church had

been grafted on the Christian vine, it bore then the evil

seeds of new corruption, new discord, new maladies for the

Roman world.

A. D. 476. Fall of the Empire in the West. (green)

So there came, at last, a time when the long-enduring frame of

Roman government could no longer bear the increasing

dead-weight of social paralysis within and the increasing

pressure of barbaric enemies from without. Of real vitality in

the Empire there had been little for half-a-century before its

fall in the West.

A. D. 476-1453. Survival of the Eastern Empire.

It survived in the East, because its Greek capital was more

impregnable, and more commandingly placed for the continued

centralization of a waning power; and because habit and

routine have more potency in the Eastern than in the Western

world.

A. D. 800. Revival of the Western Empire.

Even Western Europe obeyed again, after more than four

centuries, the obstinate habit of homage to Rome, when it

restored the Empire of the Cæsars, though less in fact than in

name.

{2657}

----------ROME: Start--------

ROME:

The beginning of the City-State and the origin of its name.

The three tribes of original Romans who formed

the Patrician order.-

The Plebs and their inferior citizenship.

"About fourteen miles up from the mouth of the river Tiber,

hills of moderate elevation rise on both banks of the stream,

higher on the right, lower on the left bank. With the latter

group there has been closely associated for at least two

thousand five hundred years the name of the Romans. We are

unable, of course, to tell how or when that name arose; this

much only is certain, that in the oldest form of it known to

us the inhabitants of the canton are called not Romans, but

(by a shifting of sound that frequently occurs in the earlier

period of a language, but fell very early in abeyance in

Latin) Ramnians (Ramnes), a fact which constitutes an

expressive testimony to the immemorial antiquity of the name.

Its derivation cannot be given with certainty; possibly Ramnes

may mean 'foresters,' or 'bushmen.' But they were not the only

dwellers on the hills by the bank of the Tiber. In the

earliest division of the burgesses of Rome a trace has been

preserved of the fact that that body arose out of the

amalgamation of three cantons once probably independent, the

Ramnians, Tities, and Luceres, into a single commonwealth—in

other words, out of such a 'synoikismos' as that from which

Athens arose in Attica. The great antiquity of this threefold

division of the community is perhaps best evinced by the fact

that the Romans, in matters especially of constitutional law,

regularly used the forms tribuere ('to divide into three') and

tribus ('a third') in the general sense of 'to divide' and 'a

part,' and the latter expression (tribus) like our 'quarter,'

early lost its original signification of number. … That the

Ramnians were a Latin stock cannot be doubted, for they gave

their name to the new Roman commonwealth, and therefore must

have substantially determined the nationality of the united

community. Respecting the origin of the Luceres nothing can be

affirmed, except that there is no difficulty in the way of our

assigning them, like the Ramnians, to the Latin stock. The

second of these communities, on the other hand, is with one

consent derived from Sabina. … And, as in the older and more

credible traditions, without exception, the Tities take

precedence of the Ramnians, it is probable that the intruding

Tities compelled the older Ramnians to accept the

'synoikismos.' … Long, in all probability, before an urban

settlement arose on the Tiber, these Ramnians, Tities, and

Luceres, at first separate, afterwards united, had their

stronghold on the Roman hills, and tilled their fields from

the surrounding villages. The 'wolf festival' (Lupercalia),

which the gens of the Quinctii celebrated on the Palatine

hill, was probably a tradition from these primitive ages—a

festival of husbandmen and shepherds, which more than any

other preserved the homely pastimes of patriarchal simplicity,

and, singularly enough, maintained itself longer than all the

other heathen festivals in Christian Rome. From these

settlements the later Rome arose."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 1, chapter 4.

"Rome did not seem to be a single city; it appeared like a

confederation of several cities, each one of which was

attached by its origin to another confederation. It was the

centre where the Latins, Etruscans, Sabellians, and Greeks

met. Its first king was a Latin; the second, a Sabine; the

fifth was, we are told, the son of a Greek; the sixth was an

Etruscan. Its language was composed of the most diverse

elements. The Latin predominated, but Sabellian roots were

numerous, and more Greek radicals were found in it than in any

other of the dialects of Central Italy. As to its name, no one

knew to what language that belonged. According to some, Rome

was a Trojan word; according to others, a Greek word. There

are reasons for believing it to be Latin, but some of the

ancients thought it to be Etruscan. The names of Roman

families also attest a great diversity of origin. … The effect

of this mixing of the most diverse nations was, that from the

beginning Rome was related to all the peoples that it knew. It

could call itself Latin with the Latins, Sabine with the

Sabines, Etruscan with the Etruscans, and Greek with the

Greeks. Its national worship was also an assemblage of several

quite different worships, each one of which attached it to one

of these nations."

Fustel de Coulanges,

The Ancient City,

book 5, chapter 2.

"The whole history of the world has been determined by the

geological fact that at a point a little below the junction of

the Tiber and the Anio the isolated hills stand nearer to one

another than most of the other hills of Latium. On a site

marked out above all other sites for dominion, the centre of

Italy, the centre of Europe, as Europe then was, a site at the

junction of three of the great nations of Italy, and which had

the great river as its highway to lands beyond the bounds of

Italy, stood two low hills, the hill which bore the name of

Latin Saturn, and the hill at the meaning of whose name of

Palatine scholars will perhaps guess for ever. These two

hills, occupied by men of two of the nations of Italy, stood

so near to one another that a strait choice indeed was laid on

those who dwelled on them. They must either join together on

terms closer than those which commonly united Italian leagues,

or they must live a life of border warfare more ceaseless,

more bitter, than the ordinary warfare of Italian enemies.

Legend, with all likelihood, tells us that warfare was tried;

history, with all certainty, tells us that the final choice

was union. The two hills were fenced with a single wall; the

men who dwelled on them changed from wholly separate

communities into tribes of a single city. Changes of the same

kind took place on not a few spots of Greece and Italy; not a

few of the most famous cities of both lands grew on this wise

out of the union of earlier detached settlements. But no other

union of the kind, not even that which called Sparta into

being out of five villages of an older day, could compare in

its effects on all later time with the union of those two

small hill-fortresses into a single city. For that city was

Rome; the hill of Saturn became the site of Rome's capitol.

the scene of her triumphs, the home of her patron gods. The

hill on the other side of the swampy dale became the

dwelling-place of Rome's Cæsars, and handed on its name of

Palatium as the name for the homes of all the kings of the

earth.

{2658}

Around those hills as a centre, Latium, Italy, Mediterranean

Europe, were gathered in, till the world was Roman, or rather

till the world was Rome. … Three tribes, settlers on three

hills, were the elements of which the original commonwealth

was made. Whether there was anything like a nobility within

the tribes themselves, whether certain houses had any

precedence, any preferences in the disposal of offices, we

have no means of judging. That certain houses are far more

prominent in legend and history than others may suggest such a

thought, but does not prove it. But one thing is certain;

these three tribes, these older settlers, were the original

Roman people, which for a while numbered no members but

themselves. They were the patres, the fathers, a name which in

its origin meant no more than such plain names as goodman,

housefather, and the like. In the Roman polity the father only

could be looked on as a citizen in the highest sense; his

children, his grand-children, were in his power, from which,

just like slaves, they could be released only by his own

special act. Such was the origin of the name fathers, patres,

patricians, a name round which such proud associations

gathered, as the three tribes who had once been the whole

Roman people shrank up into a special noble class in the midst

of a new Roman people which grew up around them, but which

they did not admit to the same rights as themselves. The

incorporation of a third tribe marks the end of the first

period of Roman history. These were the Luceres of the Cœlian,

admitted perhaps at first with rights not quite on a level

with those of the two earlier tribes, the Ramnes of the

Palatine, the oldest Romans of all, and the Tities of the

Capitoline or hill of Saturn. The oldest Roman people was now

formed. No fourth tribe was ever admitted; the later tribes of

Rome, it must be remembered, are a separate division which

have nothing to do with these old patrician tribes. And it

must have been a most rare favour for either individuals or

whole houses to be received into any of the three original

tribes. … Now, if the privileged body of citizens is small,

and if circumstances tend to make the settlement of

non-privileged residents large, here is one of the means by

which a privileged order in the narrower sense, a nobility in

the midst of a nation or people may arise. An order which

takes in few or no new members tends to extinction; if it does

not die out, it will at least sensibly lessen. But there is no

limit to the growth of the non-privileged class outside. Thus

the number of the old burghers will be daily getting smaller,

the number of the new residents will be daily getting larger,

till those who once formed the whole people put on step by

step the character of an exclusive nobility in the midst of

the extended nation which has grown up around them. By this

time they have acquired all the attributes of nobility,

smallness of numbers, antiquity, privilege. And their

possession of the common land—a possession shared constantly

by a smaller number—is likely to give them a fourth attribute

which, vulgarly at least, goes to swell the conception of

nobility, the attribute of wealth. … Thus around the original

people of Rome, the populus, the patres, the three ancient

tribes, the settlers on the three earliest hills of Rome,

arose a second people, the plebs. The whole history of Rome is

a history of incorporation. The first union between the

Capitoline and Palatine hills was the first stage of the

process which at last made Romans of all the nations round the

Mediterranean sea. But the equal incorporation of which that

union was the type had now ceased, not to begin again for

ages. Whatever amount of belief we give to the legends of

Roman wars and conquests under the kings, we can hardly doubt

that the territory of several neighbouring towns was

incorporated with the Roman state, and that their people,

whether they removed to Rome or went on occupying their own

lands elsewhere, became Romans, but not as yet full Romans.

They were Romans in so far as they ceased to be members of any

other state, in so far as they obeyed the laws of Rome, and

served in the Roman armies. But they were not Romans in the

sense of being admitted into the original Roman body; they had

no votes in the original Roman assembly; they had no share in

its public land; they were not admissible to the high offices

of the state. They had an organization of their own; they had

their own assemblies, their own magistrates, their own sacred

rights, different in many things from those of the older Roman

People. And we must remember that, throughout the Roman

history, when any town or district was admitted to any stage,

perfect or imperfect, of Roman citizenship, its people were

admitted without regard to any distinctions which had existed

among them in their elder homes. The patricians of a Latin

town admitted to the Roman franchise became plebeians at Rome.

Thus from the beginning, the Roman plebs contained families

which, if the word 'noble' has any real meaning, were fully as

noble as any house of the three elder tribes. Not a few too of

the plebeians were rich; rich and poor, they were the more

part land-owners; no mistake can be greater than that which

looks on the Roman plebs as the low multitude of a town. As we

first see them, the truest aspect of them is that of a second

nation within the Roman state, an inferior, a subject, nation,

shut out from all political power, subject in many things to

practical oppression, but which, by its very organization as a

subject nation, was the more stirred up to seek, and the

better enabled to obtain, full equality with the elder nation

to which it stood side by side as a subject neighbour."

E. A. Freeman,

The Practical Bearings of European History

(Lectures to American Audiences),

page 278-278, and 285-292.

See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT; LATIUM; ALBA; and SABINES.

ROME:

Early character and civilization of the Romans.

Opposing theories.

"That the central position of Rome, in the long and narrow

peninsula of Italy, was highly favourable to her Italian

dominion, and that the situation of Italy was favourable to

her dominion over the countries surrounding the Mediterranean,

has been often pointed out. But we have yet to ask what

launched Rome in her career of conquest, and, still more, what

rendered that career so different from those of ordinary

conquerors? … About the only answer that we get to these

questions is race. The Romans, we are told, were by nature a

peculiarly warlike race. 'They were the wolves of Italy,' says

Mr. Merivale, who may be taken to represent fairly the state

of opinion on this subject. …

{2659}

But the further we inquire, the more reason there appears to

be for believing that peculiarities of race are themselves

originally formed by the influence of external circumstances

on the primitive tribe; that, however marked and ingrained

they may be, they are not congenital and perhaps not

indelible. … Thus, by ascribing the achievements of the Romans

to the special qualities of their race, we should not be

solving the problem, but only stating it again in other terms.

… What if the very opposite theory to that of the she-wolf and

her foster-children should be true? What if the Romans should

have owed their peculiar and unparalleled success to their

having been at first not more warlike, but less warlike than

their neighbours? It may seem a paradox, but we suspect that

in their imperial ascendency is seen one of the earliest and

not least important steps in that gradual triumph of intellect

over force, even in war, which has been an essential part of

the progress of civilization. The happy day may come when

Science in the form of a benign old gentleman with a bald head

and spectacles on nose, holding some beneficent compound in

his hand, will confront a standing army, and the standing army

will cease to exist. That will be the final victory of

intellect. But in the meantime, our acknowledgements are due

to the primitive inventors of military organization and

military discipline. They shivered Goliath's spear. A mass of

comparatively unwarlike burghers, unorganized and

undisciplined, though they may be the hope of civilization

from their mental and industrial qualities, have as little of

collective as they have of individual strength in war; they

only get in each other's way, and fall singly victims to the

prowess of a gigantic barbarian. He who first thought of

combining their force by organization, so as to make their

numbers tell, and who taught them to obey officers, to form

regularly for action, and to execute united movements at the

word of command, was, perhaps, as great a benefactor of the

species as he who grew the first corn, or built the first

canoe. What is the special character of the Roman legends, so

far as they relate to war? Their special character is that

they are legends not of personal prowess but of discipline.

Rome has no Achilles. The great national heroes, Camillus,

Cincinnatus, Papirius Cursor, Fabius Maximus, Manlius, are not

prodigies of personal strength and valour, but commanders and

disciplinarians. The most striking incidents are incidents of

discipline. The most striking incident of all is the execution

by a commander of his own son for having gained a victory

against orders. 'Disciplinam militarem,' Manlius is made to

say, 'qua stetit ad hanc diem Romana res.' Discipline was the

great secret of Roman ascendency in war. … But how came

military discipline to be so specially cultivated by the

Romans? … Dismissing the notion of occult qualities of race,

we look for a rational explanation in the circumstances of the

plain which was the cradle of the Roman Empire. It is evident

that in the period designated as that of the kings, when Rome

commenced her career of conquest, she was, for that time and

country, a great and wealthy city. This is proved by the works

of the kings, the Capitoline Temple, the excavation for the

Circus Maximus, the Servian Wall, and above all the Cloaca

Maxima. Historians have indeed undertaken to give us a very

disparaging picture of the ancient Rome. … But the Cloaca

Maxima is in itself conclusive evidence of a large population,

of wealth, and of a not inconsiderable degree of civilization.

Taking our stand upon this monument, and clearing our vision

entirely of Romulus and his asylum, we seem dimly to perceive

the existence of a deep prehistoric background, richer than is

commonly supposed in the germs of civilization,—a remark which

may in all likelihood be extended to the background of history

in general. Nothing surely can be more grotesque than the idea

of a set of wolves, like the Norse pirates before their

conversion to Christianity, constructing in their den the

Cloaca Maxima. That Rome was comparatively great and wealthy

is certain. We can hardly doubt that she was a seat of

industry and commerce, and that the theory which represents

her industry and commerce as having been developed

subsequently to her conquests is the reverse of the fact.

Whence, but from industry and commerce, could the population

and the wealth have come? Peasant farmers do not live in

cities, and plunderers do not accumulate. Rome had around her

what was then a rich and peopled plain; she stood at a

meeting-place of nationalities; she was on a navigable river,

yet out of the reach of pirates; the sea near her was full of

commerce, Etruscan, Greek, and Carthaginian. … Her patricians

were financiers and money-lenders. … Even more decisive is the

proof afforded by the early political history of Rome. … The

institutions which we find existing in historic times must

have been evolved by some such struggle between the orders of

patricians and plebeians as that which Livy presents to us.

And these politics, with their parties and sections of

parties, their shades of political character, the sustained

interest which they imply in political objects, their various

devices and compromises, are not the politics of a community

of peasant farmers, living apart each on his own farm and

thinking of his own crops: they are the politics of the

quick-witted and gregarious population of an industrial and

commercial city. … Of course when Rome had once been drawn

into the career of conquest, the ascendency of the military

spirit would be complete; war, and the organization of

territories acquired in war, would then become the great

occupation of her leading citizens; industry and commerce

would fall into disesteem, and be deemed unworthy of the

members of the imperial race. … Even when the Roman nobles had

become a caste of conquerors and pro-consuls, they retained

certain mercantile habits; unlike the French aristocracy, and

aristocracies generally, they were careful keepers of their

accounts, and they showed a mercantile talent for business, as

well as a more than mercantile hardness, in their financial

exploitation of the conquered world. Brutus and his

contemporaries were usurers like the patricians of the early

times. No one, we venture to think, who has been accustomed to

study national character, will believe that the Roman

character was formed by war alone: it was manifestly formed by

war combined with business."

Goldwin Smith,

The Greatness of the Romans

(Contemporary Review, May, 1878).

A distinctly contrary theory of the primary character and

early social state of the Romans is presented in the

following: "The Italians were much more backward than the

Greeks, for their land is turned to the west, to Spain, to

Gaul, to Africa, which could teach them nothing, while Greece

is turned to the east, to the coasts along which the

civilisations of the Nile and the Tigris spread through so

many channels.

{2660}

Besides, the country itself is far less stimulating to its

inhabitants: compared to Greece, Italy is a continental

country whose inhabitants communicate more easily by land than

by sea, except in the two extreme southern peninsulas, which

characteristically were occupied by Greek colonies whose

earlier development was more brilliant than that of the mother

country. … The equable fertility of the land was itself a

hindrance. As far back as we can form any conjecture, the bulk

of the people were shepherds or husbandmen; we cannot trace a

time like that reflected in the Homeric poems, when high-born

men of spirit went roving in their youth by land and sea, and

settled down in their prime with a large stock of cattle and a

fair stud of horses, to act as referees in peace and leaders

in war to the cottars around. … Other differences less

intelligible to us were not less weighty: the volcanic

character of the western plain of central Italy, the want of a

fall to the coast (which caused some of the watercourses to

form marshes, and made the Tiber a terror to the Romans for

its floods), told in ways as yet untraced ou the character of

the inhabitants. For one thing the ancient worship of Febris

and Mefitis indicates a constant liability to fever; then the

air of Greece is lighter than the air of Italy, and this may

be the reason that it was more inspiring. … Italian indigenous

literature was of the very scantiest; its oldest element was

to be found in hymns, barely metrical, and so full of

repetitions as to dispense with metre. The hymns were more

like spells than psalms, the singers had an object to gain

rather than feelings to express. The public hymns were prayers

for blessing: there were private chants to charm crops out of

a neighbour's field, and bring other mischief to pass against

him. Such 'evil songs' were a capital offence, though there

was little, perhaps, in their form to suggest a distinction

whether the victim was being bewitched or satirised. The

deliberate articulate expression of spite seemed a guilt and

power of itself. Besides these there were dirges at funerals,

ranging between commemoration of the deceased and his

ancestors, propitiation of the departed spirit, and simple

lamentation. There were songs at banquets in praise of ancient

worthies. … We find no trace of any poet who composed what

free-born youths recited at feasts; probably they extemporised

without training and attained no mastery. If a nation has

strong military instincts, we find legendary or historical

heroes in its very oldest traditions; if a nation has strong

poetical instincts, we find the names of historical or

legendary poets. In Italy we only meet with nameless fauns and

prophets, whose inspired verses were perhaps on the level of

Mother Shipton."

G. A. Simcox,

A History of Latin Literature,

volume 1, introduction.

ROME:

Struggle with the Etruscans.

See ETRUSCANS.

ROME: B. C. 753.

Era of the foundation of the city.

"Great doubts have been entertained, as well by ancient

historians as by modern chronologists, respecting this era.

Polybius fixes it to the year B. C. 751; Cato, who has been

followed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Solinus, and Eusebius,

to B. C. 752; Fabius Pictor, to B. C. 747; Archbishop Usher,

to B. C, 748; and Newton, to B. C. 627: Terentius Varro,

however, refers it to B. C. 753; which computation was adopted

by the Roman emperors, and by Plutarch, Tacitus, Dion, Aulus

Gellius, Censorinus, Onuphrius, Baroius, bishop Beveridge,

Stranchius, Dr. Playfair, and by most modern chronologists:

Livy, Cicero, Pliny, and Velleius Paterculus occasionally

adopted both the Varronian and Catonian computations. Dr.

Hales has, however, determined, from history and astronomy,

that the Varronian computation is correct, viz. B. C. 753."

Sir H. Nicolas,

Chronology of History,

page 2.

ROME: B. C. 753-510.

The legendary period of the kings.

Credibility of the Roman annals.

Probable Etruscan domination.

"It may … be stated, as the result of this inquiry, that the

narrative of Roman affairs, from the foundation of the city to

the expulsion of the Tarquins, is formed out of traditionary

materials. At what time the oral traditions were reduced into

writing, and how much of the existing narrative was the

arbitrary supplement of the historians who first framed the

account which has descended to us, it is now impossible to

ascertain, … The records of them, which were made before the

burning of Rome, 300 B. C., were doubtless rare and meagre in

the extreme; and such as there were at this time chiefly

perished in the conflagration and ruin of the city. It was

probably not till after this period—that is to say, about 120

years after the expulsion of the kings—and above 350 years

after the era assigned for the foundation of the city, that

these oral reports—these hearsay stories of many

generations—began to be entered in the registers of the

pontifices. … The history of the entire regal period, as

respects both its external attestation and its internal

probability, is tolerably uniform in its character. … Niebuhr,

indeed, has drawn a broad line between the reigns of Romulus

and Numa on the one hand, and those of the five last kings on

the other. The former he considers to be purely fabulous and

poetical; the latter he regards as belonging to the

mythico-historical period, when there is a narrative resting

on a historical basis, and most of the persons mentioned are

real. But it is impossible to discover any ground, either in

the contents of the narrative; or in its external evidence, to

support this distinction. Romulus, indeed, from the form of

his name, appears to be a mere personification of the city of

Rome, and to have no better claim to a real existence than

Hellen, Danaus, Ægyptus, Tyrrhenus, or Italus. But Numa

Pompilius stands on the same ground as the remaining kings,

except that he is more ancient; and the narrative of all the

reigns, from the first to the last, seems to be constructed on

the same principles. That the names of the kings after Romulus

are real, is highly probable; during the latter reigns, much

of the history seems to be in the form of legendary

explanations of proper names. … Even with respect to the

Tarquinian family, it may be doubted whether the similarity of

their name to that of the city of Tarquinii was not the origin

of the story of Demaratus and the Etruscan origin. The

circumstance that the two king Tarquins were both named

Lucius, and that it was necessary to distinguish them by the

epithets of Priscus and Superbus, raises a presumption that

the names were real.

{2661}

Müller indeed regards the names of the two Tarquins as merely

representing the influence exercised by the Etruscan city of

Tarquinii in Rome at the periods known as their reigns. … The

leading feature of the government during this period is that

its chief was a king, who obtained his office by the election

of the people, and the confirmation of the Senate, in the same

manner in which consuls and other high magistrates were

appointed after the abolition of royalty; but that, when once

fully elected, he retained his power for life. In the mode of

succession, the Roman differed from the early Greek kings,

whose office was hereditary. The Alban kings, likewise, to

whom the Roman kings traced their origin, are described as

succeeding by inheritance and not by election. … The

predominant belief of the Romans concerning their regal

government was, that the power of the kings was limited by

constitutional checks; that the chief institutions of the

Republic, namely, the Senate and the Popular Assembly, existed

in combination with the royalty, and were only suspended by

the lawless despotism of the second Tarquin. Occasionally,

however, we meet with the idea that the kings were absolute."

Sir G. C. Lewis,

Inquiry into the Credibility of Early Roman History,

chapter 11, sections 39-40 (volume 1).

"Of the kings of Rome we have no direct contemporary evidence;

we know them only from tradition, and from the traces they

left behind them in the Republican constitution which

followed. But the 'method of survivals' has here been applied

by a master-hand [Mommsen]; and we can be fairly sure, not

only of the fact that monarchy actually existed at Rome, but

even of some at least of its leading characteristics. Here we

have kingship no longer denoting, as in Homer, a social

position of chieftaincy which bears with it certain

vaguely-conceived prerogatives, but a clearly defined

magistracy within the fully realised State. The rights and

duties of the Rex are indeed defined by no documents, and the

spirit of the age still seems to be obedience and trust; but

we also find the marks of a formal customary procedure, which

is already hardening into constitutional practice, and will in

time further harden into constitutional law. The monarchy has

ceased to be hereditary, if it ever was so; and the method of

appointment, though we are uncertain as to its exact nature,

is beyond doubt regulated with precision, and expressed in

technical terms."

W. W. Fowler,

The City-State of the Greeks and Romans,

pages 74-75.

"The analogy of other states, no less than the subsequent

constitution of Rome, which always retained the marks of its

first monarchical complexion, leaves us in no doubt that kings

once reigned in Rome, and that by a determined uprising of the

people they were expelled, leaving in the Roman mind an

ineradicable hatred of the very name. We have to be content

with these hard facts, extracted from those thrilling stories

with which Livy adorns the reign and the expulsion of

Tarquinius Superbus."

R. F. Horton,

History of the Romans,

chapter 2.

The names of the kings, with the dates assigned to them, are

as follows:

Romulus, B. C. 753-717;

Numa Pompilius, B. C. 715-673;

Tullus Hostilius, B. C. 673-642;

Ancus Martius, B. C. 641-617;

Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, B. C. 616-579;

Servius Tullius, B. C. 578-535;

Tarquinius Superbus, B. C. 534-510.

According to the legend of early Rome, Romulus attracted

inhabitants to the city he had founded by establishing within

its walls a sanctuary or refuge, for escaped slaves, outlaws

and the like. But he could not in a fair way procure wives for

these rough settlers, because marriage with them was disdained

by the reputable people of neighboring cities. Therefore he

arranged for an imposing celebration of games at Rome, in

honor of the god Consus, and invited his neighbors, the

Sabines, to witness them. These came unsuspectingly with their

wives and daughters, and, when they were absorbed in the show,

the Romans, at a given signal, rushed on them and carried off

such women as they chose to make captive. A long and obstinate

war ensued, which was ended by the interposition of the women

concerned, who had become reconciled to their Roman husbands

and satisfied to remain with them.

Livy,

History,

chapter 9.

"We cannot … agree with Niebuhr, who thinks he can discover

some historical facts through this legendary mist. As he

supposes, the inhabitants of the Palatine had not the right of

intermarriage ('connubium') with their Sabine neighbours on

the Capitoline and the Quirinal. This inferiority of the

Palatine Romans to the Sabines of the Capitoline and Quirinal

hills caused discontent and war. The right of intermarriage

was obtained by force of arms, and this historical fact lies

at the bottom of the tale of the rape of the Sabines. Such a

method of changing legends into history is of very doubtful

utility. It seems more natural to explain the legend from the

customs at the Roman marriage ceremonies"—in which the

pretence of forcible abduction was enacted.

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 1, chapter 2.

"With the reign of the fifth king, Tarquinius Priscus, a

marked change takes place. The traditional accounts of the

last three kings not only wear a more historical air than

those of the first four, but they describe something like a

transformation of the Roman city and state. Under the rule of

these latter kings the separate settlements were for the first

time enclosed with a rampart of colossal size and extent. The

low grounds were drained, and a forum and circus elaborately

laid out; on the Capitoline Mount a temple was erected, the

massive foundations of which were an object of wonder even to

Pliny. … The kings increase in power and surround themselves

with new splendour. Abroad, Rome suddenly appears as a

powerful state ruling far and wide over southern Etruria and

Latium. These startling changes are, moreover, ascribed to

kings of alien descent, who one and all ascend the throne in

the teeth of established constitutional forms. Finally, with

the expulsion of the last of them—the younger Tarquin—comes a

sudden shrinkage of power. At the commencement of the republic

Rome is once more a comparatively small state, with hostile

and independent neighbours at her very doors. It is difficult

to avoid the conviction that the true explanation of this

phenomenon is to be found in the supposition that Rome during

this period passed under the rule of powerful Etruscan lords.

Who the people were whom the Romans knew as Etruscans and the

Greeks as Tyrrhenians is a question, which, after centuries of

discussion, still remains unanswered; nor in all probability

will the answer be found until the lost key to their language

has been discovered. That they were regarded by the Italic

tribes, by Umbrians, Sabellians, and Latins, as intruders is

certain. Entering Italy, as they probably did from the north

or northeast, they seem to have first of all made themselves

masters of the rich valley of the Po and of the Umbrians who

dwelt there.

{2662}

Then crossing the Apennines, they overran Etruria proper as

far south as the banks of the Tiber, here too reducing to

subjection the Umbrian owners of the soil. In Etruria they

made themselves dreaded, like the Northmen of a later time, by

sea as well as by land. … We find the Etruscan power

encircling Rome on all sides, and in Rome itself a tradition

of the rule of princes of Etruscan origin. The Tarquinii come

from South Etruria; their name can hardly be anything else

than the Latin equivalent of the Etruscan Tarchon, and is

therefore possibly a title (='lord' or 'prince') rather than a

proper name. … That Etruria had, under the sway of Etruscan

lords, forged ahead of the country south of the Tiber in

wealth and civilisation is a fact which the evidence of

remains has placed beyond doubt. It is therefore significant

that the rule of the Tarquins in Rome is marked by an outward

splendour which stands in strong contrast to the primitive

simplicity of the native kings. … These Etruscan princes are

represented, not only as having raised Rome for the time to a

commanding position in Latium, and lavished upon the city

itself the resources of Etruscan civilisation, but also the

authors of important internal changes. They are represented as

favouring new men at the expense of the old patrician

families, and as reorganising the Roman army on a new footing,

a policy natural enough in military princes of alien birth."

H. F. Pelham,

Outlines of Roman History,

book 1, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

F. W. Newman,

Regal Rome.

T. H. Dyer,

History of the Kings of Rome.

ROME: B. C. 510.

Expulsion of Tarquin the Proud.

The story from Livy.

Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, or Tarquin the Proud, son of

Tarquinius Priscus and son-in-law of Servius Tullius, brought

about the assassination of the latter, and mounted the throne.

"Lucius Tarquin, having thus seized the kingdom (for he had

not the consent either of the Senators or of the Commons to

his deed), bare himself very haughtily, so that men called him

Tarquin the Proud. First, lest some other, taking example by

him, should deal with him as he had dealt with Tullius, he had

about him a company of armed men for guards. And because he

knew that none loved him, he would have them fear him. To this

end he caused men to be accused before him. And when they were

so accused, he judged them by himself, none sitting with him

to see that right was done. Some he slew unjustly, and some he

banished, and some he spoiled of their goods. And when the

number of the Senators was greatly diminished by these means

(for he laid his plots mostly against the Senators, as being

rich men and the chief of the State), he would not choose any

into their place, thinking that the people would lightly

esteem them if there were but a few of them. Nor did he call

them together to ask their counsel, but ruled according to his

own pleasure, making peace and war, and binding treaties or

unbinding, with none to gainsay him. Nevertheless, for a while

he increased greatly in power and glory. He made alliance with

Octavius Mamilius, prince of Tusculum, giving him his daughter

in marriage; nor was there any man greater than Mamilius in

all the cities of the Latins; and Suessa Pometia, that was a

city of the Volsei, he took by force, and finding that the

spoil was very rich (for there were in it forty talents of

gold and silver), he built with the money a temple to Jupiter

on the Capitol, very great and splendid, and worthy not only

of his present kingdom but also of that great Empire that

should be thereafter. Also he took the city of Gabii by fraud.

… By such means did King Tarquin increase his power. Now there

was at Rome in the days of Tarquin a noble youth, by name

Lucius Junius, who was akin to the house of Tarquin, seeing

that his mother was sister to the King. This man, seeing how

the King sought to destroy all the chief men in the State

(and, indeed, the brother of Lucius had been so slain), judged

it well so to bear himself that there should be nothing in him

which the King should either covet or desire. Wherefore he

feigned foolishness, suffering all that he had to be made a

prey; for which reason men gave him the name of Brutus, or the

Foolish. Then he bided his time, waiting till the occasion

should come when he might win freedom for the people." In a

little time "there came to Brutus an occasion of showing what

manner of man he was. Sextus, the King's son, did so grievous

a wrong to Lucretia, that was the wife of Collatinus, that the

woman could not endure to live, but slew herself with her own

hand. But before she died she called to her her husband and

her father and Brutus, and bade them avenge her upon the evil

house of Tarquin. And when her father and her husband sat

silent for grief and fear, Brutus drew the knife wherewith she

slew herself from the wound, and held it before him dripping

with blood, and cried aloud, 'By this blood I swear, calling

the Gods to witness, that I will pursue with fire and sword

and with all other means of destruction Tarquin the Proud,

with his accursed wife and all his race; and that I will

suffer no man hereafter to be king in this city of Rome.' And

when he had ended he bade the others swear after the same form

of words. This they did and, forgetting their grief, thought

only how they might best avenge this great wrong that had been

done. First they carried the body of Lucretia, all covered

with blood, into the marketplace of Collatia (for these things

happened at Collatia), and roused all the people that saw a

thing so shameful and pitiful, till all that were of an age

for war assembled themselves carrying arms. Some of them

stayed behind to keep the gates of Collatia, that no one

should carry tidings of the matter to the King, and the rest

Brutus took with him with all the speed that he might to Rome.

There also was stirred up a like commotion, Brutus calling the

people together and telling them what a shameful wrong the

young Tarquin had done. Also he spake to them of the labours

with which the King wore them out in the building of temples

and palaces and the like, so that they who had been in time

past the conquerors of all the nations round about were now

come to be but his hewers of wood and drawers of water. Also

he set before them in what shameful sort King Tullius had been

slain, and how his daughter had driven her chariot over the

dead body of her father. With suchlike words he stirred up the

people to great wrath, so that they passed a decree that there

should be no more kings in Rome, and that Lucius Tarquin with

his wife and his children should be banished.

{2663}

After this Brutus made haste to the camp and stirred up the

army against the King. And in the meanwhile Queen Tullia fled

from her palace, all that saw her cursing her as she went. As

for King Tarquin, when he came to the city he found the gates

shut against him; thereupon he returned and dwelt at Cære that

is in the land of Etruria, and two of his sons with him; but

Sextus going to Gabii, as to a city which he had made his own,

was slain by the inhabitants. The King and his house being

thus driven out, Brutus was made consul with one Collatinus

for his colleague."

A. J. Church,

Stories from Livy;

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on the History of Rome,

lectures 8-9 (volume 1).

T. H. Dyer,

History of the Kings of Rome,

chapter 10.

ROME: B. C. 509.

The establishment of the Republic.

The Valerian Laws.

"However much the history of the expulsion of the last

Tarquinius, 'the proud,' may have been interwoven with

anecdotes and spun out into a romance, it is not in its

leading outlines to be called in question. … The royal power

was by no means abolished, as is shown by the fact that, when

a vacancy occurred, a 'temporary king' (interrex) was

nominated as before. The one life-king was simply replaced by

two year-kings, who called themselves generals (prætores), or

judges (iudices), or merely colleagues (consules) [consules

are those who 'leap or dance together.' Foot-note]. The

collegiate principle, from which this last—and subsequently

most current—name of the annual kings was derived, assumed in

their case an altogether peculiar form. The supreme power was

not entrusted to the two magistrates conjointly, but each

consul possessed and exercised it for himself as fully and

wholly as it had been possessed and exercised by the king;

and, although a partition of functions doubtless took place

from the first—the one consul for instance undertaking the

command of the army, and the other the administration of

justice—that partition was by no means binding, and each of

the colleagues was legally at liberty to interfere at any time

in the province of the other.

See CONSUL, ROMAN.

… This peculiarly Latin, if not peculiarly Roman, institution

of co-ordinate supreme authorities … manifestly sprang out of

the endeavour to retain the regal power in legally

undiminished fulness. … A similar course was followed in

reference to the termination of their tenure of office. … They

ceased to be magistrates, not upon the expiry of the set term,

but only upon their publicly and solemnly demitting their

office: so that, in the event of their daring to disregard the

term and to continue their magistracy beyond the year, their

official acts were nevertheless valid, and in the earlier

times they scarcely even incurred any other than a moral

responsibility."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 1.

"No revolution can be undertaken and completed with success if

the mass of the people is not led on by some superior

intellect. At the dissolution of an existing legal authority

the only authority remaining is personal and de facto, which

in proportion to the danger of the position is more or less

military and dictatorial. The Romans especially acknowledged

the necessity, when circumstances required it, of submitting

to the unlimited power of a dictator. Such a chief they found,

at the time of the revolution, in Brutus. Collatinus also may,

during a certain time, have stood in a similar manner at the

head of the state, probably from less pure motives than

Brutus, in consequence of which he succumbed to the movement

which he in part may have evoked. After Brutus, Valerius

Publicola was the recognised supreme head and the arbiter of

events in Rome with dictatorial power, until his legislation

made an end of the interregnum, and with all legal forms

founded the true and genuine republic with two annual consuls.

The dictatorship is found in the Latin cities as a state of

transition between monarchy and the yearly prætorship; and we

may conjecture that also in Rome the similar change in the

constitution was effected in a similar way. In important

historical crises the Romans always availed themselves of the

absolute power of a dictator, as in Greece, with similar

objects, Aesymnetae were chosen. … How long the dictatorial

constitution lasted must remain undecided; for we must

renounce the idea of a chronology of that time. It appears to

me not impossible that the period between the expulsion of the

kings and the Valerian laws, which is our authorities is

represented as a year, may have embraced ten years, or much

more."-

W. Ihne,

Researches into the History of the Roman Constitution,

page 61.

"The republic seems to have been first regularly established

by the Valerian laws, of which, unfortunately, we can discover

little more than half obliterated traces in the oldest

traditions of the Romans. According to the story, P. Valerius

was chosen as consul after the banishment of Tarquinius

Collatinus, and remained alone in office after the death of

his colleague, Brutus, without assembling the people for the

election of a second consul. This proceeding excited a

suspicion in the minds of the people, that he intended to take

sole possession of the state, and to re-establish royal power.

But these fears proved groundless. Valerius remained in office

with the sole design of introducing a number of laws intended

to establish the republic on a legal foundation, without the

danger of any interference on the part of a colleague. The

first of these Valerian laws threatened with the curse of the

gods anyone who, without the consent of the people, should

dare to assume the highest magistracy. … The second law of

Valerius … prescribe that in criminal trials, where the life

of a citizen was at stake, the sentence of the consul should

be subject to an appeal to the general assembly of the people.

This Valerian law of appeal was the Roman Habeas Corpus Act."

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

See, also,

CONSUL, ROMAN;

COMITIA CURIATA;

COMITIA CENTURIATA;

CENSORS;

QUÆSTORS, ROMAN;

SENATE, ROMAN.

ROME: B. C. 494-492.

The first secession of the Plebs.

Origin of the Tribunes of the Plebs, and the Ædiles.

Original and acquired power of the Tribunes.

The two Roman peoples and their antagonism.

"The struggle [of plebeians against patricians in early Rome]

opens with the debt question. We must realize all along how

the internal history is affected by the wars without. The

debtors fall into their difficulties through serving in the

field during the summer; for of course the army is a citizen

army and the citizens are agriculturists. Two patrician

families take the side of the poor, the Horatii and the

Valerii.

{2664}

Manius Valerius Publicola, created dictator, promises the

distressed farmers that, if they will follow him in his

campaign against the Sabines, he will procure the relaxation

of their burdens. They go and return victorious. But Appius

Claudius (whose family had but recently migrated to Rome, a

proud and overbearing Sabine stock) opposed the redemption of

the dictator's promise. The victorious host, forming a seventh

of the arm-bearing population, instantly marched out of the

gate of the city, crossed the river Anio, and took up a

station on the Sacred Mount [Mons Sacer]. They did not mean to

go back again; they were weary of their haughty masters. … At

last a peace is made—a formal peace concluded by the fetiales:

they will come back if they may have magistrates of their own.

This is the origin of the tribunes of the plebs [B. C. 492]. …

The plebs who marched back that day from the Sacred Mount had

done a deed which was to have a wonderful issue in the history

of the world; they had dropped a seed into the soil which

would one day spring up into the imperial government of the

Cæsars. The 'tribunicia potestas,' with which they were

clothing their new magistrates, was to become a more important

element in the claims of the emperors than the purple robe of

the consuls."

R. F. Horton,

History of the Romans,

chapter 3.

"The tribunes of the people were so essentially different from

all the other magistrates that, strictly speaking, they could

hardly be called magistrates at all. They were originally

nothing but the official counsel of the plebs—but counsel who

possessed a veto on the execution of any command or any

sentence of the patrician authorities. The tribune of the

people had no military force at his disposal with which to

inforce his veto. … There is no more striking proof of the

high respect for law which was inherent in the Roman people,

than that it was possible for such a magistracy to exercise

functions specially directed against the governing class. … To

strengthen an official authority which was so much wanting in

physical strength, the Romans availed themselves of the

terrors of religion. … The tribunes were accordingly placed

under the special protection of the Deity. They were declared

to be consecrated and inviolable ('sacrosancti'), and whoever

attacked them, or hindered them in the exercise of their

functions, fell a victim to the avenging Deity, and might be

killed by anyone without fear of punishment."

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 2, and book 6, chapter 8.

"The tribune had no political authority. Not being a

magistrate, he could not convoke the curies or the centuries

[see COMITIA CURIATA and COMITIA CENTURIATA]. He could make no

proposition in the senate; it was not supposed, in the

beginning, that he could appear there. He had nothing in

common with the real city—that is to say, with the patrician

city, where men did not recognize any authority of his. He was

not the tribune of the people; he was the tribune of the

plebs. There were then, as previously, two societies in

Rome—the city and the plebs; the one strongly organized,

having laws, magistrates, and a senate; the other a multitude,

which remained without rights and laws, but which found in its

inviolable tribunes protectors and judges. In succeeding years

we can see how the tribunes took courage, and what unexpected

powers they assumed. They had no authority to convoke the

people, but they convoked them. Nothing called them to the

senate; they sat at first at the door of the chamber; later

they sat within. They had no power to judge the patricians;

they judged them and condemned them. This was the result of

the inviolability attached to them as sacrosancti. Every other

power gave way before them. The patricians were disarmed the

day they had pronounced, with solemn rites, that whoever

touched a tribune should be impure. The law said, 'Nothing

shall be done against a tribune.' If, then, this tribune

convoked the plebs, the plebs assembled, and no one could

dissolve this assembly, which the presence of the tribune

placed beyond the power of the patricians and the laws. If the

tribune entered the senate, no one could compel him to retire.

If he seized a consul, no one could take the consul from his

hand. Nothing could resist the boldness of a tribune. Against

a tribune no one had any power, except another tribune. As

soon as the plebs thus had their chiefs, they did not wait

long before they had deliberative assemblies. These did not in

any manner resemble those of the patricians. The plebs, in

their comitia, were distributed into tribes; the domicile, not

religion or wealth, regulated the place of each one. The

assembly did not commence with a sacrifice; religion did not

appear there. They knew nothing of presages, and the voice of

an augur, or a pontiff, could not compel men to separate. It

was really the comitia of the plebs, and they had nothing of

the old rules, or of the religion of the patricians. True,

these assemblies did not at first occupy themselves with the

general interests of the city; they named no magistrates, and

passed no laws. They deliberated only on the interests of

their own order, named the plebeian chiefs, and carried

plebiscita. There was at Rome, for a long time, a double

series of decrees—senatusconsulta for the patricians,

plebiscita for the plebs. The plebs did not obey the

senatusconsulta, nor the patricians the plebiscita. There were

two peoples at Rome. These two peoples, always in presence of

each other, and living within the same walls, still had almost

nothing in common. A plebeian could not be consul of the city,

nor a patrician tribune of the plebs. The plebeian dill not

enter the assembly by curies, nor the patrician the assembly

of the tribes. They were two peoples that did not even

understand each other, not having—so to speak—common ideas. …

The patricians persisted in keeping the plebs without the body

politic, and the plebs established institutions of their own.

The duality of the Roman population became from day to day

more manifest. And yet there was something which formed a tie

between these two peoples: this was war. The patricians were

careful not to deprive themselves of soldiers. They had left

to the plebeians the title of citizens, if only to incorporate

them into the legions. They had taken care, too, that the

inviolability of the tribunes should not extend outside of

Rome, and for this purpose had decided that a tribune should

never go out of the city. In the army, therefore, the plebs

were under control; there was no longer a double power; in

presence of the enemy Rome became one."

N. D. Fustel de Coulanges,

The Ancient City,

book 4, chapter 7.

{2665}

It is supposed that the tribunes were originally two in

number; but later there were five, and, finally, ten. The law

which created their office was "deposited in a temple, under

the charge of two plebeian magistrates specially appointed for

the purpose and called Aediles or 'housemasters.' These

aediles were attached to the tribunes as assistants, and their

jurisdiction chiefly concerned such minor cases as were

settled by fines."

T. Mommsen,

History of the Roman Republic

(abridged by Bryant and Hendy),

chapter 7.

"Besides the tribunes, who stood over against the consuls, two

plebeian ædiles were appointed, who might balance the

patrician quæstors. Their name seems borrowed from the temple

(Ædes Cereris) which is now built on the cattle market between

the Palatine and the river to form a religious centre for the

plebeian interest, as the ancient temple of Saturn was already

a centre for the patrician interest. The goddess of bread is

to preside over the growth of the democracy. The duty of

ædiles is, in the first instance, to keep the public buildings

in repair; but they acquire a position not unlike that of

police-officers."

R. F. Horton,

History of the Romans,

chapter 3.

The office of the curule ædiles (two in number, who were

elected in "comitia tributa") was instituted in 366 B. C.

These were patricians at first; but in 304 B. C. the office

was thrown open in alternate years to the plebeians, and in 91

B. C. all restrictions were removed. The curule ædiles had

certain judicial functions, and formed with the plebeian

ædiles a board of police and market administration, having

oversight also of the religious games.

R. F. Horton,

History of the Romans,

Appendix A.

ALSO IN:

Sir G. C. Lewis,

Credibility of Early Roman History,

chapter 12, part 1.

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on the History of Rome,

lecture 16.

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).

ROME: B. C. 493.

League with the Latins.

See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

ROME: B. C. 489-450.

Volscian Wars.

The wars of the Romans with the neighboring Volscians

stretched over a period of some forty years (B. C. 489-450)

and ended in the disappearance of the latter from history. The

legend of Coriolanus (Caius Marcius, on whom the added name

was bestowed because of his valiant capture of the Volscian

town of Corioli) is connected with these wars; but modern

critics have stripped it of all historic credit and left it

only a beautiful romance.

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

A. J. Church,

Stories from Livy,

chapter 7.

ROME: B. C. 472-471.-

The Publilian Law of Volero.

Exclusion of Patricians from the Comitia Tributa.

"Volero Publilius was chosen one of the Tribunes for … [B. C.

472]; and he straightway proposed a law, by which it was

provided that the Tribunes and Ædiles of the plebs should be

elected by the plebeians themselves at the Assembly of the

Tribes in the Forum, not at the Assembly of the Centuries in

the Field of Mars. This is usually called the Publilian Law of

Volero. For a whole year the patricians succeeded in putting

off the law. But the plebeians were determined to have it."

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 8 (volume 1).

"The immediate consequence of the tribuneship of the people

was the organisation of the assembly of tribes, the 'comitia

tributa,' whereby they lost their former character as

factional or party meetings and were raised to the·dignity and

functions of assemblies of the Roman people. … The

circumstances which, in 471 B. C., led to the passing of the

Publilian law, seem to indicate that even at that time the

attempt was made by the patricians to change the original

character of the tribuneship of the people, and to open it to

the patrician class. The patricians intruded themselves in the

assembly of the plebeians, surely not for the purpose of

making a disturbance as it is represented, but to enforce a

contested right, by which they claimed to take part in the

comitia of tribes. … This question was decided by the

Publilian law, which excluded the patricians from the comitia

tributa and specified the privileges of these comitia, now

admitted to be purely plebeian. … These were the right of

meeting together unmolested in separate purely plebeian

comitia, the right of freely and independently electing their

representatives, the right of discussing and settling their

own affairs, and in certain matters of passing resolutions

[plebiscita] which affected the whole community. These

resolutions were, of course, not binding on the state, they

had more the character of petitions than enactments, but still

they were the formal expression of the will of a great

majority of the Roman people, and as such they could not

easily be set aside or ignored by the patrician government."

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 8, and book 6, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on History of Rome,

lecture 20.

ROME: B. C. 466-463.

The Plague.

In the war of the Romans with the Volscians, the former were

so hard pressed that "it became necessary to receive men and

cattle within the walls or Rome, just as at Athens in the

Peloponnesian war; and this crowding together of men and

beasts produced a plague [B. C. 466-403]. … It is probable

that the great pestilence which, thirty years later, broke out

in Greece and Carthage, began in Italy as early as that time.

The rate of mortality was fearful; it was a real pestilence,

and not a mere fever. … Both consuls fell victims to the

disease, two of the four augurs, the curio maximus, the fourth

part of the senators, and an immense number of citizens of all

classes."

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on the History of Rome,

lecture 21.

ALSO IN:

T. Arnold,

History of Rome,

chapter 11.

ROME: B. C. 458.

Conquest of the Æqui.

"Alternating with the raids [of the Romans] against the Volsci

are the almost yearly campaigns with the Æqui, who would pour

down their valleys and occupy Mount Algidus, threatening

Tusculum and the Latin Way which led to Rome. It was on one of

these occasions, when the republic too was engaged with

Sabines to the north, and Volscians to the south, that the

Consul Minucius [B. C. 458] found himself hemmed in on the

mountainside by the Æqui. Very beautiful and very

characteristic is the legend which veils the issue of the

danger. L. Quinctius Cincinnatus, ruined by a fine imposed

upon his son, is tilling his little farm across the Tiber,

when the messengers of the Senate come to announce that he is

made dictator. With great simplicity he leaves his plough,

conquers the Æqui, and returns to his furrows again."

R. F. Horton.

History of the Romans,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

A. J. Church,

Stories from Livy,

chapter 9.

{2666}

ROME: B. C. 456.

The Icilian Law.

The early process of legislation illustrated.

Persuasiveness of Plebeian Petitions.

"The process of legislation in early times has been preserved

to us in a single instance in which Dionysius has followed the

account derived by him from an ancient document. The case is

that of the Lex Icilia de Aventino publicando (B. C. 456), an

interlude in the long struggle over the Terentilian law.

See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

This Lex Icilia was preserved, as Dionysius tells us, on a

brazen column in the temple of Diana on the Aventine. It seems

unlikely that the original tablet in such a situation should

have survived the burning of the city by the Gauls. Yet a

record so important to the plebs would doubtless be at once

restored, and the restoration would show at least the belief

prevalent at this very early period (B. C. 389) as to the

proper procedure in case of such a law. 'Icilius,' says

Dionysius (X. 31), 'approached the consuls then in office and

the senate, and requested them to pass the preliminary decree

for the law that he proposed, and to bring it before the

people.' By threatening to arrest the consuls he compelled

them to assemble the senate, and Icilius addressed the senate

on behalf of his bill. Finally the senate consented … (Dionys.

X. 32). Then, after auspices and sacrifices, 'the law was

passed by the comitia centuriata, which were convened by the

consuls.' … Now here we have an order of proceeding under

which the plebs have a practical initiative in legislation,

and in which, nevertheless, each of the powers of the state

acts in a perfectly natural and constitutional manner. … The

formal legislative power lies solely with the populus Romanus.

The vote of the corporation of the plebs is not then in early

times strictly a legislative process at all. It is merely a

strong and formal petition; an appeal to the sovereign

assembly to grant their request. But this sovereign assembly

can only be convened and the question put to it by a consul.

If the consuls are unfavourable to the bill, they can refuse

to put it to the vote at all. In any case, unless, like Sp.

Cassius, they were themselves revolutionists, they would not

think of doing so save on the recommendation of their

authorised advisers. … The senate is assembled and freely

dis·cusses the law. An adverse vote justifies the consuls in

their resistance. Then follow tedious manœuvres. The senate

treat with members of the college of tribunes to procure their

veto; they urge the necessity of a military expedition, or, as

a last resource, advise the appointment of a dictator. Such is

the general picture we get from Livy's story. If by these

means they can tide over the tribune's year of office, the

whole process has to be gone through again. The senate have

the chance of a lucky accident in getting one of the new

tribunes subservient to them; or sometimes (as in the case of

the proposal to remove to Veii) they may persuade the plebs

itself to throw out the tribunician rogatio when again

introduced (Livy, v. 30). On the other hand the tribunes may

bring to bear their reserved power of impeding all public

business; and the ultima ratio lies with the plebeians, who

have the power of secession in their hands. In practice,

however, the senate is nearly always wise enough to yield

before the plebs is driven to play this its last card. Their

yielding is expressed by their backing the petition of the

plebs and recommending the consuls to put the question of its

acceptance to the populus. With this recommendation on the

part of the senate the struggle is generally at an end. It is

still in the strict right of the consuls to refuse to put the

question to the comitia. Livy (iii. 19) gives us one instance

in the matter of the Terentilian law, when the senate is

disposed to yield, and the consul 'non in plebe coercendâ quam

senatu castigando vehementior fuit.' But a consul so insisting

on his right would incur enormous personal responsibility, and

expose himself, unsheltered by public opinion, to the

vengeance of the plebs when he went out of office. When the

consul too has yielded, and the question is actually put to

the vote of the sovereign (generally in its comitia

centuriata), the controversy has been long ago thoroughly

threshed out. Though it is only at this stage that legislation

in the strict sense of the word commences, yet no instance is

recorded of a refusal on the part of the sovereign people to

assent to the petition of the plebs backed by the

recommendation of the senate."

J. L. Strachan-Davidson,

Plebeian Privilege at Rome

(English Historical Review, April, 1886).

On the bearings of this proceeding on the subsequently adopted

Valerio-Horatian, Publilian, and Hortensian laws.

See ROME: B. C. 286.

ROME: B. C. 451-449.

The Terentilian Law.

The Decemvirs and the Twelve Tables.

Not long after the establishment of the tribuneship, "the

plebeians felt the necessity of putting an end to the

exclusive possession of the laws which the patricians enjoyed,

and to make them the common property of the whole nation. This

could only be done by writing them down and making them

public. A proposal was accordingly made in the assembly of the

tribes by the tribune C. Terentilius Arsa (462 B. C.) to

appoint a commission for the purpose of committing to writing

the whole of the laws. … It is not wonderful that the

patricians opposed with all their strength a measure which

would wrest a most powerful weapon out of their hands. … The

contest for the passing of the bill of Terentilius lasted,

according to tradition, not less than ten years, and all means

of open and secret opposition and of partial concession were

made use of to elude the claims of the popular party. … After

a ten years' struggle it [the motion for a commission] was

passed into law. It proposed that a commission of ten men,

being partly patricians and partly plebeians, should be

appointed, for the purpose of arranging the existing law into

a code. At the same time the consular constitution was to be

suspended, and the ten men to be intrusted with the government

and administration of the commonwealth during the time that

they acted as legislators. By the same law the plebeian

magistracy of the tribunes of the people ceased likewise, and

the ten men became a body of magistrates intrusted with

unlimited authority. … The patricians did not act entirely in

good faith. … They carried the election of ten patricians. …

Having, however, obtained this advantage over the credulity of

their opponents, the patricians made no attempt to use it

insolently as a party victory. The decemvirs proceeded with

wisdom and moderation. Their administration, as well as their

legislation, met with universal approval. They published on

ten tables the greater part of the Roman law, and after these

laws had met with the approbation of the people, they were

declared by a decision of the people to be binding. Thus the

first year of the decemvirate passed, and so far the

traditional story is simple and intelligible."

{2667}

The part of the tradition which follows is largely rejected by

modern critical historians. It relates that when decemvirs

were chosen for another year, to complete their work, Appius

Claudius brought about the election, with himself, of men whom

he could control, and then established a reign of terror which

surpassed the worst tyranny of the kings, refusing to abdicate

when the year expired. The tragic story of Virginia connects

itself with this terrible oppression, and with the legend of

its downfall. In the end, the Roman people delivered

themselves, and secured the permanent authority of the code of

laws, which had been enlarged from ten to twelve Tables.

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 9 and 10.

"The Twelve Tables were considered as the foundation of all

law, and Cicero always mentions them with the utmost

reverence. But only fragments remain."

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 11.

"The most celebrated system of jurisprudence known to the

world begins, as it ends, with a code. From the commencement

to the close of its history, the expositors of Roman Law

consistently employed language which implied that the body of

their system rested on the Twelve Decemviral [Tables, and

therefore on a basis of written law. Except in one

particular, no institutions anterior to the Twelve Tables

were recognised at Rome. The theoretical descent of Roman

jurisprudence from a code, the theoretical ascription of

English law to immemorial unwritten tradition, were the chief

reasons why the development of their system differed from the

development of ours. Neither theory corresponded exactly with

the facts, but each produced consequences of the utmost

importance. … The ancient Roman code belongs to a class of

which almost every civilised nation in the world can show a

sample, and which, so far as the Roman and Hellenic worlds

were concerned, were largely diffused over them at epochs not

widely distant from one another. They appeared under

exceedingly similar circumstances, and were produced, to our

knowledge, by very similar causes. … In Greece, in Italy, on

the Hellenised sea-board of Western Asia, these codes all

made their appearance at periods much the same everywhere,

not, I mean, at periods identical in point of time, but

similar in point of the relative progress of each community.

Everywhere, in the countries I have named, laws engraven on

tablets and published to the people take the place of usages

deposited with the recollection of a privileged oligarchy. …

The ancient codes were doubtless originally suggested by the

discovery and diffusion of the art of writing. It is true

that the aristocracies seem to have abused their monopoly of

legal knowledge; and at all events their exclusive possession

of the law was a formidable impediment to the success of

those popular movements which began to be universal in the

western world. But, though democratic sentiment may have

added to their popularity, the codes were certainly in the

main a direct result of the invention of writing. Inscribed

tablets were seen to be a better depositary of law, and a

better security for its accurate preservation, than the

memory of a number of persons however strengthened by

habitual exercise. … Among the chief advantages which the

Twelve Tables and similar codes conferred on the societies

which obtained them, was the protection which they afforded

against the frauds of the privileged oligarchy and also

against the spontaneous depravation and debasement of the

national institutions. The Roman Code was merely an

enunciation in words of the existing customs of the Roman

people. Relatively to the progress of the Romans in

civilization, it was a remarkably early code, and it was

published at a time when Roman society had barely emerged

from that intellectual condition in which civil obligation

and religious duty are inevitably confounded."

H. S. Maine,

Ancient Law,

chapter 1.

ROME: B. C. 449.

The Valerio-Horatian Laws.

On the overthrow of the tyranny of the Decemvirs, at Rome, B.

C. 449, L. Valerius Potitus and M. Horatius Barbatus, being

elected consuls, brought about the passage of certain laws,

known as the Valerio-Horatian Laws. These renewed an old law

(the Valerian Law) which gave to every Roman citizen an appeal

from the supreme magistrate to the people, and they also made

the plebiscita, or resolutions of the assembly of the tribes,

authoritative laws, binding on the whole body politic.

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 10.

See a discussion of the importance of the last mentioned of

these laws, in its relations to the subsequent Publilian and

Hortensian laws.

See, ROME: B. C. 286.

ROME: B. C. 445-400.

The Canuleian Law.

Creation of the Consular Tribunes.

Progress of the Plebs toward Political Equality.

"The year 449 had not taken from the patricians all their

privileges. Rome has still two classes, but only one people,

and the chiefs of the plebs, sitting in the senate, are

meditating, after the struggle to obtain civil equality, to

commence another to gain political equality. … Two things

maintained the insulting distinction between the two orders:

the prohibition of marriage between patricians and plebeians,

and the tenure of all the magisterial officers by those who

formed since the origin of Rome the sovereign people of the

'patres.' In 445 B. C. the tribune Canuleius demanded the

abolition of the prohibition relative to marriages, and his

colleagues, a share in the consulate. This was a demand for

political equality." The Canuleian law legalizing marriages

between patricians and plebeians was conceded, but not until a

third "secession" of the plebeians had taken place. The

plebeian demand for a share in the consulate was pacified for

the time by a constitutional change which formed out of the

consulate three offices: "the quæstorship, the censorship and

the consular tribunate. The two former are exclusively

patrician. The military [or consular] tribunes, in reality

proconsuls confined, with one exception, to the command of the

legions, could now be chosen without distinction, from the two

orders. But the law, in not requiring that every year a fixed

number of them be plebeians, allowed them to be all

patricians; and they remained so for nearly fifty years. In

spite of such skilful precautions, the senate did not give up

the consulate. It held in reserve and pure from all taint the

patrician magistracy, hoping for better days. … The

constitution of 444 B. C. authorized the nomination of

plebeians to the consular tribunate; down to 400 B. C. none

obtained it; and during the seventy-eight years that this

office continued, the senate twenty-four times nominated

consuls, that is to say, it attempted, and succeeded, one year

in three, in re-establishing the ancient form of government.

{2668}

These perpetual oscillations encouraged the ambitious hopes of

a rich knight, Spurius Mælius (439 B. C.). He thought that the

Romans would willingly resign into his hands their unquiet

liberty, and during a famine he gave very liberally to the

poor. The senate became alarmed at this alms-giving which was

not at all in accordance with the manners of that time, and

raised to the dictatorship Cincinnatus, who, on taking office,

prayed the gods not to grant that his old age should prove a

cause of hurt or damage to the republic. Summoned before the

tribunal of the dictator, Mælius refused to appear, and sought

protection against the lictors amongst the crowd which filled

the Forum. But the master of the horse, Serv. Ahala, managed

to reach him, and ran him through with his sword. In spite of

the indignation of the people, Cincinnatus sanctioned the act

of his lieutenant, caused the house of the traitor to be

demolished, and the 'præfectus annonæ,' Minucius Augurinus,

sold, for an 'as' per 'modius,' the corn amassed by Mælius.

Such is the story of the partisan of the nobles [Livy]; but at

that epoch to have dreamt of reestablishing royalty would have

been a foolish dream in which Spurius could not have indulged.

Without doubt he had wished to obtain, by popular favour, the

military tribunate, and in order to intimidate the plebeian

candidates, the patricians overthrew him by imputing to him

the accusation which Livy complacently details by the mouth of

Cincinnatus, of having aimed at royalty. The crowd always can

be cajoled by words, and the senate had the art of

concentrating on this word 'royalty' all the phases of popular

hatred. The move succeeded; during the eleven years following

the people nine times allowed consuls to be nominated. There

was, however, in 433 B. C. a plebeian dictator, Mamercus

Æmilius, who reduced the tenure of censorship to 18 months.

These nine consulships gave such confidence to the nobles that

the senate itself had to suffer from the proud want of

discipline shown by the consuls of the year 428 B. C. Though

conquered by the Æquians, they refused to nominate a dictator.

To overcome their resistance the senate had recourse to the

tribunes of the people, who threatened to drag the consuls to

prison. To see the tribunitian authority protecting the

majesty of the senate was quite a new phenomenon. From this

day the reputation of the tribunate equalled its power, and

few years passed without the plebeians obtaining some new

advantage. Three years earlier the tribunes, jealous of seeing

the votes always given to the nobles, had proscribed the white

robes, which marked out from a distance, to all eyes, the

patrician candidate: This was the first law against undue

canvassing. In 430 a law put an end to arbitrary valuations of

penalties payable in kind. In 427 the tribunes, by opposing

the levies, obliged the senate to carry to the comitia

centuriata the question of the war against Veii. In 423 they

revived the agrarian law, and demanded that the tithe should

be more punctually paid in the future by the occupiers of

domain land, and applied to the pay of the troops. They

miscarried this time: but in 421 it seemed necessary to raise

the number of quæstors from two to four; the people consented

to it only on the condition that the quæstorship be accessible

to the plebeians. Three years later 3,000 acres of the lands

of Labicum were distributed to fifteen hundred plebeian

families. It was very little: so the people laid claim in 414

to the division of the lands of Bola, taken from the Æquians.

A military tribune, Postumius, being violently opposed to it,

was slain in an outbreak of the soldiery. This crime, unheard

of in the history of Roman armies, did harm to the popular

cause; there was no distribution of lands, and for five years

the senate was able to nominate the consuls. The patrician

reaction produced another against it which ended in the

thorough execution of the constitution of the year 444. An

Icilius in 412, a Mænius in 410 B. C. took up again the

agrarian law, and opposed the levy. The year following three

of the Icilian family were named as tribunes. It was a menace

to the other order. The patricians understood it, and in 410

three plebeians obtained the quæstorship. In 405 pay was

established for the troops, and the rich undertook to pay the

larger portion of it. Finally, in 400, four military tribunes

out of six were plebeians. The chiefs of the people thus

obtained the public offices and even places in the senate, and

the poor obtained an indemnity which supported their families

while they served with the colours. All ambitions, all

desires, are at present satisfied. Calm and union returned to

Rome; we can see it in the vigour of the attacks on external

foes."

V. Duruy,

History of Rome,

volume 1, pages 231-239.

ROME: B. C. 406-396.

The Veientine wars.

Proposed removal to Veii.

"Veii lay about ten miles from Rome, between two small streams

which meet a little below the city and run down into the

Tiber, falling into it nearly opposite to Castel Giubileo, the

ancient Fidenæ. Insignificant in point of size, these little

streams, however, like those of the Campagna generally, are

edged by precipitous rocky cliffs, and thus are capable of

affording a natural defence to a town built on the table-land

above and between them. The space enclosed by the walls of

Veii was equal to the extent of Rome itself, so long as the

walls of Servius Tullius were the boundary of the city. … In

the magnificence of its public and private buildings Veii is

said to have been preferred by the Roman commons to Rome: and

we know enough of the great works of the Etruscans to render

this not impossible."

T. Arnold,

History of Rome,

chapter 12 (volume 1).

"Rome and Veii, equals in strength and size, had engaged in

periodical conflicts from time immemorial. … But the time had

come for the final struggle with Veii. … How the siege lasted

for ten years [B. C. 406-396]; how, at the bidding of a

captured Tuscan seer, the Alban Lake was drained (and is not

the tunnel which drained it visible to-day?); how Camillus,

the dictator, by a tunnel underground took the city, and

fore·stalled the sacrifice; how Juno came from Veii, and took

up her abode upon the Aventine; how Camillus triumphed; and

how the nemesis fell upon him, and he was banished—all this

and more is told by Livy in his matchless way. It is an epic,

and a beautiful epic."

R. F. Horton,

History of the Romans,

chapter 4.

{2669}

At the time of the conquest of Veii, there was a proposal that

half the inhabitants of Rome should remove to the empty city,

and found a new state. It was defeated with difficulty. A

little later, when the Gauls had destroyed Rome, its citizens,

having found Veii a strong and comfortable place of refuge,

were nearly persuaded to remain there and not rebuild their

former home. Thus narrowly was the "Eternal City" saved to

history.

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapters 13 and 15.

ROME: B. C. 390-347.

Invasions by the Gauls.

Destruction of the city.

"Before the time we are now speaking of, there had been a

great movement in these Celtic nations [of Gael and Cymri].

Two great swarms went out from Gaul. Of these, one crossed the

Alps into Italy; the other, moving eastward, in the course of

time penetrated into Greece. … It is supposed that the Gael

who dwelt in the eastern parts of Gaul, being oppressed by

Cymric tribes of the west and north, went forth to seck new

homes in distant lands. … At all events, it is certain that

large bodies of Celts passed over the Alps before and after

this time, and having once tasted the wines and eaten the

fruits of Italy, were in no hurry to return from that fair

land into their own less hospitable regions. We read of one

swarm after another pressing into the land of promise; parties

of Lingones, whose fathers lived about Langres in Champagne;

Boians, whose name is traced in French Bourbon and Italian

Bologna; Senones, whose old country was about Sens, and who

have left record of themselves in the name of Senigaglia (Sena

Gallica) on the coast of the Adriatic. … They overran the rich

plains of Northern Italy, and so occupied the territory which

lies between the Alps, the Apennines and the Adriatic [except

Liguria] that the Romans called this territory Gallia

Cisalpina, or Hither Gaul. The northern Etruscans gave way

before these fierce barbarians, and their name is heard of no

more in those parts. Thence the Gauls crossed the Apennines

into southern Etruria, and while they were ravaging that

country they first came in contact with the sons of Rome. The

common date for this event is 300 B. C. … The tribe which took

this course were of the Senones, as an authors say, and

therefore we may suppose they were Gaelic; but it has been

thought they were mixed with Cymri, since the name of their

king or chief was Brennus, and Brenhin is Cymric for a king."

The Romans met the invaders on the banks of the Alia, a little

stream from the Sabine Hills which flows into the Tiber, and

were terribly defeated there. The Gauls entered Rome and

found, as the ancient story is, only a few venerable senators,

sitting in their chairs and robes of state, whom they slew,

because one of the senators resented the stroking of his beard

by an insolent barbarian. The remaining inhabitants had

withdrawn into the Capitol, or taken refuge at Veii and Cære.

After pillaging and burning the city, the Gauls laid siege to

the Capitol, and strove desperately for seven months to

overcome its defenders by arms or famine. In the end they

retreated, without success, but whether bribed, or driven, or

weakened by sickness, is matter of uncertainty. The Romans

cherished many legends connected with the siege of the

Capitol,—like that, for example, of the sentinel and the

sacred geese. "Thirty years after the first irruption (361 B.

C.), we hear that another host of Senonian Gauls burst into

Latium from the north, and, in alliance with the people of

Tibur, ravaged the lands of Rome, Latium and Campania. For

four years they continued their ravages, and then we hear of

them no more. A third irruption followed, ten years later [B.

C. 347], of still more formidable character. At that time, the

Gauls formed a stationary camp on the Alban Hills and kept

Rome in perpetual terror. … After some months they poured

southwards, and disappear from history."

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 14 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 4.

A. J. Church,

Stories from Livy,

chapters 13-14.

ROME: B. C. 376-367.

The Licinian Laws.

"C. Licinius Stolo and L. Sextius … being Tribunes of the

Plebs together in the year 376 B. C. promulgated the three

bills which have ever since borne the name of the Licinian

Rogations. These were:

I. That of all debts on which interest had been paid, the sum

of the interest paid should be deducted from the principal,

and the remainder paid off in three successive years.

II. That no citizen should hold more than 500 jugera (nearly

320 acres) of the Public Land, nor should feed on the public

pastures more than 100 head of larger cattle and 500 of

smaller, under penalty of a heavy fine.

III. That henceforth Consuls, not Consular Tribunes, should

always be elected, and that one of the two Consuls must be a

Plebeian."

The patricians made a desperate resistance to the adoption of

these proposed enactments for ten years, during most of which

long period the operations of government were nearly paralyzed

by the obstinate tribunes, who inflexibly employed their

formidable power of veto to compel submission to the popular

demand. In the end they prevailed, and the Licinian rogations

became Laws.

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 15 (volume 1).

"Licinius evidently designed reuniting the divided members of

the plebeian body. Not one of them, whether rich or poor, but

seems called back by these bills to stand with his own order

from that time on. If this supposition was true, then Licinius

was the greatest leader whom the plebeians ever had up to the

time of Cæsar. But from the first he was disappointed. The

plebeians who most wanted relief cared so little for having

the consulship opened to the richer men of their estate that

they would readily have dropped the bill concerning it, lest a

demand should endanger their own desires. In the same temper

the more eminent men of the order, themselves among the

creditors of the poor and the tenants of the domain, would

have quashed the proceedings of the tribunes respecting the

discharge of debt and the distribution of land, so that they

carried the third bill only, which would make them consuls

without disturbing their possessions. While the plebeians

continued severed from one another, the patricians drew

together in resistance to the bills. Licinius stood forth

demanding, at once, all that it had cost his predecessors

their utmost energy to demand, singly and at long intervals,

from the patricians. … The very comprehensiveness of his

measures proved the safeguard of Licinius. Had he preferred

but one of these demands, he would have been unhesitatingly

opposed by the great majority of the patricians. On the other

hand he would have had comparatively doubtful support from the

plebs." In the end, after a struggle of ten years duration,

Licinius and Sextius carried their three bills, together with

a fourth, brought forward later, which opened to the plebeians

the office of the duumvirs, who consulted the Sibyline books.

{2670}

"It takes all the subsequent history of Rome to measure the

consequences of the Revolution achieved by Licinius and

Sextius; but the immediate working of their laws could have

been nothing but a disappointment to their originators and

upholders. … For some ten years the law regarding the

consulship was observed, after which it was occasionally

violated, but can still be called a success. The laws of

relief, as may be supposed of all such sumptuary enactments,

were violated from the first. No general recovery of the

public land from those occupying more than five hundred jugera

ever took place. Consequently there was no general division of

land among the lack-land class. Conflicting claims and

jealousy on the part of the poor must have done much to

embarrass and prevent the execution of the law. No system of

land survey to distinguish between 'ager publicus' and 'ager

privatus' existed. Licinius Stolo himself was afterwards

convicted of violating his own law. The law respecting debts

met with much the same obstacles. The causes of embarrassment

and poverty being much the same and undisturbed, soon

reproduced the effects which no reduction of interest or

installment of principal could effectually remove. … These

laws, then, had little or no effect upon the domain question

or the re-distribution of land. They did not fulfil the

evident expectation of their author in uniting the plebeians

into one political body. This was impossible. What they did do

was to break up and practically abolish the patriciate.

Henceforth were the Roman people divided into rich and poor

on]y."

A. Stephenson,

Public Lands and Agrarian Laws of the Roman Republic

(Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th series, numbers 7-8).

ALSO IN:

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

S. Eliot,

The Liberty of Rome,

book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

ROME: B. C. 366.

Institution of the Prætorship.

"By the establishment of the prætorship (366 B. C.) the office

of chief judge was separated as a distinct magistracy from the

consulship. … The prætor was always looked upon as the

colleague of the consuls. He was elected in the same manner as

the consuls by centuriate comitia, and, moreover, under the

same auspices. He was furnished with the imperium, had lictors

and fasces. He represented the consuls in town by assembling

the senate, conducting its proceedings, executing its decrees.

… Up to the time of the first Punic war one prætor only was

annually elected. Then a second was added to conduct the

jurisdiction between citizens and foreigners. A distinction

was now made between the city prætor (prætor urbanus), who was

always looked upon as having a higher dignity, and the foreign

prætor (prætor peregrinus). On the final establishment of the

two provinces of Sicily and Sardinia, probably 227 B. C., two

new prætors were appointed to superintend the regular

government of those provinces, and still later on two more

were added for the two provinces of Spain. The number of

annual prætors now amounted to six, and so it remained until

the legislation of Sulla."

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 6, chapter 5.

See, also, CONSUL, ROMAN.

ROME: B. C. 343-290.

The Samnite Wars.

When the Romans had made themselves dominant in middle Italy,

and the Samnites [see SAMNITES] in southern Italy, the

question which of the two peoples should be masters of the

peninsula at large was sure to demand settlement. About the

middle of the fourth century, B. C., it began to urge the two

rivals into collision, and the next two generations of Romans

were busied chiefly with Samnite Wars, of which they fought

three, with brief intervals to divide them, and at the end of

which the Samnite name had been practically erased from

history. The first hostilities grew out of a quarrel between

the Samnites of the mountains and their degenerate countrymen

of Capua and Campania. The latter sought help from the Romans,

and, according to the Romans, surrendered their city to them

in order to secure it; but this is obviously untrue. The First

Samnite War, which followed this (B. C. 343-341), had no

definite result, and seems to have been brought to an end

rather abruptly by a mutiny in the Roman army and by trouble

between Rome and her Latin allies. According to the Roman

annals there were three great battles fought in this war, one

on Mount Gaurus, and two elsewhere; but Mommsen and other

historians entirely distrust the historic details as handed

down. The Second or Great Samnite War occurred after an

interval of fifteen years, during which time the Romans had

conquered all Latium, reducing their Latin kinsmen from

confederates to subjects. That accomplished, the Romans were

quite ready to measure swords again with their more important

rivals in the south. The long, desperate and doubtful war

which ensued was of twenty-two years duration (B. C. 326-304).

In the first years of this war victory was with the Romans and

the Samnites sued for peace; but the terms offered were too

hard fur them and they fought on. Then Fortune smiled on them

and gave them an opportunity to inflict on their haughty enemy

one of the greatest humiliations that Rome in all her history

ever suffered. The entire Roman army, commanded by the two

consuls of the year, was caught in a mountain defile (B. C.

321), at a place called the Caudine Forks, and compelled to

surrender to the Samnite genera], C. Pontius. The consuls and

other officers of the Romans signed a treaty of peace with

Pontius, and all were then set free, after giving up their

armor and their cloaks and passing "under the yoke." But the

Roman senate refused to ratify the treaty, and gave up those

who had signed it to the Samnites. The latter refused to

receive the offered prisoners and vainly demanded a fulfilment

of the treaty. Their great victory had been thrown away, and,

although they won another important success at Lautulæ, the

final result of the war which they were forced to resume was

disastrous to them. After twenty-two years of obstinate

fighting they accepted terms (B. C. 304) which stripped them

of all their territory on the sea-coast, and required them to

acknowledge the supremacy of Rome. The peace so purchased

lasted less than six years. The Samnites were tempted (B. C.

298) while the Romans had a war with Etruscans and Gauls on

their hands, to attempt the avenging of their humiliations.

Their fate was decided at the battle of Sentinum (B. C. 295),

won by the old consul, Q. Fabius Maximus, against the allied

Samnites and Gauls, through the heroic self-sacrifice of his

colleague, P. Decius Mus [imitating his father, of the same

name.]

See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

{2671}

The Samnites struggled hopelessly on some five years longer

and submitted finally in 290 B. C. Their great leader,

Pontius, was put to death in the dungeons of the state prison

under the Capitoline.

J. Michelet,

History of the Roman Republic,

book 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapters 19, and 21-24.

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 6.

ROME: B. C. 340.

The Publilian Laws.

"In the second year of the Latin war (340 B. C.) the Plebeian

Consul, Q. Publilius Philo, being named Dictator by his

Patrician colleague for some purpose now unknown, proposed and

carried three laws still further abridging the few remaining

privileges of the Patrician Lords. The first Publilian law

enacted that one of the Censors, as one of the Consuls, must

be a Plebeian. … The second gave fuller sanction to the

principle already established, that the Resolutions of the

Plebeian Assembly should have the force of law. The third

provided that all laws passed at the Comitia of the Centuries

or of the Tribes should receive beforehand the sanction of the

Curies."

G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 3, chapter 20 (volume 1).

See a discussion of these laws in their relation to the

preceding Valerio-Horatian law, and the subsequent Hortensian

laws.

ROME: B. C. 286.

ROME: B. C. 339-338.

Subjugation of the Latins.

Grant of pseudo-citizenship.

The real concession of the next century and its effects.

A league between the Romans and their kinsmen and neighbors,

the Latins, of Tibur, Præneste, Lanuvium, Aricia, Velitræ, and

other towns, as well as with the Hernicans, existed during a

century and a half, from the treaty of Sp. Cassius, B. C. 493,

according to the Roman annals. At first, the members of the

league stood together on fairly equal terms fighting

successful wars with the Volscians, the Æquians and the

Etruscans. But all the time the Romans contrived to be the

greater gainers by the alliance, and as their power grew their

arrogance increased, until the Latin allies were denied almost

all share in the conquests and the spoils which they helped to

win. The discontent which this caused fermented to an outbreak

after the first of the Samnite wars. The Latins demanded to be

admitted to Roman citizenship and to a share in the government

of the state. Their demand was haughtily and even insultingly

refused, and a fierce, deadly war between the kindred peoples

ensued (B. C. 339-338). The decisive battle of the war was

fought under Mount Vesuvius, and the Romans were said to have

owed their victory to the self-sacrifice of the plebeian

consul, P. Decius Mus, who, by a solemn ceremony, devoted

himself and the army of the enemy to the infernal gods, and

then threw himself into the thick of the fight, to be slain.

The Latin towns were all reduced to dependence upon Rome,—some

with a certain autonomy left to them, some with none. "Thus,

isolated, politically powerless, socially dependent on Rome,

the old towns of the Latins, once so proud and so free, became

gradually provincial towns of the Roman territory. … The old

Latium disappeared and a new Latium took its place, which, by

means of Latin colonies, carried the Roman institutions, in

the course of two centuries, over the whole peninsula."

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 3, chapter 6 (volume 1).

"The Latins, being conquered, surrendered,—that is to say,

they gave up to the Romans their cities, their worships, their

laws, and their lands. Their position was cruel. A consul said

in the senate that, if they did not wish Rome to be surrounded

by a vast desert, the fate of the Latins should be settled

with some regard to clemency. Livy does not clearly explain

what was done. If we are to trust him, the Latins obtained the

right of Roman citizenship without including in the political

privileges the right of suffrage, or in the civil the right of

marriage. We may also note, that these new citizens were not

counted in the census. It is clear that the senate deceived

the Latins in giving them the name of Roman citizens. This

title disguised a real subjection, since the men who bore it

had the obligations of citizens without the rights. So true is

this, that several Latin cities revolted, in order that this

pretended citizenship might be withdrawn. A century passed,

and, without Livy's notice of the fact, we might easily

discover that Rome had changed her policy. The condition of

the Latins having the rights of citizens, without suffrage and

without connubium, no longer existed. Rome had withdrawn from

them the title of citizens, or, rather, had done away with

this falsehood, and had decided to restore to the different

cities their municipal governments, their laws, and their

magistracies. But by a skilful device Rome opened a door

which, narrow as it was, permitted subjects to enter the Roman

city. It granted to every Latin who had been a magistrate in

his native city the right to become a Roman citizen at the

expiration of his term of office. This time the gift of this

right was complete and without reserve; suffrage,

magistracies, census, marriage, private law, all were

included. … By being a citizen of Rome, a man gained honor,

wealth, and security. The Latins, therefore, became eager to

obtain this title, and used all sorts of means to acquire it.

One day, when Rome wished to appear a little severe, she found

that 12,000 of them had obtained it through fraud. Ordinarily,

Rome shut her eyes, knowing that by this means her population

increased, and that the losses of war were thus repaired. But

the Latin cities suffered; their richest inhabitants became

Roman citizens, and Latium was impoverished. The taxes, from

which the richest were exempt as Roman citizens, became more

and more burdensome, and the contingent of soldiers that had

to be furnished to Rome was every year more difficult to fill

up."

N. D. Fustel de Coulanges,

The Ancient City,

book 5, chapter 2.

ROME: B. C. 326-304?

Abolition of personal slavery for debt.

See DEBT, ROMAN LAW CONCERNING.

ROME: B. C. 312.

The censorship of Appius Claudius.

His admission of the freedmen to the Tribes.

The building of the Appian Way.

"Appius Claudius, … afterwards known as Appius the Blind, …

was elected Censor [B. C. 312], … and, as was usual, entered,

with his colleague, Plautius Decianus, upon the charge of

filling the vacancies which had occurred within the Senate

since the last nominations to that body by the preceding

Censors. The new elections were always made, it appears, from

certain lists of citizens who had either borne great offices

or possessed high rank; but Appius, determined from the

beginning to secure his authority, either for his own sake or

for that of his faction, through any support he could command,

now named several of the lowest men in Rome as Senators,

amongst whom he even admitted some sons of freedmen, who, as

such, were scarcely to be considered to be absolutely free,

much less to be worthy of any political advancement.

{2672}

The nomination, backed by a powerful party, out of rather than

in the Senate, and vainly, if not feebly, opposed by Plautius

Decianus, who resigned his office in disgust at his colleague,

was carried, but was set aside in the following year by the

Consuls, who could call such Senators as they pleased, and

those only, as it seems, to their sessions. Appius, still

keeping his place, was soon after assailed by some of the

Tribunes, now the representatives, as must be remembered, of

the moderate party, rather than of the Plebeian estate. At

this the Censor admitted all the freedmen in Rome to the

Tribes, amongst which he distributed them in such a manner as

promised him the most effectual support. Appius, however, was

not wholly absorbed in mere political intrigues. A large

portion of his energy and his ambition was spent upon the Way

[Appian Way] and the Aqueduct which have borne his name to our

day, and which, in his own time, were undertakings so vast as

to obtain for him the name of 'the Hundred-handed.' He was an

author, a jurist, a philosopher, and a poet, besides. … Cneius

Flavius, the son of a freedman, one, therefore, of the

partisans on whom the Censor and his faction were willing to

lavish pretended favor in return for unstinted support, was

employed by Appius near his person, in the capacity of private

secretary. Appius, who, as already mentioned, was a jurist and

an author, appears to have compiled a sort of manual

concerning the business-days of the Calendar and the forms of

instituting or conducting a suit before the courts; both these

subjects being kept in profound concealment from the mass of

the people, who were therefore obliged, in case of any legal

proceeding, to resort first to the Pontiff to learn on what

day, and next to the Patrician jurist to inquire in what form,

they could lawfully manage their affairs before the judicial

tribunals. This manual was very likely given to Flavius to

copy; but it could scarcely have been with the knowledge, much

less with the desire, of his employer, that it was published.

… But Flavius stood in a position which tempted him, whether

he were generous or designing, to divulge the secrets of the

manual he had obtained; and it may very well have been from a

desire to conciliate the real party of the Plebeians, which

ranked above him, as a freedman, that he published his

discoveries. He did not go unrewarded, but was raised to

various offices, amongst them to the tribuneship of the

Plebeians, and finally to the curule ædileship, in which his

disclosures are sometimes represented as having been made. …

The predominance of the popular party is plainly attested in

the same year by the censorship of Fabius Rullianus and Decius

Mus, the two great generals, who, succeeding to Appius

Claudius, removed the freedmen he had enrolled amongst all the

Tribes into four Tribes by themselves."

S. Eliot,

The Liberty of Rome: Rome,

book 2, chapter 8 (volume 2).

ROME: B. C. 300.

The Ogulnian Law.

In the year 300 B. C., "Quintus and Cneius Ogulnius appear in

the tribuneship, as zealous champions of the popular party

against the combination of the highest and the lowest classes.

Instead, however, of making any wild attack upon their

adversaries, the Tribunes seem to have exerted themselves in

the wiser view of detaching the populace from its Patrician

leaders, in order to unite the severed forces of the Plebeians

upon a common ground. … A bill to increase the number of the

Pontiffs by four, and that of the Augurs by five new

incumbents, who should then, and, as was probably added,

thenceforward, be chosen from the Plebeians, was proposed by

the Tribunes. … Though some strenuous opposition was made to

its passage, it became a law. The highest places of the

priesthood, as well as of the civil magistracies, were opened

to the Plebeians, whose name will no longer serve us as it has

done, so entirely have the old distinctions of their estate

from that of the Patricians been obliterated. The Ogulnii did

not follow up the success they had gained, and the alliance

between the lower Plebeians and the higher Patricians was

rather cemented than loosened by a law professedly devised to

the advantage of the upper classes of the Plebeians."

S. Eliot,

Liberty of Rome: Rome,

book 2, chapter 9 (volume 2).

ROME: B. C. 295-191.

Conquest of the Cisalpine Gauls.

Early in the 3d century B. C. the Gauls on the southern side

of the Alps, being reinforced from Transalpine Gaul, again

entered Roman territory, encouraged and assisted by the

Samnites, who were then just engaging in their third war with

Rome. A Roman legion which first encountered them in Etruria,

under Scipio Barbatus, was annihilated, B. C. 295. But the

vengeance of Rome overtook them before that year closed, at

Sentinum, where the consuls Fabius and Decius ended the war at

one blow. The Gauls were quiet after this for ten years; but

in 285 B. C. the Senonian tribes invaded Etruria again and

inflicted an alarming defeat on the Romans at Arretium. They

also put to death some Roman ambassadors who were sent to

negotiate an exchange of prisoners; after which the war of

Rome against them was pushed to extermination. The whole race

was destroyed or reduced to slavery and Roman colonies were

established on its lands. The Boian Gauls, between the

Apennines and the Po, now resented this intrusion on Gallic

territory, but were terribly defeated at the Vadimonian Lake

and sued for peace. This peace was maintained for nearly sixty

years, during which time the Romans were strengthening

themselves beyond the Apennines, with a strong colony at

Ariminum (modern Rimini) on the Adriatic Sea, with thick

settlements in the Senonian country, and with a great road—the

Via Flaminia—in process of construction from Rome northwards

across the Apennines, through Umbria and along the Adriatic

coast to Ariminum. The Boians saw that the yoke was being

prepared for them, and in 225 B. C. they made a great effort

to break it. In the first encounter with them the Romans were

beaten, as in previous wars, but at the great battle of

Telamon, fought soon afterwards, the Gallic hosts were almost

totally destroyed. The next year the Boians were completely

subjugated, and in 223 and 222 B. C. the Insubrians were

likewise conquered, their capital Mediolanum (Milan) occupied,

and all north Italy to the Alps brought under Roman rule,

except as the Ligurians in the mountains were still unsubdued

and the Cenomanians and the Veneti retained a nominal

independence as allies of Rome.

{2673}

But Hannibal's invasion of Italy, occurring soon after,

interrupted the settlement and pacification of the Gallic

country and made a reconquest necessary after the war with the

Carthaginians had been ended. The new Roman fortified colony

of Placentia was taken by the Gauls and most of the

inhabitants slain. The sister colony of Cremona was besieged,

but resisted until relieved. Among the battles fought, that of

Comum, B. C. 196, appears to have been the most important. The

war was prolonged until 191 B. C., after which there appears

to have been no more resistance to Roman rule among the

Cisalpine Gauls.

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 3, chapters 12-13;

book 4. chapter 5;

book 5, chapter 7.

ROME: B. C. 286.

The last Secession of the Plebs.

The Hortensian Laws.

"About the year 286 B. C. the mass of the poorer citizens [of

Rome], consisting (as may be guessed) chiefly of those who had

lately been enfranchised by Appius, left the city and encamped

in an oak-wood upon the Janiculum. To appease this last

Secession, Q. Hortensius was named Dictator, and he succeeded

in bringing back the people by allowing them to enact several

laws upon the spot. One of these Hortensian laws was probably

an extension of the Agrarian law of Curius, granting not seven

but fourteen jugera (about 9 acres) to each of the poorer

citizens. Another provided for the reduction of debt. But that

which is best known as the Hortensian law was one enacting

that all Resolutions of the Tribes should be law for the whole

Roman people. This was nearly in the same terms as the law

passed by Valerius and Horatius at the close of the

Decemvirate, and that passed by Publilius Philo the Dictator,

after the conquest of Latium. Hortensius died in his

Dictatorship,—an unparalleled event, which was considered

ominous. Yet with his death ended the last Secession of the

People."

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1).

"It is impossible to suppose that the assembly of the plebs

advanced at a single step from the meeting of a private

corporation to be the delegated alter ego of the sovereign

populus Romanus. We may be sure that the right of the plebs to

legislate for the nation was accorded under checks and

qualifications, long before they were invested with this

absolute authority. We find, in fact, two occasions prior to

the Hortensian law, on which the legislative competency of the

plebs is said to have been recognised. The first of these is

the Valerio-Horatian Law of B. C. 449 [see ROME: B. C. 449],

the year after the decemvirate, the second the law of the

dictator Publilius Philo, B. C. 339 [see ROME: B. C. 340].

Unfortunately the historians describe these laws in words

which merely repeat the contents of the Hortensian law. … Some

modern writers have been disposed to get over the difficulty

by the conjecture that the laws of Publilius Philo and

Hortensius were only re-enactments of that of Valerius and

Horatius, and that the full powers of the plebs date back to

the year B. C. 449. Mommsen's arguments against this view

appear to me conclusive. Why should the jurists universally

refer the powers exercised by the plebs to a mere

re-enactment, rather than to the original source of their

authority? … Niebuhr believes that the law of Valerius and

Horatius gave the plebs legislative authority, subject to the

consent of a sort of upper house, the general assembly of the

patrician body; he identifies this assembly with the 'comitia

curiata.' … Mommsen's method of dealing with the question" is

to strike out the Valerio-Horatian law and that of Publilius

Philo from the series of enactments relating to the plebs. "He

believes that both these laws regulated the proceedings of the

'comitia populi tributa,' and are transferred by a mere

blunder of our authorities to the 'concilium plebis tributum.'

… But the supposition of a possible blunder is too small a

foundation on which to establish such an explanation. … I

believe that, for the purpose of showing how the legislative

power of the plebs may gradually have established itself, the

known powers of the sovereign 'populus,' of the magistrates of

the Roman people, and of the senate, will supply us with

sufficient material; and that the assumptions of the German

historians are therefore unnecessary. … I imagine … that the

law of Valerius and Horatius simply recognised de jure the

power which Icilius [see ROME: B. C. 456] had exercised de

facto: that is to say, it ordered the consul to bring any

petition of the plebs at once to the notice of the senate, and

empowered the tribune to plead his cause before the senate;

perhaps it went further and deprived the consul of his right

of arbitrarily refusing to accede to the recommendation of the

senate, if such were given, and directed that he should in

such case convene the comitia and submit the proposal to its

vote. If this restriction of the power of the consul removed

the first obstacle in the way of tribunician bills supported

by the vote of the plebs, another facility still remained to

be given. The consul might be deprived of the opportunity of

sheltering himself behind the moral responsibility of the

senate. Does it not suggest itself as a plausible conjecture

that the law of Publilius Philo struck out the intervening

senatorial deliberation and compelled the consul to bring the

petition of the plebs immediately before the 'comitia populi

Romani'? If such were the tenor of the Publilian law, it would

be only a very slight inaccuracy to describe it as conferring

legislative power on the plebs. … The Hortensian law which

formally transferred the sovereign power to the plebs would

thus be a change greater de jure than de facto. … This power,

if the theory put forward in these pages be correct, was

placed within the reach of the plebeians by the law of

Valerius and Horatius, and was fully secured to them by the

law of Publilius Philo."

J. L. Strachan-Davidson,

The Growth of Plebeian Privilege at Rome

(English Historical Review, April, 1886).

"With the passing of the Lex Hortensia the long struggle

between the orders came to an end. The ancient patrician

gentes remained, but the exclusive privileges of the

patriciate as a ruling order were gone. For the great offices

of state and for seats in the senate the plebeians were by law

equally eligible with patricians. The assemblies, whether of

people or plebs, were independent of patrician control. In

private life inter-marriages between patricians and plebeians

were recognised as lawful, and entailed no disabilities on the

children. Finally, great as continued to be the prestige

attaching to patrician birth, and prominent as was the part

played in the subsequent history by individual patricians and

by some of the patrician houses, the plebs were now in numbers

and even in wealth the preponderant section of the people.

{2674}

Whatever struggles might arise in the future, a second

struggle between patricians and plebeians was an

impossibility. Such being the case, it might have been

expected that the separate organisation, to which the victory

of the plebs was largely due, would, now that the reason for

its existence was gone, have disappeared. Had this happened,

the history of the republic might have been different. As it

was, this plebeian machinery—the plebeian tribunes,

assemblies, and resolutions—survived untouched, and lived to

play a decisive part in a new conflict, not between patricians

and plebeians, but between a governing class, itself mainly

plebeian, and the mass of the people, and finally to place at

the head of the state a patrician Cæsar. Nor was the promise

of a genuine democracy, offered by the opening of the

magistracies and the Hortensian law, fulfilled. For one

hundred and fifty years afterwards the drift of events was in

the opposite direction, and when the popular leaders of the

first century B. C. endeavoured to make government by the

people a reality, it was already too late."

H. F. Pelham,

Outlines of Roman History,

book 2, chapter 1.

ROME: B. C. 282-275.

War with Tarentum and Pyrrhus.

The conquest of the Samnites by the Romans, which was

completed in 290 B. C., extended the power of the latter to

the very gates of the Greek cities on the Tarentine gulf, of

which Tarentum was the chief. At once there arose a party in

Tarentum which foresaw the hopelessness of resistance to Roman

aggression and favored a spontaneous submission to the

supremacy of the formidable city on the Tiber. The patriotic

party which opposed this humiliation looked abroad for aid,

and found an eager ally in the Molossian king of Epirus, the

adventurous and warlike Pyrrhus (see EPIRUS), who sprang from

the family of Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great. In the

autumn of 282 B. C., the inevitable war between Rome and

Tarentum broke out, and early in 280 B. C. Pyrrhus landed a

powerful army in Italy, comprising 20,000 heavy-armed

foot-soldiers, 3,000 horse, 2,000 archers and 20 elephants.

The Romans met him soon after at Heraclea, on the coast. It

was the first collision of the Roman legion and the Macedonian

phalanx, and the first encounter of the Latin soldier with the

huge war-beast of the Asiatics. Pyrrhus won a bloody victory,

but won it at such cost that it terrified him. He tried at

once to arrange a peace, but the proud Romans made no terms

with an invader. Next year he inflicted another great defeat

upon them near Asculum, in Apulia; but nothing seemed to come

of it, and the indomitable Romans were as little conquered as

ever. Then the restless Epirot king took his much shaken army

over to Sicily and joined the Greeks there in their war with

the Carthaginians. The latter were driven out of all parts of

the island except Lilybæum; but failing, after a long siege,

to reduce Lilybæum, Pyrrhus lost the whole fruits of his

success. The autumn of 276 B. C. found him back again in

Italy, where the Romans, during his absence of three years,

had recovered much ground. Next year, in the valley of

Beneventum, they had their revenge upon him for Heraclea and

Asculum, and he was glad to take the shattered remains of his

army back to Greece. His career of ambition and adventure was

ended three years afterwards, under the walls of Argos, by a

tile which a woman flung down upon his head.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.

In due time all Magna Græcia succumbed to the dominion of

Rome, and the commerce and wealth of Tarentum passed over

under Roman auspices to the new port of Brundisium, on the

Adriatic side of the same promontory.

T. Arnold,

History of Rome,

chapters 36-37 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 3, chapters 14-17.

ROME: B. C. 275.

Union of Italy under the sovereignty of the republic.

Differing relations of the subject communities to the

sovereign state.

Roman citizenship as variously qualified.

"For the first time Italy was united into one state under the

sovereignty of the Roman community. What political privileges

the Roman community on this occasion withdrew from the various

other Italian communities and took into its own sole keeping,

or in other words, what conception of political power is to be

associated with this sovereignty of Rome, we are nowhere

expressly informed. … The only privileges that demonstrably

belonged to it were the right of making war, of concluding

treaties, and of coining money. No Italian community could

declare war against any foreign state, or even negotiate with

it, or coin money for circulation. On the other hand, every

war and every state-treaty resolved upon by the Roman people

were binding in law on all the other Italian communities, and

the silver money of Rome was legally current throughout all

Italy. It is probable that formerly the general rights of the

leading community extended no further. But to these rights

there was necessarily attached a prerogative of sovereignty

that practically went far beyond them. The relations, which

the Italians sustained to the leading community, exhibited in

detail great inequalities. In this point of view, in addition

to the full burgesses of Rome, there were three different

classes of subjects to be distinguished. The full franchise

itself, in the first place, was extended as far as was

possible, without wholly abandoning the idea of an urban

commonwealth in the case of the Roman commune. Not only was

the old burgess-domain extended by individual assignation far

into Etruria on the one hand and into Campania on the other,

but, after the example was first set in the case of Tusculum,

a great number of communities more or less remote were

gradually incorporated with the Roman state and merged in it

completely. … Accordingly the Roman burgess-body probably

extended northward as far as the neighbourhood of Caere,

eastward to the Apennines, and southward as far as, or beyond,

Formiae. In its case, however, we cannot use the term

'boundaries' in a strict sense. Isolated communities within

this region, such as Tibur, Praeneste, Signia, and Norba, had

not the Roman franchise; others beyond its bounds, such as

Sena, possessed it; and it is probable that families of Roman

farmers were already dispersed throughout all Italy, either

altogether isolated or associated in villages. Among the

subject communities the most privileged and most important

class was that of the Latin towns, which now embraced but few

of the original participants in the Alban festival (and these,

with the exception of Tibur and Praeneste, altogether

insignificant communities), but on the other hand obtained

accessions equally numerous and important in the autonomous

communities founded by Rome in and even beyond Italy —the

Latin colonies, as they were called—and was always increasing

in consequence of new settlements of the same nature.

{2675}

These new urban communities of Roman origin, but with Latin

rights, became more and more the real buttresses of the Roman

rule. These Latins, however, were by no means those with whom

the battles of the lake Regillus and Trifanum had been fought.

… The Latins of the later times of the republic, on the

contrary, consisted almost exclusively of communities, which

from the beginning had honoured Rome as their capital and

parent city; which, settled amidst peoples of alien language

and of alien habits, were attached to Rome by community of

language, of law, and of manners; which, as the petty tyrants

of the surrounding districts, were obliged doubtless to lean

on Rome for their very existence, like advanced posts leaning

upon the main army. … The main advantage enjoyed by them, as

compared with other subjects, consisted in their equalization

with burgesses of the Roman community so far as regarded

private rights—those of traffic and barter as well as those of

inheritance. The Roman franchise was in future conferred only

on such citizens of these townships as had filled a public

magistracy in them: in that case, however, it was, apparently

from the first, conferred without any limitation of rights. …

The two other classes of Roman subjects, the subject Roman

burgesses and the non-Latin allied communities, were in a far

inferior position. The communities having the Roman franchise

without the privilege of electing or being elected (civitas

sine suffragio), approached nearer in form to the full Roman

burgesses than the Latin communities that were legally

autonomous. Their members were, as Roman burgesses, liable to

all the burdens of citizenship, especially to the levy and

taxation, and were subject to the Roman census; whereas, as

their very designation indicates, they had no claim to its

honorary rights. They lived under Roman laws, and had justice

administered by Roman judges; but the hardship was lessened by

the fact that their former common law was, after undergoing

revision by Rome, restored to them as Roman local law, and a

'deputy' (praefectus) annually nominated by the Roman praetor

was sent to them to conduct its administration. In other

respects these communities retained their own administration,

and chose for that purpose their own chief magistrates. …

Lastly, the relations of the non-Latin allied communities were

subject, as a matter of course, to very various rules, just as

each particular treaty of alliance had defined them. Many of

these perpetual treaties of alliance, such as that with the

Hernican communities and those with Neapolis, Nola, and

Heraclea, granted rights comparatively comprehensive, while

others, such as the Tarentine and Samnite treaties, probably

approximated to despotism. … The central administration at

Rome solved the difficult problem of preserving its

supervision and control over the mass of the Italian

communities liable to furnish contingents, partly by means of

the four Italian quaestors, partly by the extension of the

Roman censorship over the whole of the dependent communities.

The quaestors of the fleet, along with their more immediate

duty, had to raise the revenues from the newly acquired

domains and to control the contingents of the new allies; they

were the first Roman functionaries to whom a residence and

district out of Rome were assigned by law, and they formed the

necessary intermediate authority between the Roman senate and

the Italian communities. … Lastly, with this military

administrative union of the whole peoples dwelling to the

south of the Apennines, as far as the Iapygian promontory and

the straits of Rhegium, was connected the rise of a new name

common to them all—that of 'the men of the toga' (togati),

which was their oldest designation in Roman state law, or that

of the 'Italians,' which was the appellation originally in use

among the Greeks and thence became universally current. … As

the Gallic territory down to a late period stood contrasted in

law with the Italian, so the 'men of the toga' were thus named

in contrast to the Celtic 'men of the hose' (braccati); and it

is probable that the repelling of the Celtic invasions played

an important diplomatic part as a reason or pretext for

centralizing the military resources of Italy in the hands of

the Romans. … The name Italia, which originally and even in

the Greek authors of the 5th century—in Aristotle for

instance—pertained only to the modern Calabria, was

transferred to the whole land of these wearers of the toga.

The earliest boundaries of this great armed confederacy led by

Rome, or of the new Italy, reached on the western coast as far

as the district of Leghorn south of the Arnus, on the east as

far as the Aesis north of Ancona. …The new Italy had thus

become a political unity; it was also in the course of

becoming a national unity."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

ROME: B. C. 264-241.

The first Punic War.

Conquest of Sicily.

"The ten years preceding the First Punic War were probably a

time of the greatest physical prosperity which the mass of the

Roman people ever knew. Within twenty years two agrarian laws

had been passed on a most extensive scale, and the poorer

citizens had received besides what may be called a large

dividend in money out of the lands which the state had

conquered. In addition to this, the farming of the state

domains, or of their produce, furnished those who had money

with abundant opportunities of profitable adventure. … No

wonder, then, that war was at this time popular. … But our

'pleasant vices' are ever made instruments to scourge us; and

the First Punic War, into which the Roman people forced the

senate to enter, not only in its long course bore most heavily

upon the poorer citizens, but, from the feelings of enmity

which it excited in the breast of Hamilcar, led most surely to

that fearful visitation of Hannibal's sixteen years' invasion

of Italy, which destroyed for ever, not indeed the pride of

the Roman dominion, but the well-being of the Roman people."

T. Arnold,

History of Rome,

pages 538-540.

"The occasion of the First Punic War was dishonourable to

Rome. Certain mercenary soldiers had seized Messana in Sicily,

destroyed the citizens, and held possession against the

Syracusans, 284 B. C. They were beaten in the field, and

blockaded in Messana by Hiero, king of Syracuse, and then,

driven to extremity, sent a deputation to Rome, praying that

'the Romans, the sovereigns of Italy, would not suffer an

Italian people to be destroyed by Greeks and Carthaginians,'

264 B. C. It was singular that such a request should be made

to the Romans, who only six years before had chastised the

military revolt of their brethren Mamertines in Rhegium,

taking the city by storm, scourging and beheading the

defenders, and then restoring the old inhabitants (270 B. C.).

{2676}

The senate was opposed to the request of the Messana

deputation; but the consuls and the people of Rome, already

jealous of Carthaginian influence in Sicily and the

Mediterranean, resolved to protect the Mamertine buccaneers

and to receive them as their friends and allies. Thus

dishonestly and disgracefully did the Romans depart from their

purely Italian and continental policy, which had so well

succeeded, to enter upon another system, the results of which

no one then could foresee. Some excuse may be found in the

fact that the Carthaginians had been placed by their partisans

in Messana in possession of the citadel, and this great rival

power of Carthage was thus brought unpleasantly near to the

recent conquered territory of Rome. The fear of Carthaginian

influence overcame the natural reluctance to an alliance with

traitors false to their military oath, the murderers and

plunderers of a city which they were bound to protect. Thus

began 'the First Punic War, which lasted, without

intermission, 22 years, a longer space of time than the whole

period occupied by the wars of the French Revolution.' In this

war Duilius won the first naval battle near Mylæ (Melarro).

Regulus invaded Africa proper, the territory of Carthage, with

great success, until beaten and taken prisoner at Zama,

256-255 B. C. The war was carried on in Sicily and on the sea

until 241 B. C., when peace was made on conditions that the

Carthaginians should evacuate Sicily and make no war upon

Hiero, king of Sicily (the ally of the Romans), that they

should pay 3,200 Euboic talents (about £110,000) within ten

years, 241 B. C. The effects of an exhausting war were soon

overcome by ancient nations, so that both Rome and Carthage

rapidly recovered, 'because wars in those days were not

maintained at the expense of posterity.' Rome had to check the

Illyrian pirates and to complete the conquest of Cisalpine

Gaul and the Ligurians 238-221 B. C. Meanwhile the

Carthaginians, hampered by a three years' rebellion of its

mercenary troops, quietly permitted the Romans to take

possession of Corsica and Sardinia, and agreed to pay 1,200

talents as compensation to Roman merchants. On the other hand,

measures were in process to re-establish the Carthaginian

power; the patriotic party, the Barcine family, under

Hamilcar, commenced the carrying out of the extensions and

consolidations of the territories in Spain."

W. B. Boyce,

Introduction to the Study of History,

period 4, section 4.

ALSO IN:

Polybius,

Histories,

book 1.

R. B. Smith,

Carthage,

chapters 4-7.

A. J. Church,

The Story of Carthage,

part 4, chapters 1-3.

See, also, PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

ROME: B. C. 218-211.

The Second Punic War; Hannibal in Italy.

Cannæ.

"Twenty-three years passed between the end of the first Punic

War and the beginning of the second. But in the meanwhile the

Romans got possession, rather unfairly, of the islands of

Sardinia and Corsica, which Carthage had kept by the peace. On

the other hand a Carthaginian dominion was growing up in Spain

under Hamilcar Barkas, one of the greatest men that Carthage

ever reared, his son-in-law Hasdrubal, and his son Hannibal,

the greatest man of all, and probably the greatest general

that the world ever saw. Another quarrel arose between

Carthage and Rome, when Hannibal took the Spanish town of

Saguntum, which the Romans claimed as an ally. War began in

218, and Hannibal carried it on by invading Italy by land.

This was one of the most famous enterprises in all history.

Never was Rome so near destruction as in the war with

Hannibal. He crossed the Alps and defeated the Romans in four

battles, the greatest of which was that of Cannae in B. C.

216."

E. A. Freeman,

Outlines of History

(or General Sketch of European History),

chapter 3.

"The first battle was fought (218) on the river Ticinus, which

runs into the Padus from the north. The Romans were driven

back, and Hannibal passed the Padus. Meanwhile another Roman

army had come up, and its general, the consul, Tiberius

Sempronius Longus, wanted to fight at once. The little river

of the Trebbia lay between the two armies, and on a cold

morning the Roman general marched his soldiers through the

water against Hannibal. The Romans were entirely beaten, and

driven out of Gaul. All northern Italy had thus passed under

Hannibal's power, and its people were his friends; so next

year, 217, Hannibal went into Etruria, and marched south

towards Rome itself, plundering as he went. The Roman consul,

Caius Flaminius Nepos, went to meet him, and a battle was

fought on the shores of the Lake Trasimenus. It was a misty

day, and the Romans, who were marching after Hannibal, were

surrounded by him and taken by surprise: they were entirely

beaten, and the consul was killed in battle. Then the Romans

were in great distress, and elected a dictator, Quintus Fabius

Maximus. He saw that it was no use to fight battles with

Hannibal, so he followed him about, and watched him, and did

little things against him when he could; so he was called

'Cunctator,' or 'the Delayer.' But, although this plan of

waiting was very useful, the Romans did not like it, for

Hannibal was left to plunder as he thought fit, and there was

always danger that the other Italians would join him against

Rome. So next year, 216, the Romans made a great attempt to

get rid of him. They sent both the consuls with an army twice

as large as Hannibal's, but again they were defeated at Cannæ.

They lost 70,000 men, while Hannibal only lost 6,000; all

their best soldiers were killed, and it seemed as though they

had no hope left. But nations are not conquered only by the

loss of battles. Hannibal hoped, after the battle of Cannæ,

that the Italians would all come to his side, and leave Rome.

Some did so, but all the Latin cities, and all the Roman

colonies held by Rome. So long as this was the case, Rome was

not yet conquered. Hannibal could win battles very quickly,

but it would take him a long time to besiege all the cities

that still held to Rome, and for that he must have a larger

army. But he could not get more soldiers,—the Romans had sent

an army into Spain, and Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubal, was

busy fighting the Romans there, and could not send any troops

to Italy. The Carthaginians also would not send any, for they

were becoming afraid of Hannibal, and they did not know

anything about Italy. So they answered his letters, asking for

more men, by saying, that if he had won such great battles, he

ought not to want any more troops.

{2677}

At Cannæ, then, Hannibal had struck his greatest blow: he

could do no more. The Romans had learned to wait, and be

careful: so they fought no more great battles, but every year

they grew stronger and Hannibal grew weaker. The chief town

that had gone over to Hannibal's side was Capua, but in 211

the Romans took it again, and Hannibal was not strong enough

to prevent them. The chief men of Capua were so afraid of

falling into the hands of the Romans that they all poisoned

themselves. After this all the Italian cities that had joined

Hannibal began to leave him again."

M. Creighton,

History of Rome,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

T. A. Dodge,

Hannibal,

chapters 11-39.

T. Arnold,

History of Rome,

chapters 43-47.

See, also, PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

ROME: B. C. 214-146.

The Macedonian Wars.

Conquest of Greece.

See GREECE: B. C. 214-146; also 280-146.

ROME: B. C. 211.

The Second Punic War: Hannibal at the gates.

In the eighth year of the Second Punic War (B. C. 211), when

fortune had begun to desert the arms of Hannibal—when Capua,

his ally and mainstay in Italy was under siege by the Romans

and he was powerless to relieve the doomed senators and

citizens—the Carthaginian commander made a sudden march upon

Rome. He moved his army to the gates of his great enemy, "not

with any hope of taking the city, but with the hope that the

Romans, panic-stricken at the realization of a fear they had

felt for five years past, would summon the consuls from the

walls of Capua. But the cool head of Fabius, who was in Rome,

guessed the meaning of that manœuvre, and would only permit

one of the consuls, Flaccus, to be recalled. Thus the leaguer

of the rebel city was not broken. Hannibal failed in his

purpose, but he left an indelible impression of his terrible

presence upon the Roman mind. Looming through a mist of

romantic fable, unconquerable, pitiless, he was actually seen

touching the walls of Rome, hurling with his own hand a spear

into the sacred Pomoerium. He had marched along the Via

Latina, driving crowds of fugitives before him, who sought

refuge in the city. … He had fixed his camp on the Anio,

within three miles of the Esquiline. To realize the state of

feeling in Rome during those days of panic would be to get at

the very heart of the Hannibalic war. The Senate left the

Curia and sat in the Forum, to reassure, by their calm

composure, the excited crowds. Fabius noticed from the

battlements that the ravagers spared his property. It was a

cunning attempt on the part of Hannibal to bring suspicion on

him; but he forthwith offered the property for sale; and such

was the effect of his quiet confidence that the market price

even of the land on which the camp of the enemy was drawn

never fell an 'as.' … Hannibal marched away into the Sabine

country, and made his way back to Tarentum, Rome unsacked,

Capua unrelieved."

R. F. Horton,

History of the Romans,

chapter 12.

ALSO IN:

T. Arnold,

History of Rome,

chapter 44.

T. A. Dodge,

Hannibal,

chapter 34.

ROME: B. C. 211-202.

The Second Punic War:

Defeat of Hasdrubal at the Metaurus.

The war in Africa.

The end at Zama.

Acquisition of Spain.

"The conquest of Capua was the turning point in the war.

Hannibal lost his stronghold in Campania and was obliged to

retire to the southern part of Italy. Rome was gaining

everywhere. The Italians who had joined Hannibal began to lose

confidence. Salapia and many towns in Samnium were betrayed to

the Romans. But when Fulvius, the proconsul who commanded in

Apulia, appeared before Herdonea, which he hoped to gain

possession of by treachery, Hannibal marched from Bruttium,

attacked the Roman army, and gained a brilliant victory. In

the following year the Romans recovered several places in

Lucania and Bruttium, and Fabius Maximus crowned his long

military career with the recapture of Tarentum (B. C. 209).

The inhabitants were sold as slaves; the town was plundered

and the works of art were sent to Rome. The next year

Marcellus, for the fifth time elected to the consulship, was

surprised near Venusia and killed. … The war had lasted ten

years, yet its favorable conclusion seemed far off. There were

increasing symptoms of discontent among the allies, while the

news from Spain left little doubt that the long prepared

expedition of Hasdrubal over the Alps to join his brother in

Italy was at last to be realized. Rome strained every nerve to

meet the impending danger. The number of legions was increased

from twenty-one to twenty-three. The preparations were

incomplete, when the news came that Hasdrubal was crossing the

Alps by the same route which his brother had taken eleven

years before. The consuls for the new year were M. Livius

Salinator and G. Claudius Nero. Hannibal, at the beginning of

spring, after reorganizing his force in Bruttium, advanced

northward, encountered the consul Nero at Grumentum, whence,

after a bloody but indecisive battle, he continued his march

to Canusium. Here he waited for news from his brother. The

expected despatch was intercepted by Nero, who formed the bold

resolution of joining his colleague in the north, and with

their united armies crushing Hasdrubal while Hannibal was

waiting for the expected despatch. Hasdrubal had appointed a

rendezvous with his brother in Umbria, whence with their

united armies they were both to advance on Narnia and Rome.

Nero, selecting from his army 7,000 of the best soldiers and

1,000 cavalry, left his camp so quietly that Hannibal knew

nothing of his departure. Near Sena he found his colleague

Livius, and in the night entered his camp that his arrival

might not be known to the Carthaginians. Hasdrubal, when he

heard the trumpet sound twice from the Roman camp and saw the

increased numbers, was no longer ignorant that both consuls

were in front of him. Thinking that his brother had been

defeated, he resolved to retire across the Metaurus and wait

for accurate information. Missing his way, wandering up and

down the river to find a ford, pursued and attacked by the

Romans, he was compelled to accept battle. Although in an

unfavorable position, a deep river in his rear, his troops

exhausted by marching all night, still the victory long hung

in suspense. Hasdrubal displayed all the qualities of a great

general, and when he saw that all was lost, he plunged into

the thickest of the battle and was slain. The consul returned

to Apulia with the same rapidity with which he had come. He

announced to Hannibal the defeat and death of his brother by

casting Hasdrubal's head within the outposts and by sending

two Carthaginian captives to give him an account of the

disastrous battle.

{2678}

'I foresee the doom of Carthage,' said Hannibal sadly, when he

recognized the bloody head of his brother. This battle decided

the war in Italy. Hannibal withdrew his garrisons from the

towns in southern Italy, retired to the peninsula of Bruttium,

where for four long years, in that wild and mountainous

country, with unabated courage and astounding tenacity, the

dying lion clung to the land that had been so long the theatre

of his glory. … The time had come to carry into execution that

expedition to Africa which Sempronius had attempted in the

beginning of the war. Publius Scipio, on his return from

Spain, offered himself for the consulship and was unanimously

elected. His design was to carry the war into Africa and in

this way compel Carthage to recall Hannibal. … The senate

finally consented that he should cross from his province of

Sicily to Africa, but they voted no adequate means for such an

expedition. Scipio called for volunteers. The whole of the

year B. C. 205 passed away before he completed his

preparations. Meanwhile the Carthaginians made one last effort

to help Hannibal. Mago, Hannibal's youngest brother, was sent

to Liguria with 14,000 men to rouse the Ligurians and Gauls to

renew the war on Rome; but having met a Roman army under

Quintilius Varus, and being wounded in the engagement which

followed, his movements were so crippled that nothing of

importance was accomplished. In the spring of B. C. 204 Scipio

had completed his preparations. He embarked his army from

Lilybæum, and after three days landed at the Fair Promontory

near Utica. After laying siege to Utica all summer, he was

compelled to fall back and entrench himself on the promontory.

Masinissa had joined him immediately on his arrival. By his

advice Scipio planned a night attack on Hasdrubal, the son of

Gisgo, and Syphax, who were encamped near Utica. This

enterprise was completely successful. A short time afterwards

Hasdrubal and Syphax were again defeated. Syphax fled to

Numidia, where he was followed by Lælius and Masinissa and

compelled to surrender. These successes convinced the

Carthaginians that with the existing forces the Roman invasion

could not long be resisted. Therefore they opened negotiations

for peace with Scipio, in order probably to gain time to

recall their generals from Italy. The desire of Scipio to

bring the war to a conclusion induced him to agree upon

preliminaries of peace, subject to the approval of the Roman

senate and people. … Meanwhile the arrival of Hannibal at

Hadrumetum had so encouraged the Carthaginians that the

armistice had been broken before the return of the ambassadors

from Rome. All hopes of peace by negotiation vanished, and

Scipio prepared to renew the war, which, since the arrival of

Hannibal, had assumed a more serious character. The details of

the operations which ended in the battle of Zama are but

imperfectly known. The decisive battle was fought on the river

Bagradas, near Zama, on the 19th of October, B. C. 202.

Hannibal managed the battle with his usual skill. His veterans

fought like the men who had so often conquered in Italy, but

his army was annihilated. The elephants were rendered

unavailing by Scipio's skillful management. Instead of the

three lines of battle, with the usual intervals, Scipio

arranged his companies behind each other like the rounds of a

ladder. Through these openings the elephants could pass

without breaking the line. This battle terminated the long

struggle. … Hannibal himself advised peace."

R. F. Leighton,

History of Rome,

chapters 23-24.

"Scipio prepared as though he would besiege the city, but his

heart also inclined to peace. … The terms which he offered

were severe enough, and had the Carthaginians only realised

what they involved, they would surely have asked to be allowed

to meet their fate at once. They were to retain indeed their

own laws and their home domain in Africa; but they were to

give up all the deserters and prisoners of war, all their

elephants, and all their ships of the line but ten. They were

not to wage war, either in Africa or outside of it, without

the sanction of the Roman Senate. They were to recognise

Massinissa as the king of Numidia, and, with it, the

prescriptive right which he would enjoy of plundering and

annoying them at his pleasure, while they looked on with their

hands tied, not daring to make reprisals. Finally, they were

to give up all claim to the rich islands of the Mediterranean

and to the Spanish kingdom, the creation of the Barcides, of

which the fortune of war had already robbed them; and thus

shorn of the sources of their wealth, they were to pay within

a given term of seven years a crushing war contribution!

Henceforward, in fact, they would exist on sufferance only,

and that the sufferance of the Romans. … The conclusion of the

peace was celebrated at Carthage by a cruel sight, the most

cruel which the citizens could have beheld, except the

destruction of the city itself—the destruction of their fleet.

Five hundred vessels, the pride and glory of the Phœnician

race, the symbol and the seal of the commerce, the

colonisation, and the conquests of this most imperial of

Phœnician cities, were towed out of the harbour and were

deliberately burned in the sight of the citizens."

R. B. Smith,

Rome and Carthage: the Punic Wars,

chapter 17.

ALSO IN:

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

chapters 31-34.

See, also.

PUNIC WAR: THE SECOND.

ROME: B. C. 2d Century.

Greek influences.

See HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

ROME: B. C. 191.

War with Antiochus the Great of Syria.

First conquests in Asia Minor bestowed on the

king of Pergamum and the Republic of Rhodes.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. U. 224-187.

ROME: B. C. 189-139.

Wars with the Lusitanians.

See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY; and LUSITANIA.

ROME: B. C. 184-149.

The Spoils of Conquest and the Corruption they wrought.

"The victories of the last half-century seemed to promise ease

and wealth to Rome. She was to live on the spoils and revenue

from the conquered countries. Not only did they pay a fixed

tax to her exchequer, but the rich lands of Capua, the royal

domain lands of the kings of Syracuse and of Macedonia, became

public property, and produced a large annual rent. It was

found possible in 167 to relieve citizens from the property

tax or tributum, which was not collected again until the year

after the death of Julius Caesar. But the sudden influx of

wealth had the usual effect of raising the standard of

expense; and new tastes and desires required increased means

for their gratification. All manner of luxuries were finding

their way into the city from the East.

{2679}

Splendid furniture, costly ornaments, wanton dances and music

for their banquets, became the fashion among the Roman nobles;

and the younger men went to lengths of debauchery and

extravagance hitherto unknown. The result to many was

financial embarrassment, from which relief was sought in

malversation and extortion. The old standard of honour in

regard to public money was distinctly lowered, and cases of

misconduct and oppression were becoming more common and less

reprobated. … The fashionable taste for Greek works of art, in

the adornment of private houses, was another incentive to

plunder, and in 149 it was for the first time found necessary

to establish a permanent court or 'quaestio' for cases of

malversation in the provinces. Attempts were indeed made to

restrain the extravagance which was at the root of the evil.

In 184 Cato, as censor, had imposed a tax on the sale of

slaves under twenty above a certain price, and on personal

ornaments above a certain value; and though the 'lex Oppia,'

limiting the amount of women's jewelry, had been repealed in

spite of him in 195, other sumptuary laws were passed. A 'lex

Orchia' in 182 limited the number of guests, a 'lex Fannia' in

161 the amount to be spent on banquets; while a 'lex Didia' in

143 extended the operation of the law to all Italy. And though

such laws, even if enforced, could not really remedy the evil,

they perhaps had a certain effect in producing a sentiment;

for long afterwards we find overcrowded dinners regarded as

indecorous and vulgar. Another cause, believed by some to be

unfavourably affecting Roman character, was the growing

influence of Greek culture and Greek teachers. For many years

the education of the young, once regarded as the special

business of the parents, had been passing into the hands of

Greek slaves or freedmen. … On the superiority of Greek

culture there was a division of opinion. The Scipios and their

party patronised Greek philosophy and literature. … This

tendency, which went far beyond a mere question of literary

taste, was opposed by a party of which M. Porcius Cato was the

most striking member. … In Cato's view the reform needed was a

return to the old ways, before Rome was infected by Greece."

E. S. Shuckburgh,

History of Rome to the Battle of Actium,

chapter 32.

ROME: B. C. 159-133.

Decline of the Republic.

Social and economic causes.

The growing system of Slavery and its effects.

Monopoly of land by capitalists.

Extinction of small cultivators.

Rapid decrease of citizens.

"In the Rome of this epoch the two evils of a degenerate

oligarchy and a democracy not yet developed but already

cankered in the bud were interwoven in a manner pregnant with

fatal results. According to their party names, which were

first heard during this period, the ' Optimates' wished to

give effect to the will of the best, the 'Populares' to that

of the community; but in fact there was in the Rome of that

day neither a true aristocracy nor a truly self-determining

community. Both parties contended alike for shadows. … Both

were equally affected by political corruption, and both were

in fact equally worthless. … The commonwealth was politically

and morally more and more unhinged, and was verging towards

its total dissolution. The crisis with which the Roman

revolution was opened arose not out of this paltry political

conflict, but out of the economic and social relations which

the Roman government allowed, like everything else, simply to

take their course"; and which had brought about "the

depreciation of the Italian farms; the supplanting of the

petty husbandry, first in a part of the provinces and then in

Italy, by the farming of large estates; the prevailing

tendency to devote the latter in Italy to the rearing of

cattle and the culture of the olive and vine; finally, the

replacing of the free labourers in the provinces as in Italy

by slaves. … Before we attempt to describe the course of this

second great conflict between labour and capital, it is

necessary to give here some indication of the nature and

extent of the system of slavery. We have not now to do with

the old, in some measure innocent, rural slavery, under which

the farmer either tilled the field along with his slave, or,

if he possessed more land than he could manage, placed the

slave … over a detached farm. … What we now refer to is the

system of slavery on a great scale, which in the Roman state,

as formerly in the Carthaginian, grew out of the ascendancy of

capital. While the captives taken in war and the hereditary

transmission of slavery sufficed to keep up the stock of

slaves during the earlier period, this system of slavery was,

just like that of America, based on the methodically

prosecuted hunting of man. … No country where this species of

game could be hunted remained exempt from visitation; even in

Italy it was a thing by no means unheard of, that the poor

free man was placed by his employer among the slaves. But the

Negroland of that period was western Asia, where the Cretan

and Cilician corsairs, the real professional slave-hunters and

slave-dealers, robbed the coasts of Syria and the Greek

islands; and where, emulating their feats, the Roman

revenue-farmers instituted human hunts in the client states

and incorporated those whom they captured among their slaves.

… At the great slave market in Delos, where the slave-dealers

of Asia Minor disposed of their wares to Italian speculators,

on one day as many as 10,000 slaves are said to have been

disembarked in the morning and to have heen all sold before

evening. … In whatever direction speculation applied itself,

its instrument was invariably man reduced in the eye of the

law to a brute. Trades were in great part carried on by

slaves, so that the proceeds belonged to the master. The

levying of the public revenues in the lower departments was

regularly conducted by the slaves of the associations that

leased them. Servile hands performed the operations of mining,

making pitch, and others of a similar kind; it became early

the custom to send herds of slaves to the Spanish mines. … The

tending of cattle was universally performed by slaves. … But

far worse in every respect was the plantation system

proper—the cultivation of the fields by a band of slaves not

unfrequent]y branded with iron, who with shackles on their

legs performed the labours of the field under overseers during

the day, and were locked up together by night in the common,

frequently subterranean, labourers' prison. This plantation

system had migrated from the East to Carthage, … and seems to

have been brought by the Carthaginians to Sicily. …

{2680}

The abyss of misery and woe which opens before our eyes in

this most miserable of all proletariates, we leave to be

fathomed by those who venture to gaze into such depths; It is

very possible that, compared with the sufferings of the Roman

slaves, the sum of all Negro suffering is but a drop. Here we

are not so much concerned with the distress of the slaves

themselves as with the perils which it brought upon the Roman

state. …

See SLAVE WARS IN SICILY AND ITALY.

The capitalists continued to buy out the small landholders, or

indeed, if they remained obstinate, to seize their fields

without title of purchase. … The landlords continued mainly to

employ slaves instead of free labourers, because the former

could not like the latter be called away to military service;

and thus reduced the free proletariate to the same level of

misery with the slaves. They continued to supersede Italian

grain in the market of the capital, and to lessen its value

over the whole peninsula, by selling Sicilian slave-corn at a

mere nominal price. … After 595 [B. C. 159], … when the census

yielded 328,000 citizens capable of bearing arms, there

appears a regular falling off, for the list in 600 [B. C. 154]

stood at 324,000, that in 607 [B. C. 147] at 322,000, that in

623 [B. C. 131] at 319,000 burgesses fit for service—an

alarming result for a period of profound peace at home and

abroad. If matters were to go on at this rate, the

burgess-body would resolve itself into planters and slaves;

and the Roman state might at length, as was the case with the

Parthians, purchase its soldiers in the slave-market. Such was

the external and internal condition of Rome, when the state

entered on the 7th century of its existence. Wherever the eye

turned, it encountered abuses and decay; the question could

not but force itself on every sagacious and well disposed man,

whether this state of things were not capable of remedy or

amendment."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

T. Arnold,

History of the Roman Commonwealth,

chapter 2.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 1, chapters 10-12.

W. R. Brownlow,

Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,

lectures 1-2.

ROME: B. C. 151-146.

The Third Punic War: Destruction of Carthage.

"Carthage, bound hand and foot by the treaty of 201 B. C., was

placed under the jealous watch of the loyal prince of Numidia,

who himself willingly acknowledged the suzerainty of Rome. But

it was impossible for this arrangement to be permanent. Every

symptom of reviving prosperity at Carthage was regarded at

Rome with feverish anxiety, and neither the expulsion of

Hannibal in 195 B. C. nor his death in 183 B. C. did much to

check the growing conviction that Rome would never be secure

while her rival existed. It was therefore with grim

satisfaction that many in the Roman senate watched the

increasing irritation of the Carthaginians under the harassing

raids and encroachments of their favoured neighbour,

Masinissa, and waited for the moment when Carthage should, by

some breach of the conditions imposed upon her, supply Rome

with a pretext for interference. At last in 151 B. C. came the

news that Carthage, in defiance of treaty obligations, was

actually at war with Masinissa. The anti-Carthaginian party in

the senate, headed by M. Porcius Cato, eagerly seized the

opportunity; in spite of the protests of Scipio Nasica and

others, war was declared, and nothing short of the destruction

of their city itself was demanded from the despairing

Carthaginians. This demand, as the senate, no doubt, foresaw,

was refused, and in 149 B. C. the siege of Carthage began.

During the next two years little progress was made, but in 147

P. Cornelius Scipio Æmilianus, son of L. Æmilius Paulus,

conqueror of Macedonia, and grandson by adoption of the

conqueror of Hannibal, was, at the age of 37, and though only

a candidate for the ædileship, elected consul and given the

command in Africa. In the next year (146 B. C.) Carthage was

taken and razed to the ground. Its territory became the Roman

province of Africa, while Numidia, now ruled by the three sons

of Masinissa, remained as an allied state under Roman

suzerainty, and served to protect the new province against the

raids of the desert tribes. Within little more than a century

from the commencement of the first Punic war, the whole of the

former dominions of Carthage had been brought under the direct

rule of Roman magistrates, and were regularly organised as

Roman provinces."

H. F. Pelham,

Outlines of Roman History,

book 3, chapter 1.

See, also, CARTHAGE: B. C. 146.

ROME: B. C. 146.

Supremacy of the Senate.

"At the close of a century first of deadly struggle and then

of rapid and dazzling success, Rome found herself the supreme

power in the civilised world. … We have now to consider how

this period of conflict and conquest had affected the

victorious state. Outwardly the constitution underwent but

little change. It continued to be in form a moderate

democracy. The sovereignty of the people finally established

by the Hortensian law remained untouched in theory. It was by

the people in assembly that the magistrates of the year were

elected, and that laws were passed; only by 'order of the

people' could capital punishment be inflicted upon a Roman

citizen. For election to a magistracy, or for a seat in the

senate, patrician and plebeian were equally eligible. But

between the theory and the practice of the constitution there

was a wide difference. Throughout this period the actually

sovereign authority in Rome was that of the senate, and behind

the senate stood an order of nobles (nobiles), who claimed and

enjoyed privileges as wide as those which immemorial custom

had formerly conceded to the patriciate. The ascendency of the

senate, which thus arrested the march of democracy in Rome,

was not, to any appreciable extent, the result of legislation.

It was the direct outcome of the practical necessities of the

time, and when these no longer existed, it was at once and

successfully challenged in the name and on the behalf of the

constitutional rights of the people. Nevertheless, from the

commencement of the Punic wars down to the moment when with

the destruction of Carthage in 146 B. C. Rome's only rival

disappeared, this ascendency was complete and almost

unquestioned. It was within the walls of the senate-house, and

by decrees of the senate, that the foreign and the domestic

policy of the state were alike determined. … Though the

ascendency of the senate was mainly due to the fact that

without it the government of the state could scarcely have

been carried on, it was strengthened and confirmed by the

close and intimate connection which existed between the senate

and the nobility. This 'nobility' was in its nature and origin

widely different from the old patriciate.

{2681}

Though every patrician was of course 'noble,' the majority of

the families which in this period styled themselves noble were

not patrician but plebeian, and the typical nobles of the time

of the elder Cato, of the Gracchi, or of Cicero, the Metelli,

Livii, or Licinii were plebeians. The title nobilis was

apparently conceded by custom to those plebeian families one

or more of whose members had, after the opening of the

magistracies, been elected to a curule office, and which in

consequence were entitled to place in their halls, and to

display at their funeral processions the 'imagines' of these

distinguished ancestors. The man who, by his election to a

curule office thus ennobled his descendants, was said to be

the 'founder of his family,' though himself only a new man. …

Office brought wealth and prestige, and both wealth and

prestige were freely employed to exclude 'new men' and to

secure for the 'noble families' a monopoly of office. The

ennobled plebeians not only united with the patricians to form

a distinct order, but outdid them in pride and arrogance. …

The establishment of senatorial ascendency was not the only

result of this period of growth and expansion. During the same

time the foundations were laid of the provincial system, and

with this of the new and dangerous powers of the proconsuls."

H. F. Pelham,

Outlines of Roman History,

book 3, chapter 3.

"The great struggle against Hannibal left the Senate the all

but undisputed government of Rome. Originally a mere

consulting board, assessors of the king or consul, the Senate

had become the supreme executive body. That the government

solely by the comitia and the magistrates should by experience

be found wanting was as inevitable at Rome as at Athens. Rome

was more fortunate than Athens in that she could develop a new

organism to meet the need. The growth of the power of the

Senate was all the more natural and legitimate the less it

possessed strict legal standing-ground. But the fatal dualism

thus introduced into the constitution—the Assembly governing

de jure, and the Senate governing de facto—made all government

after a time impossible. The position of the Senate being,

strictly speaking, an unconstitutional one, it was open to any

demagogue to bring matters of foreign policy or administration

before an Assembly which was without continuity, without

special knowledge, and in which there was no debate. Now, if

the Senate governed badly, the Assembly 'could not govern at

all;' and there could be, in the long run, but one end to the

constant struggle between the two sources of authority."

W. T. Arnold,

The Roman System of Provincial Administration,

chapter 2.

See, also, SENATE, ROMAN.

ROME: B. C. 133-121.

The attempted reforms of the Gracchi.

"The first systematic attack upon the senatorial government is

connected with the names of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, and

its immediate occasion was an attempt to deal with no less a

danger than the threatened disappearance of the class to which

of all others Rome had owed most in the past. For, while Rome

had been extending her sway westward and eastward, and while

her nobles and merchants were amassing colossal fortunes

abroad, the small landholders throughout the greater part of

Italy were sinking deeper into ruin under the pressure of

accumulated difficulties. The Hannibalic war had laid waste

their fields and thinned their numbers, nor when peace

returned to Italy did it bring with it any revival of

prosperity. The heavy burden of military service still pressed

ruinously upon them, and in addition they were called upon to

compete with the foreign corn imported from beyond the sea,

and with the foreign slave-labour purchased by the capital of

the wealthier men. … The small holders went off to follow the

eagles or swell the proletariate of the cities, and their

holdings were left to run waste or merged in the vineyards,

oliveyards, and above all in the great cattle-farms of the

rich, while their own place was taken by slaves. The evil was

not equally serious in all parts of Italy. It was least felt

in the central highlands, in Campania, and in the newly

settled fertile valley of the Po. It was worst in Etruria and

in southern Italy; but everywhere it was serious enough to

demand the earnest attention of Roman statesmen. Of its

existence the government had received plenty of warning in the

declining numbers of able-bodied males returned at the census,

in the increasing difficulties of recruiting for the legions,

in servile out-breaks in Etruria and Apulia."

H. F. Pelham,

Outlines of Roman History,

book 4, chapter 1.

The earlier agrarian laws which the Roman plebeians had wrung

from the patricians (the Licinian Law and similar ones—see

ROME: B. C. 376-367; also AGRARIAN LAWS) had not availed to

prevent the absorption, by one means and another, of the

public domain—the "ager publicus," the conquered land which

the state had neither sold nor given away—into the possession

of great families and capitalists, who held it in vast blocks,

to be cultivated by slaves. Time had almost sanctioned this

condition of things, when Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, elder

of the two famous brothers called "The Gracchi," undertook in

133 B. C. a reformation of it. As one of the tribunes of the

people that year, he brought forward a law which was intended

to enforce the provisions of the Licinian Law of 367 B. C., by

taking away from the holders of public land what they held in

excess of 500 jugera (about 320 acres) each. Three

commissioners, called Triumviri, were to be appointed to

superintend the execution of the law and to redistribute the

land recovered, among needy citizens. Naturally the proposal

of this act aroused a fierce opposition in the wealthy class

whose ill-gotten estates were threatened by it. One of the

fellow-tribunes of Tiberius was gained over by the opposition

and used the power of his veto to prevent the taking of a vote

upon the bill. Then Gracchus, to overcome the obstacle, had

recourse to an unconstitutional measure. The obstinate tribune

was deposed from his office by a vote of the people, and the

law was then enacted. For the carrying out of his measure, and

for his own protection, no less, Tiberius sought a re-election

to the tribunate, which was contrary to usage, if not against

positive law. His enemies raised a tumult against him on the

day of election and he was slain, with three hundred of his

party, and their corpses were flung into the Tiber. Nine years

later, his younger brother, Caius Gracchus, obtained election

to the tribune's office and took up the work of democratic

political reform which Tiberius had sacrificed his life in

attempting. His measures were radical, attacking the powers

and privileges of the ruling orders. But mixed with them were

schemes of demagoguery which did infinite mischief to the

Roman people and state.

{2682}

He carried the first frumentarian law (lex frumentaria) as it

was called, by which corn was bought with public money, and

stored, for sale to Roman citizens at a nominal price. After

three years of power, through the favor of the people, he,

too, in 121 B. C. was deserted by them and the party of the

patricians was permitted to put him to death, with a great

number of his supporters.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 1, chapters 10-13, 18-19.

"Caius, it is said, was the first Roman statesman who

appointed a regular distribution of corn among the poorer

citizens, requiring the state to buy up large consignments of

grain from the provinces, and to sell it again at a fixed rate

below the natural price. The nobles themselves seem to have

acquiesced without alarm in this measure, by which they hoped

to secure the city from seditious movements in time of

scarcity; but they failed to foresee the discouragement it

would give to industry, the crowds of idle and dissipated

citizens it would entice into the forum, the appetite it would

create for shows, entertainments and largesses, and the power

it would thus throw into the hands of unprincipled demagogues.

Caius next established customs duties upon various articles of

luxury imported into the city for the use of the rich: he

decreed the gratuitous supply of clothing to the soldiers, who

had hitherto been required to provide themselves out of their

pay; he founded colonies for the immediate gratification of

the poorer citizens, who were waiting in vain for the promised

distribution of lands: he caused the construction of public

granaries, bridges and roads, to furnish objects of useful

labour to those who were not unwilling to work. Caius himself,

it is said, directed the course and superintended the making

of the roads, some of which we may still trace traversing

Italy in straight lines from point to point, filling up

depressions and hollowing excrescences in the face of the

country, and built upon huge substructions of solid masonry.

Those who most feared and hated him confessed their amazement

at the magnificence of his projects and the energy of his

proceedings; the people, in whose interests he toiled, were

filled with admiration and delight, when they saw him attended

from morning to night by crowds of contractors, artificers,

ambassadors, magistrates, soldiers, and men of learning, to

all of whom he was easy of access, adapting his behaviour to

the condition of each in turn: thus proving, as they declared,

the falsehood of those who presumed to call him violent and

tyrannical. … By these innovations Caius laid a wide basis of

popularity. Thereupon he commenced his meditated attack upon

the privileged classes. We possess at least one obscure

intimation of a change he effected or proposed in the manner

of voting by centuries, which struck at the influence of the

wealthier classes. He confirmed and extended the Porcian law,

for the protection of citizens against the aggression of the

magistrates without a formal appeal to the people. Even the

powers of the dictatorship, to which the senate had been wont

to resort for the coercion of its refractory opponents, were

crippled by these provisions; and we shall see that no

recourse was again had to this extraordinary and odious

appointment till the oligarchy had gained for a time a

complete victory over their adversaries. Another change, even

more important, was that by which the knights were admitted to

the greater share, if not, as some suppose, to the whole, of

the judicial appointments. … As long as the senators were the

judges, the provincial governors, who were themselves

senators, were secure from the consequence of impeachment. If

the knights were to fill the same office, it might be expected

that the publicani, the farmers of the revenues abroad would

be not less assured of impunity, whatever were the enormity of

their exactions. … It was vain, indeed, to expect greater

purity from the second order of citizens than from the first.

If the senators openly denied justice to complainants, the

knights almost as openly sold it. This was in itself a

grievous degradation of the tone of public morality; but this

was not all the evil of the tribune's reform. It arrayed the

two privileged classes of citizens in direct hostility to one

another. 'Caius made the republic double-headed,' was the

profound remark of antiquity. He sowed the seeds of a war of

an hundred years. Tiberius had attempted to raise up a class

of small proprietors, who, by the simplicity of their manners

and moderation of their tastes, might form, as he hoped, a

strong conservative barrier between the tyranny of the nobles

and the envy of the people; but Caius, on the failure of this

attempt, was content to elevate a class to power, who should

touch upon both extremes of the social scale,—the rich by

their wealth, and the poor by their origin. Unfortunately this

was to create not a new class, but a new party. … One direct

advantage, at all events, Caius expected to derive, besides

the humiliation of his brother's murderers, from this

elevation of the knights: he hoped to secure their grateful

co-operation towards the important object he next had in view:

this was no less than the full admission of the Latins and

Italians to the right of suffrage."

C. Merivale,

The Fall of the Roman Republic,

chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

Plutarch,

Tiberius Gracchus;

Caius Gracchus.

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 4, chapters 2-3 (volume 3).

S. Eliot,

Liberty of Rome: Rome,

book 3, chapter 1.

See, also, AGER PUBLICUS.

ROME: B. C. 125-121.

Conquest of the Salyes and Allobroges in Gaul.

Treaty of friendship with the Ædui.

See SALYES; ALLOBROGES; and ÆDUI.

ROME: B. C. 118-99.

Increasing corruption of government.

The Jugurthine War.

Invasion and defeat of the Cimbri and Teutones.

The power of Marius.

"After the death of Caius Gracchus, the nobles did what they

pleased in Rome. They paid no more attention to the Agrarian

Law, and the state of Italy grew worse and worse. … The nobles

cared nothing for Rome's honour, but only for their own

pockets. They governed badly, and took bribes from foreign

kings, who were allowed to do what they liked if they could

pay enough. This was especially seen in a war that took place

in Africa. After Carthage had been destroyed, the greatest

state in Africa was Numidia. The king of Numidia was a friend

of the Roman people, and had fought with them against

Carthage. So Rome had a good deal to do with Numidia, and the

Numidians often helped Rome in her wars. In 118 a king of

Numidia died, and left the kingdom to his two sons and an

adopted son named Jugurtha. Jugurtha determined to have the

kingdom all to himself, so he murdered one of the sons and

made war upon the other, who applied to Rome for help.

See NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

{2683}

The Senate was bribed by Jugurtha, and did all it could to

please him; at last, however, Jugurtha besieged his brother in

Cirta, and when he took the city put him and all his army to

death (112). After this the Romans thought they must

interfere, but the Senate for more money were willing to let

Jugurtha off very easily. He came to Rome to excuse himself

before the people, and whilst he was there he had a Numidian

prince, of whom he was afraid, murdered in Rome itself. But

his bribes were stronger than the laws. … The Romans declared

war against Jugurtha, but he bribed the generals, and for

three years very little was done against him. At last, in 108,

a good general, who would not take bribes, Quintus Metellus,

went against him and defeated him. Metellus would have

finished the war, but in 106 the command was taken from him by

Caius Marius the consul. This Caius Marius was a man of low

birth, but a good soldier. He had risen in war by his bravery,

and had held magistracies in Rome. He was an officer in the

army of Metellus, and was very much liked by the common

soldiers, for he was a rough man like themselves, and talked

with them, and lived as they did. … Marius left Africa and

went to Rome to try and be made consul in 106. He found fault

with Metellus before the people, and said that he could carry

on the war better himself. So the people made him consul, and

more than that, they said that he should be general in Africa

instead of Metellus. … Marius finished the war in Africa, and

brought Jugurtha in triumph to Italy in 104. … When it was

over, Marius was the most powerful man in Rome. He was the

leader of the popular party, and also the general of the army.

The army had greatly changed since the time of Hannibal. The

Roman soldiers were no longer citizens who fought when their

country wanted them, and then went back to their work. But as

wars were now constantly going on, and going on too in distant

countries, this could no longer be the case, and the army was

full of men who took to a soldier's life as a trade. Marius

was the favourite of these soldiers: he was a soldier by trade

himself, and had risen in consequence to power in the state.

Notice, then, that when Marius was made consul, it was a sign

that the government for the future was to be carried on by the

army, as well as by the people and the nobles. Marius was soon

wanted to carry on another war. Two great tribes of barbarians

from the north had entered Gaul west of the Alps, and

threatened to drive out the Romans, and even attack Italy.

They came with their wives and children, like a wandering

people looking for a home. … At first these Cimbri defeated

the Roman generals in southern Gaul, where the Romans had

conquered the country along the Rhone, and made it a province,

which is still called the province, or Provence. The Romans,

after this defeat, were afraid of another burning of their

city by barbarians, so Marius was made consul again, and for

the next five years he was elected again and again. … In the

year 102 the Teutones and the Cimbri marched to attack Italy,

but Marius defeated them in two great battles.

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

Afterwards when he went back to Rome in triumph he was so

powerful that he could have done what he chose in the state.

The people were very grateful to him, the soldiers were very

fond of him, and the nobles were very much afraid of him. But

Marius did not think much of the good of the state: he thought

much more of his own greatness, and how he might become a

still greater man. So, first, he joined the party of the

people, and one of the tribunes. Lucius Appuleius Saturninus,

brought forward some laws like those of Caius Gracchus, and

Marius helped him. But there were riots in consequence, and

the Senate begged Marius to help them in putting down the

riots. For a time Marius doubted what to do, but at last he

armed the people, and Saturninus was killed (99). But now

neither side liked Marius, for he was true to neither, and did

only what he thought would make himself most powerful. So for

the future Marius was not likely to be of much use in the

troubles of the Roman state."

M. Creighton.

History of Rome (Primer).

chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

chapters 54-56 (volume 2).

V. Duruy,

History of Rome,

chapters 39-41 (volume 2).

Plutarch,

Marius.

ROME: B. C. 90-88.

Demands of the Italian Socii for Roman citizenship.

The Marsian or Social War.

Rise of Sulla.

"It is a most erroneous though widely prevalent opinion that

the whole of Italy was conquered by the force of Roman arms,

and joined to the empire [of the Republic] against its will.

Roman valour and the admirable organization of the legions, it

is true, contributed to extend the dominion of Rome, but they

were not nearly so effective as the political wisdom of the

Roman senate. … The subjects of Rome were called by the

honourable name of allies (Socii). But the manner in which

they had become allies was not always the same. It differed

widely according to circumstances. Some had joined Rome on an

equal footing by a free alliance ('fœdus æquum'). which

implied nothing like subjection. … Others sought the alliance

of Rome as a protection from pressing enemies or troublesome

neighbours. … On the whole, the condition of the allies, Latin

colonies as well as confederated Italians, seems to have been

satisfactory, at least in the earlier period. … But even the

right of self-government which Rome had left to the Italian

communities proved an illusion in all cases where the

interests of the ruling town seemed to require it. A law

passed in Rome, nay, a simple senatorial decree, or a

magisterial order, could at pleasure be applied to the whole

of Italy. Roman law gradually took the place of local laws,

though the Italians had no part in the legislation of the

Roman people, or any influence on the decrees of the Roman

senate and magistrates. … All public works in Italy, such as

roads, aqueducts, and temples, were carried out solely for the

benefit of Rome. … Not in peace only, but also in the time of

war, the allies were gradually made to feel how heavily the

hand of Rome weighed upon them. … In proportion as with the

increase of their power the Romans felt more and more secure

and independent of the allies, they showed them less

consideration and tenderness, and made them feel that they had

gradually sunk from their former position of friends to be no

more than subjects." There was increasing discontent among the

Italian allies, or Socii, with this state of things,

especially after the time of the Gracchi, when a proposal to

extend the Roman citizenship and franchise to them was

strongly pressed.

{2684}

In the next generation after the murder of Caius Gracchus,

there arose another political reformer, Marcus Livius Drusus,

who likewise sought to have justice done to the Italians, by

giving them a voice in the state which owed its conquests to

their arms. He, too, was killed by the political enemies he

provoked; and then the allies determined to enforce their

claims by war. The tribes of the Sabellian race—Marsians,

Samnites, Hirpenians, Lucanians, and their fellows—organized a

league, with the town of Corfinium (its name changed to

Italica) for its capital, and broke into open revolt. The

prominence of the Marsians in the struggle caused the war

which ensued to be sometimes called the Marsian War; it was

also called the Italian War, but, more commonly, the Social

War. It was opened, B. C. 90, by a horrible massacre of Roman

citizens residing at Asculum, Picenum,—a tragedy for the guilt

of which that town paid piteously the next year, when it was

taken at the end of a long siege and after a great battle

fought under its walls. But the Romans had suffered many

defeats before that achievement was reached. At the end of the

first year of the war they had made no headway against the

revolt, and it is the opinion of Ihne and other historians

that "Rome never was so near her destruction," and that "her

downfall was averted, not by the heroism of her citizens, as

in the war of Hannibal, but by a reversal" of her "policy of

selfish exclusion and haughty disdain." A law called the

Julian Law, because proposed by the consul L. Julius Cæsar,

was adopted B. C. 90, which gave the Roman franchise to the

Latins, and to all the other Italian communities which had so

far remained faithful. Soon afterward two of the new tribunes

carried a further measure, the Plautio-Papirian Law, which

offered the same privilege to any Italian who, within two

months, should present himself before a Roman magistrate to

claim it. These concessions broke the spirit of the revolt and

the Roman armies began to be victorious. Sulla, who was in the

field, added greatly to his reputation by successes at Nola

(where his army honored him by acclaim with the title of

Imperator) and at Bovianum, which he took. The last important

battle of the war was fought on the old blood-drenched plain

of Cannæ, and this time the victory was for Rome. After that,

for another year, some desperate towns and remnants of the

revolted Socii held out, but their resistance was no more than

the death throes of a lost cause.

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 6, chapter 9, with foot-note,

and book 7, chapters 13-14.

ALSO IN:

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 2, chapters 15-16.

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on the History of Rome,

lectures 83-84 (volume 2).

ROME: B. C. 88-78.

Rivalry of Marius and Sulla.

War with Mithridates.

Civil war.

Successive proscriptions and reigns of terror.

Sulla's dictatorship.

The political diseases of which the Roman Republic was dying

made quick progress in the generation that passed between the

murder of Caius Gracchus and the Social War. The Roman rabble

which was nominally sovereign and the oligarchy which ruled

actually, by combined bribery and brow-beating of the

populace, had both been worse corrupted and debased by the

increasing flow of tribute and plunder from provinces and

subject states. Rome had familiarized itself with mob

violence, and the old respect for authority and for law was

dead. The soldier with an army at his back need not stand any

longer in awe of the fasces of a tribune or a consul. It was a

natural consequence of that state of things that the two

foremost soldiers of the time, Caius Marius and L. Cornelius

Sulla (or Sylla, as often written,) should become the

recognized chiefs of the two opposing factions of the day.

Marius was old, his military glory was waning, he had enjoyed

six consulships and coveted a seventh; Sulla was in the prime

of life, just fairly beginning to show his surpassing

capabilities and entering on his real career. Marius was a

plebeian of plebeians and rude in all his tastes; Sulla came

from the great Cornelian gens, and refined a little the

dissoluteness of his life by studies of Greek letters and

philosophy. Marius was sullenly jealous; Sulla was resolutely

ambitious. A new war, which promised great prizes to ambition

and cupidity, alike, was breaking out in the east,—the war

with Mithridates. Both Marius and Sulla aspired to the command

in it; but Sulla had been elected one of the consuls for the

year 88 B. C. and, by custom and law, would have the conduct

of the war assigned to him. Marius, however, intrigued with

the demagogues and leaders of the mob, and brought about a

turbulent demonstration and popular vote, by which he could

claim to be appointed to lead the forces of the state against

Mithridates. Sulla fled to his army, in camp at Nola, and laid

his case before the officers and men. The former, for the most

part, shrank from opposing themselves to Rome; the latter had

no scruples and demanded to be led against the Roman mob.

Sulla took them at their word, and marched them straight to

the city. For the first time in its history (by no means the

last) the great capital was forcibly entered by one of its own

armies. There was some resistance, but not much. Sulla

paralyzed his opponents by his energy, and by a threat to burn

the city if it did not submit. Marius and his chief partisans

fled. Sulla contented himself with outlawing twelve, some of

whom were taken and put to death. Marius, himself, escaped to

Africa, after many strange adventures, in the story of which

there is romance unquestionably mixed. Sulla (with his

colleague in harmony with him) fulfilled the year of his

consulate at Rome and then departed for Greece to conduct the

war against Mithridates. In doing so, he certainly knew that

he was giving up the government to his enemies; but he trusted

his future in a remarkable way, and the necessity, for Rome,

of confronting Mithridates was imperative. The departure of

Sulla was the signal for fresh disorders at Rome. Cinna, one

of the new consuls, was driven from the city, and became the

head of a movement which appealed to the "new citizens," as

they were called, or the "Italian party"—the allies who had

been enfranchised as the result of the Social War. Marius came

back from exile to join it. Sertorius and Carbo were other

leaders who played important parts. Presently there were four

armies beleaguering Rome, and after some unsuccessful

resistance the gates were opened to them, by order of the

Roman senate. Cinna, the consul, was nominally restored to

authority, but Marius was really supreme, and Marius was

implacable in his sullen rage.

{2685}

Rome was treated like a conquered city. The public and private

enemies of Marius and of all who chose to call themselves

Marians, were hunted down and slain. To stop the massacre, at

last, Sertorius—the best of the new masters of Rome—was

forced to turn his soldiers against the bands of the assassins

and to slaughter several thousands of them. Then some degree

of order was restored and there was the quiet in Rome of a

city of the dead. The next year Marius realized his ambition

for a seventh consulship, but died before the end of the first

month of it. Meantime, Sulla devoted himself steadily to the

war against Mithridates [see MITHRIDATIC WARS], watching from

afar the sinister course of events at Rome, and making no

sign. It was not until the spring of 83 B. C., four years

after his departure from Italy and three years after the death

of Marius, that he was ready to return and settle accounts

with his enemies. On landing with his army in Italy he was

joined speedily by Pompey, Crassus, and other important

chiefs. Cinna had been killed by mutinous soldiers; Carbo and

young Marius were the leaders of the "Italian party." There

was a fierce battle at Sacriportus, near Præneste, with young

Marius, and a second with Carbo at Clusium. Later, there was

another furious fight with the Samnites, under the walls of

Rome, at the Colline Gate, where 50,000 of the combatants

fell. Then Sulla was master of Rome. Every one of his

suspected friends in the senate had been butchered by the last

orders of young Marius. His retaliation was not slow; but he

pursued it with a horrible deliberation. He made lists, to be

posted in public, of men who were marked for death and whom

anybody might slay. There are differing accounts of the number

doomed by this proscription; according to one annalist the

death-roll was swelled to 4,700 before the reign of terror

ceased. Sulla ruled as a conqueror until it pleased him to

take an official title, when he commanded the people to elect

him Dictator, for such term as he might judge to be fit. They

obeyed. As Dictator, he proceeded to remodel the Roman

constitution by a series of laws which were adopted at his

command. One of these laws enfranchised 10,000 slaves and made

them citizens. Another took a way from the tribunes a great

part of their powers; allowed none but members of the senate

to be candidates for the office, and no person once a tribune

to hold a curule office. Others reconstructed the senate,

adding 300 new members to its depleted ranks, and restored to

it the judicial function which C. Gracchus had transferred to

the knights; they also restored to it the initiative in

legislation. Having remodeled the Roman government to his

liking, Sulla astounded his friends and enemies by suddenly

laying down his dictatorial powers and retiring to private

life at his villa, near Puteoli, on the Bay of Naples. There

he wrote his memoirs, which have been lost, and gave himself

up to the life of pleasure which was even dearer to him than

the life of power. But he enjoyed it scarcely a year, when he

died, B. C. 78. His body, taken to Rome, was burned with pomp.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 2, chapters 17-29.

ALSO IN:

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 7, chapters 15-23.

Plutarch,

Marius and Sulla.

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 4, chapters 9-10.

C. Merivale,

The Fall of the Roman Republic,

chapters 4-5.

ROME: B. C. 80.

The throne of Egypt bequeathed to the Republic

by Ptolemy Alexander.

See EGYPT: B. C. 80-48.

ROME: B. C. 78-68.

Danger from the legionaries.

Rising power of Pompeius.

Attempt of Lepidus.

Pompeius against Sertorius in Spain.

Insurrection of Spartacus and the Gladiators.

The second Mithridatic War, and war in Armenia.

"The Roman legionary, … drawn from the dregs of the populace,

and quartered through the best years of his life in Greece and

Asia, in Spain and Gaul, lived solely upon his pay, enhanced

by extortion or plunder. His thirst of rapine grew upon him.

He required his chiefs to indulge him with the spoil of cities

and provinces; and when a foreign enemy was not at hand, he

was tempted to turn against the subjects of the state, or, if

need be, against the state itself. … Marius and Sulla, Cinna

and Carbo had led the forces of Rome against Rome herself. …

The problem which thus presented itself to the minds of

patriots—how, namely, to avert the impending dissolution of

their polity under the blows of their own defenders—was indeed

an anxious and might well appear a hopeless one. It was to the

legions only that they could trust, and the legions were

notoriously devoted to their chiefs. … The triumph of Sulla

had been secured by the accession to his side of Pompeius

Strabo, the commander of a large force quartered in Italy.

These troops had transferred their obedience to a younger

Pompeius, the son of their late leader. Under his auspices

they had gained many victories; they had put down the Marian

faction, headed by Carbo, in Sicily, and had finally secured

the ascendency of the senate on the shores of Africa. Sulla

had evinced some jealousy of their captain, who was young in

years, and as yet had not risen above the rank of Eques; but

when Pompeius led his victorious legions back to Italy, the

people rose in the greatest enthusiasm to welcome him, and the

dictator, yielding to their impetuosity, had granted him a

triumph and hailed him with the title of 'Magnus.' Young as he

was, he became at once, on the abdication of Sulla, the

greatest power in the commonwealth. This he soon caused to be

known and felt. The lead of the senatorial party had now

fallen to Q. Lutatius Catulus and M. Æmilius Lepidus, the

heads of two of the oldest and noblest families of Rome. The

election of these chiefs to the consulship for the year 676 of

the city (B. C. 78) seemed to secure for the time the

ascendency of the nobles, and the maintenance of Sulla's

oligarchical constitution bequeathed to their care. … But

there were divisions within the party itself which seemed to

seize the opportunity for breaking forth. Lepidus was inflamed

with ambition to create a faction of his own, and imitate the

career of the usurpers before him. … But he had miscalculated

his strength. Pompeius disavowed him, and lent the weight of

his popularity and power to the support of Catulus; and the

senate hoped to avert an outbreak by engaging both the consuls

by an oath to abstain from assailing each other. During the

remainder of his term of office Lepidus refrained from action;

but as soon as he reached his province, the Narbonensis in

Gaul, he developed his plans, summoned to his standard the

Marians, who had taken refuge in great numbers in that region,

and invoked the aid of

the Italians, with the promise of restoring to them the lands

of which they had been dispossessed by Sulla's veterans.

{2686}

With the aid of M. Junius Brutus, who commanded in the

Cisalpine, he made an inroad into Etruria, and called upon the

remnant of its people, who had been decimated by Sulla, to

rise against the faction of their oppressors. The senate, now

thoroughly alarmed, charged Catulus with its defence; the

veterans, restless and dissatisfied with their fields and

farms, crowded to the standard of Pompeius. Two Roman armies

met near the Milvian bridge, a few miles to the north of the

city, and Lepidus received a check, which was again and again

repeated, till he was driven to flee into Sardinia, and there

perished shortly afterwards of fever. Pompeius pursued Brutus

into the Cisalpine. … The remnant of [Lepidus'] troops was

carried over to Spain by Perperna, and there swelled the

forces of an abler leader of the same party, Q. Sertorius."

Sertorius had established himself strongly in Spain, and

aspired to the founding of an independent state; but after a

prolonged struggle he was overcome by Pompeius and

assassinated by traitors in his own ranks.

See SPAIN: B. C. 83-72.

"Pompeius had thus recovered a great province for the republic

at the moment when it seemed on the point of being lost

through the inefficiency of one of the senatorial chiefs.

Another leader of the dominant party was about to yield him

another victory. A war was raging in the heart of Italy. A

body of gladiators had broken away from their confinement at

Capua under the lead of Spartacus, a Thracian captive, had

seized a large quantity of arms, and had made themselves a

retreat or place of defence in the crater of Mount Vesuvius. …

See SPARTACUS, THE RISING OF.

The consuls were directed to lead the legions against them,

but were ignominiously defeated [B. C. 72]. In the absence of

Pompeius in Spain and of Lucullus in the East, M. Crassus was

the most prominent among the chiefs of the party in power.

This illustrious noble was a man of great influence, acquired

more by his wealth, for which he obtained the surname of

Dives, than for any marked ability in the field or in the

forum; but he had a large following of clients and dependents,

who … now swelled the cry for placing a powerful force under

his orders, and entrusting to his hands the deliverance of

Italy. The brigands themselves were becoming demoralized by

lack of discipline. Crassus drove them before him to the

extremity of the peninsula. … Spartacus could only save a

remnant of them by furiously breaking through the lines of his

assailants. This brave gladiator was still formidable, and it

was feared that Rome itself might be exposed to his desperate

attack. The senate sent importunate messages to recall both

Pompeius and Lucullus to its defence. … Spartacus had now

become an easy prey, and the laurels were quickly won with

which Pompeius was honoured by his partial countrymen. Crassus

was deeply mortified, and the senate itself might feel some

alarm at the redoubled triumphs of a champion of whose loyalty

it was not secure. But the senatorial party had yet another

leader, and a man of more ability than Crassus, at the head of

another army. The authority of Pompeius in the western

provinces was balanced in the East by that of L. Licinius

Lucullus, who commanded the forces of the republic in the

struggle which she was still maintaining against Mithridates.

… The military successes of Lucullus fully justified the

choice of the government." He expelled Mithridates from all

the dominions which he claimed and drove him to take refuge

with the king of Armenia. "The kingdom of Armenia under

Tigranes III. was at the height of its power when Clodius, the

brother-in-law of Lucullus, then serving under him, was

despatched to the royal residence at Tigranocerta to demand

the surrender of Mithridates. … The capital of Armenia was

well defended by its position among the mountains and the

length and severity of its winter season. It was necessary to

strike once for all [B. C. 61)]. Lucullus had a small but

well-trained and well-appointed army of veterans. Tigranes

surrounded and encumbered himself with a vast cloud of

undisciplined barbarians, the flower of whom, consisting of

17,000 mailed cavalry, however formidable in appearance, made

but a feeble resistance to the dint of the Roman spear and

broadsword. When their ranks were broken they fell back upon

the inert masses behind them, and threw them into hopeless

confusion. Tigranes made his escape with dastardly

precipitation. A bloody massacre ensued. … In the following

year Lucullus advanced his posts still further eastward. …

But a spirit of discontent or lassitude had crept over his own

soldiers. … He was constrained to withdraw from the siege of

Artaxata, the furthest stronghold of Tigranes, on the banks of

the Araxes, and after crowning his victories with a successful

assault upon Nisibis, he gave the signal for retreat, leaving

the destruction of Mithridates still unaccomplished. Meanwhile

the brave proconsul's enemies were making head against him at

Rome."

C. Merivale,

The Roman Triumvirates,

chapter 1.

Lucullus "wished to consummate the ruin of Tigranes, and

afterwards to carry his arms to Parthia. He had not this

perilous glory. Hitherto, his principal means of success had

been to conciliate the people, by restraining the avidity both

of his soldiers and of the Italian publicans. The first

refused to pursue a war which only enriched the general; the

second wrote to Rome, where the party of knights was every day

regaining its ancient ascendancy. They accused of rapacity him

who had repressed theirs. All were inclined to believe, in

short, that Lucullus had drawn enormous sums from the towns

which he preserved from the soldiers and publicans. They

obtained the appointment of a successor, and by this change

the fruit of this conquest was in a great measure lost. Even

before Lucullus had quitted Asia, Mithridates re-entered

Pontus, invaded Cappadocia, and leagued himself more closely

with the pirates."

J. Michelet,

History of the Roman Republic,

page 308.

"It was imagined at Rome that Mithridates was as good as

conquered, and that a new province of Bithynia and Pontus was

awaiting organisation. … Ten commissioners as usual had been

despatched to assist. … Lucullus had hoped before their

arrival to strike some blow to recover his losses; but Marcius

Rex had refused his appeal for help from Cilicia, and his own

troops had … declined to march … when they learnt that the

command was about to pass from Lucullus to Glabrio."

E. S. Shuckburgh,

History of Rome to the Battle of Actium,

page 677.

ALSO IN:

Plutarch,

Pompeius Magnus.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 2, chapters 30-33,

and volume 3, chapters 1-5.

G. Rawlinson,

Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 10.

{2687}

ROME: B. C. 69-63.

The drift towards revolution.

Pompeius in the East.

His extraordinary commission.

His enlargement of the Roman dominions.

His power.

Ambitions and projects of Cæsar.

Consulship of Cicero.

"To a superficial observer, at the close of the year 70 B. C.,

it might possibly have seemed that the Republic had been given

a new lease of life. … And, indeed, for two or three years

this promising condition of things continued. The years 69 and

68 B. C. must have been tolerably quiet ones, for our

authorities have very little to tell us of them. … Had a

single real statesman appeared on the scene at this moment, or

even if the average senator or citizen had been possessed of

some honesty and insight, it was not impossible that the

government might have been carried on fairly well even under

republican forms. But there was no leading statesman of a

character suited to raise the whole tone of politics; and

there was no general disposition on the part of either Senate

or people to make the best of the lull in the storm, to repair

damages, or to set the ship on her only true course. So the

next few years show her fast drifting in the direction of

revolution; and the current that bore her was not a local one,

or visible to the eye of the ordinary Roman, but one of

world-wide force, whose origin and direction could only be

perceived by the highest political intelligence. It was during

these years that Cæsar was quietly learning the business of

government, both at home and in the provinces. … Cæsar was

elected quæstor in 69 B. C., and served the office in the

following year. It fell to him to begin his acquaintance with

government in the province of Further Spain, and thus began

his lifelong connection with the peoples of the West. … On his

return to Rome, which must have taken place about the

beginning of 67 B. C., Cæsar was drawn at once into closer

connection with the man who, during the next twenty years, was

to be his friend, his rival, and his enemy. Pompeius was by

this time tired of a quiet life. … Both to him and his

friends, it seemed impossible to be idle any longer. There was

real and abundant reason for the employment of the ablest

soldier of the day. The audacity of the pirates was greater

than ever.

See CILICIA, PIRATES OF.

Lucullus, too, in Asia, had begun to meet with disasters, and

was unable, with his troops in a mutinous temper, to cope with

the combined forces of the kings of Armenia and Pontus. … In

this year, 67 B. C., a bill was proposed by a tribune,

Gabinius, in the assembly of the plebs, in spite of opposition

in the Senate, giving Pompeius exactly that extensive power

against the pirates which he himself desired, and which was

really necessary if the work was to be done swiftly and

completely. He was to have exclusive command for three years

over the whole Mediterranean, and over the resources of the

provinces and dependent states. For fifty miles inland in

every province bordering on these seas—i. e., in the whole

Empire—he was to exercise an authority equal to that of the

existing provincial governor. He was to have almost unlimited

means of raising both fleets and armies, and was to nominate

his own staff of twenty·five 'legati' (lieutenant-generals),

who were all to have the rank of prætor. Nor was this all; for

it was quite understood that this was only part of a plan

which was to place him at the head of the armies in Asia

Minor, superseding the able but now discredited Lucullus. In

fact, by another law of Gabinius, Lucullus was recalled, and

his command given to one of the consuls of the year, neither

of whom, as was well known, was likely to wield it with the

requisite ability. whichever consul it might be, he would only

be recognised as keeping the place warm for Pompeius. …

Pompeius left Rome in the spring of 67 B. C., rapidly cleared

the seas of piracy, and in the following year superseded

Lucullus in the command of the war against Mithridates [with

the powers given him by the Gabinian Law prolonged and

extended by another, known as the Manilian Law]. He did not

return till the beginning of 61 B. C. At first sight it might

seem as though his absence should have cleared the air, and

left the political leaders at Rome a freer hand. But the power

and the resources voted him, and the unprecedented success

with which he used them, made him in reality as formidable to

the parties at home as he was to the peoples of the East. He

put an end at last to the power of Mithridates, received the

submission of Tigranes of Armenia, and added to the Roman

dominion the greater part of the possessions of both these

kings. The sphere of Roman influence now for the first time

reached the river Euphrates, and the Empire was brought into

contact with the great Parthian kingdom beyond it. Asia Minor

became wholly Roman, with the exception of some part of the

interior, which obedient kinglets were allowed to retain.

Syria was made a Roman province. Pompeius took Jerusalem, and

added Judæa to Syria. …

See JEWS: B. C. 166-40].

The man to whom all this was due became at once the leading

figure in the world. It became clear that when his career of

conquest was over yet another task would devolve on him, if he

chose to accept it—the re-organisation of the central

government at Rome. … His gathered power overhung the state

like an avalanche ready to fall; and in the possible path of

an avalanche it is waste of time and labour to build any solid

work. So these years, for Cæsar as for the rest, are years of

plotting and intrigue on one side, and of half-hearted

government on the other. … He was elected to the

curule-ædileship—the next above the quæstorship in the series

of magistracies—and entered on his office on January 1, 65 B.

C. … Cæsar's political connection with Crassus at this time is

by no means clear. The two were sailing the same course, and

watching Pompeius with the same anxiety; but there could not

have been much in common between them, and they were in fact

rapidly getting in each other's way. The great money-lender,

however, must have been in the main responsible for the

enormous expenditure which Cæsar risked in this ædileship and

the next three years. … At the close of the year 64 B. C., on

the accession to office of a new board of tribunes, … an

agrarian bill on a vast scale was promulgated by the tribune

Servilius Rullus.

{2688}

The two most startling features of this were: first, the

creation of a board of ten to carry out its provisions, each

member of which was to be invested with military and judicial

powers like those of the consuls and prætors; and secondly,

the clauses which entrusted this board with enormous financial

resources, to be raised by the public sale of all the

territories and property acquired since the year 88 B. C.,

together with the booty and revenues now in the hands of

Pompeius. The bill included, as its immediate object, a huge

scheme of colonisation for Italy, on the lines of the Gracchan

agrarian bills. … But it was really an attack on the weak

fortress of senatorial government, in order to turn out its

garrison, and occupy and fortify it in the name of the

democratic or Marian party, against the return of the new

Sulla, which was now thought to be imminent. The bill may also

have had another and secondary object—namely, to force the

hand of the able and ambitious consul [Cicero] who would come

into office on January 1, 63; at any rate it succeeded in

doing this, though it succeeded in nothing else. Cicero's

great talents, and the courage and skill with which he had so

far for the most part used them, had made him already a

considerable power in Rome; but no one knew for certain to

which party he would finally attach himself. … On the very

first day of his office he attacked the bill in the Senate and

exposed its real intention, and showed plainly that his policy

was to convert Pompeius into a pillar of the constitution, and

to counteract all democratic plots directed against him. …

Whether it was his eloquence, or the people's indifference,

that caused the bill to be dropped, can only be matter of

conjecture; but it was withdrawn at once by its proposer, and

the whole scheme fell through. This was Cicero's first and

only real victory over Cæsar. … It was about this time, in the

spring of 63 B. C., that the office of Pontifex Maximus became

vacant by the death of old Metellus Pius, and Cæsar at once

took steps to secure it for himself. The chances in his favour

were small, but the prize was a tempting one. Success would

place him at the head of the whole Roman religious system. …

He was eligible, for he had already been for several years one

of the college of pontifices, but as the law of election

stood, a man so young and so democratic would have no chance

against candidates like the venerable conservative leader

Catulus, and Cæsar's own old commander in the East, Servilius

Isauricus, both of whom were standing. Sulla's law, which

placed the election in the hands of the college itself—a law

framed expressly to exclude persons of Cæsar's stamp—must be

repealed, and the choice vested once more in the people. The

useful tribune Labienus was again set to work, the law was

passed, and on March 6th Cæsar was elected by a large

majority. … The latter part of this memorable year was

occupied with a last and desperate attempt of the democratic

party to possess themselves of the state power while there was

yet time to forestall Pompeius. This is the famous conspiracy

of Catilina; it was an attack of the left wing on the

senatorial position, and the real leaders of the democracy

took no open or active part in it."

W. W. Fowler,

Julius Cæsar,

chapters 4-5.

ALSO IN

J. A. Froude,

Cæsar,

chapter 10.

Suetonius,

Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Julius,

sections 7-13.

C. Middleton,

Life of Cicero,

section 2.

ROME: B. C. 63.

The conspiracy of Catiline.

The conspiracy organized against the senatorial government of

Rome by L. Sergius Catilina, B. C. 63, owes much of its

prominence in Roman history to the preservation of the great

speeches in which Cicero exposed it, and by which he rallied

the Roman people to support him in putting it down. Cicero was

consul that year, and the official responsibility of the

government was on his shoulders. The central conspirators were

a desperate, disreputable clique of men, who had everything to

gain and nothing to lose by revolution. Behind them were all

the discontents and malignant tempers of demoralized and

disorganized Rome; and still behind these were suspected to

be, darkly hidden, the secret intrigues of men like Cæsar and

Crassus, who watched and waited for the expiring breath of the

dying republic. Cicero, having made a timely discovery of the

plot, managed the disclosure of it with great adroitness and

won the support of the people to his proceedings against the

conspirators. Catiline made his escape from Rome and placed

himself' at the head of a small army which his supporters had

raised in Etruria; but he and it were both destroyed in the

single battle fought. Five of his fellow-conspirators were

hastily put to death without trial, by being strangled in the

Tullianum.

W. Forsyth,

Life of Cicero,

chapter 8.

ALSO IN

A. Trollope,

Life of c,

chapter 9.

A. J. Church,

Roman Life in the Days of Cicero,

chapter 7.

Cicero,

Orations

(translated by (J. D. Yonge),

volume 2.

ROME: B. C. 63-58.

Increasing disorders in the capital.

The wasted opportunities of Pompeius.

His alliance with Cæsar and Crassus.

The First Triumvirate.

Cæsar's consulship.

His appointment to the command in Cisalpine Gaul.

Exile of Cicero.

"Recent events had fully demonstrated the impotence of both

the Senate and the democratic party; neither was strong enough

to defeat the other or to govern the State. There was no third

party—no class remaining out of which a government might be

erected; the only alternative was monarchy—the rule of a

single person. Who the monarch would be was still uncertain;

though, at the present moment, Pompeius was clearly the only

man in whose power it lay to take up the crown that offered

itself. … For the moment the question which agitated all minds

was whether Pompeius would accept the gift offered him by

fortune, or would retire and leave the throne vacant. … In the

autumn of 63 B. C. Quintus Metellus Nepos arrived in the

capital from the camp of Pompeius, and got himself elected

tribune with the avowed purpose of procuring for Pompeius the

command against Catilina by special decree, and afterwards the

consulship for 61 B. C. … The aristocracy at once showed their

hostility to the proposals of Metellus, and Cato had himself

elected tribune expressly for the purpose of thwarting him.

But the democrats were more pliant, and it was soon evident

that they had come to a cordial understanding with the

general's emissary. Metellus and his master both adopted the

democratic view of the illegal executions [of the

Catilinarians]; and the first act of Cæsar's prætorship was to

call Catulus to account for the moneys alleged to have been

embezzled by him in rebuilding the Capitoline temple and to

transfer the superintendence of the works to Pompeius. … On

the day of voting, Cato and another of the tribunes put their

veto upon the proposals of Metellus, who disregarded it.

{2689}

There were conflicts of the armed bands of both sides, which

terminated in favour of the government. The Senate followed up

the victory by suspending Metellus and Cæsar from their

offices. Metellus immediately departed for the camp of

Pompeius; and when Cæsar disregarded the decree of suspension

against himself, the Senate had ultimately to revoke it.

Nothing could have been more favourable to the interests of

Pompeius than these late events. After the illegal executions

of the Catilinarians, and the acts of violence against

Metellus, he 'could appear at once as the defender of the two

palladia of Roman liberty'—the right of appeal, and the

inviolability of the tribunate,—and as the champion of the

party of order against the Catilinarian band. But his courage

was unequal to the emergency; he lingered in Asia during the

winter of 63-62 B. C., and thus gave the Senate time to crush

the insurrection in Italy, and deprived himself of a valid

pretext for keeping his legions together. In the autumn of 62

B. C. he landed at Brundisium, and, disbanding his army,

proceeded to Rome with a small escort. On his arrival in the

city in 61 B. C. he found himself in a position of complete

isolation; he was feared by the democrats, hated by the

aristocracy, and distrusted by the wealthy class. He at once

demanded for himself a second consulship, the confirmation of

all his acts in the East, and the fulfilment of the promise he

had made to his soldiers to furnish them with lands. But each

of these demands was met with the most determined opposition.

… His promise of lands to his soldiers was indeed ratified,

but not executed, and no steps were taken to provide the

necessary funds and lands. … From this disagreeable position,

Pompeius was rescued by the sagacity and address of Cæsar, who

saw in the necessities of Pompeius the opportunity of the

democratic party. Ever since the return of Pompeius, Cæsar had

grown rapidly in influence and weight. He had been prætor in

62 B. C., and, in 61, governor in Farther Spain, where he

utilized his position to free himself from his debts, and to

lay the foundation of the military position he desired for

himself. Returning in 60 B. C., he readily relinquished his

claim to a triumph, in order to enter the city in time to

stand for the consulship. … It was quite possible that the

aristocracy might be strong enough to defeat the candidature

of Cæsar, as it had defeated that of Catilina; and again, the

consulship was not enough; an extraordinary command, secured

to him for several years, was necessary for the fulfilment of

his purpose. Without allies such a command could not be hoped

for; and allies were found where they had been found ten years

before, in Pompeius and Crassus, and in the rich equestrian

class. Such a treaty was suicide on the part of Pompeius; …

but he had drifted into a situation so awkward that he was

glad to be released from it on any terms. … The bargain was

struck in the summer of 60 B. C. [forming what became known in

Roman history as the First Triumvirate]. Cæsar was promised

the consulship and a governorship afterwards; Pompeius, the

ratification of his arrangements in the East, and land for his

soldiers; Crassus received no definite equivalent, but the

capitalists were promised a remission of part of the money

they had undertaken to pay for the lease of the Asiatic taxes.

… Cæsar was easily elected consul for 59 B. C. All that the

exertions of the Senate could do was to give him an

aristocratic colleague in Marcus Bibulus. Cæsar at once

proceeded to fulfil his obligations to Pompeius by proposing

an agrarian law. All remaining Italian domain land, which

meant practically the territory of Capua, was to be given up

to allotments, and other estates in Italy were to be purchased

out of the revenues of the new Eastern provinces. The soldiers

were simply recommended to the commission, and thus the

principle of giving rewards of land for military service was

not asserted. The execution of the bill was to be entrusted to

a commission of twenty. … At length all these proposals were

passed by the assembly [after rejection by the Senate], and

the commission of twenty, with Pompeius and Crassus at their

head, began the execution of the agrarian law. Now that the

first victory was won, the coalition was able to carry out the

rest of its programme without much difficulty. … It was

determined by the confederates that Cæsar should be invested

by decree of the people with a special command resembling that

lately held by Pompeius. Accordingly the tribune Vatinius

submitted to the tribes a proposal which was at once adopted.

By it Cæsar obtained the governorship of Cisalpine Gaul, and

the supreme command of the three legions stationed there, for

five years, with the rank of proprætor for his adjutants. His

jurisdiction extended southwards as far as the Rubicon, and

included Luca and Ravenna. Subsequently the province of Narbo

was added by the Senate, on the motion of Pompeius. … Cæsar

had hardly laid down his consulship when it was proposed, in

the Senate, to annul the Julian laws. …

See JULIAN LAWS.

The regents determined to make examples of some of the most

determined of their opponents." Cicero was accordingly sent

into exile, by a resolution of the tribes, and Cato was

appointed to an odious public mission, which carried him out

of the way, to Cyprus.

T. Mommsen,

History of the Roman Republic,

(abridged by Bryan and Hendy),

chapter 33.

ALSO IN

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 3, chapters 17-20.

C. Middleton,

Life of Cicero,

section 4.

Napoleon III.,

History of Julius Cæsar,

chapters 3-4.

ROME: B. C. 58-51.

Cæsar's conquest of Gaul.

See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

ROME: B. C. 57-52.

Effect of Cæsar's Gallic victories.

Return of Cicero from exile.

New arrangements of the Triumvirs.

Cæsar's Proconsulship extended.

The Trebonian Law.

Disaster and death of Crassus at Carrhæ.

Increasing anarchy in the city.

"In Rome the enemies of Cæsar … were awed into silence [by his

victorious career in Gaul], and the Senate granted the

unprecedented honour of fifteen days' 'supplicatio' to the

gods for the brilliant successes in Gaul. Among the supporters

of this motion was, as Cæsar learnt in the winter from the

magistrates and senators who came to pay court to him at

Ravenna, M. Tullius Cicero. From the day of his exile the

efforts to secure his return had begun, but it was not until

the 4th of August that the Senate, led by the consul, P.

Lentulus Spinther, carried the motion for his return, in spite

of the violence of the armed gang of Clodius, and summoned all

the country tribes to crowd the comitia on Campus Martius, and

ratify the senatus consultum.

{2690}

The return of the great orator to the country which he had

saved in the terrible days of 63 B. C. was more like a triumph

than the entrance of a pardoned criminal. … But he had come

back on sufferance; the great Three must be conciliated. …

Cicero, like many other optimates in Rome, was looking for the

beginnings of a breach between Pompeius, Crassus and Cæsar,

and was anxious to nourish any germs of opposition to the

triple-headed monarchy. He pleaded against Cæsar's friend

Vatinius, and he gave notice of a motion for checking the

action of the agrarian law in Campania. But these signs of an

independent opposition were suddenly terminated by a

humiliating recantation; for before entering upon his third

campaign Cæsar crossed the Apennines, and appeared at the

Roman colony of Lucca. … Two hundred senators crowded to the

rendezvous, but arrangements were made by the Three very

independently of Senate in Rome or Senate in Lucca. It was

agreed that Pompeius and Crassus should hold a joint

consulship again next year, and before the expiration of

Cæsar's five years they were to secure his reappointment for

another five. … Unfortunate Cicero was awed, and in his other

speeches of this year tried to win the favor of the great men

by supporting their proposed provincial arrangements, and

pleading in defence of Cæsar's friend and protege, L. Balbus."

In the year 55 B. C. the Trebonian Law was passed, "which gave

to Crassus and Pompeius, as proconsular provinces, Syria and

Spain, for the extraordinary term of five years. In this

repeated creation of extraordinary powers in favor of the

coalition of dynasts, Cato rightly saw an end of republican

institutions. … Crassus … started in 54 B. C., at the head of

seven legions, in face of the combined opposition of tribunes

and augurs, to secure the eastern frontier of Roman dominion

by vanquishing the Parthian power, which, reared on the ruins

of the kingdom of the Seleucids, was now supreme in Ctesiphon

and Seleucia. Led into the desert by the Arab Sheikh Abgarus,

acting as a traitor, the Roman army was surrounded by the

fleet Parthian horsemen, who could attack and retreat,

shooting their showers of missiles all the time. In the

blinding sand and sun of the desert near Carrhæ [on the river

Belik, one of the branches of the Euphrates, the supposed site

of the Haran of Biblical history], Crassus experienced a

defeat which took its rank with Cannæ and the Arausio. A few

days afterwards (June 9th, 53 B. C.) he was murdered in a

conference to which the commander of the Parthian forces

invited him. … The shock of this event went through the Roman

world, and though Cassius, the lieutenant of Crassus,

retrieved the honour of the Roman arms against the Parthians

in the following year, that agile people remained to the last

unconquered, and the Roman boundary was never to advance

further to the east. Crassus, then, was dead, and Pompeius,

though he lent Cæsar a legion at the beginning of the year,

was more ready to assume the natural antagonism to Cæsar,

since the death of his wife Julia in September, 54 B. C., had

broken a strong tie with his father-in-law. Further, the

condition of the capital seemed reaching a point of anarchy at

which Pompeius, as the only strong man on the spot, would have

to be appointed absolute dictator. In 53 B. C. no consuls

could, in the violence and turmoil of the comitia, be elected

until July, and the year closed without any elections having

taken place for 52 B. C. T. Annius Milo, who was a candidate

for the consulship, and P. Clodius, who was seeking the

prætorship, turned every street of Rome into a gladiatorial

arena." In January Clodius was killed. "Pompeius was waiting

in his new gardens near the Porta Carmentalis, until a

despairing government should invest him with dictatorial

power; he was altogether too timid and too constitutional to

seize it. But with Cato in Rome no one dared mention the word

dictator. Pompeius, disappointed, was named sole consul on the

4th of February [B. C. 52], and by July he had got as his

colleague his new father-in-law, Metellus."

R. F. Horton,

History of the Romans,

chapter 29.

ALSO IN

W. Forsyth,

Life of Cicero,

chapters 13-16 (volumes 1-2).

C. Merivale,

The Roman Triumvirates,

chapter 5.

G. Rawlinson,

The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 11.

ROME: B. C. 55-54.

Cæsar's invasions of Britain.

See BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.

ROME: B. C. 52-50.

Rivalry of Pompeius and Cæsar.

Approach of the crisis.

Cæsar's legions in motion towards the capital.

"Cæsar had long ago resolved upon the overthrow of Pompey, as

had Pompey, for that matter, upon his. For Crassus, the fear

of whom had hitherto kept them in peace, having now been

killed in Parthia, if the one of them wished to make himself

the greatest man in Rome, he had only to overthrow the other;

and if he again wished to prevent his own fall, he had nothing

for it but to be beforehand with him whom he feared. Pompey

had not been long under any such apprehensions, having till

lately despised Cæsar, as thinking it no difficult matter to

put down him whom he himself had advanced. But Cæsar had

entertained this design from the beginning against his rivals,

and had retired, like an expert wrestler, to prepare himself

apart for the combat. Making the Gallic wars his

exercise-ground, he had at once improved the strength of his

soldiery, and had heightened his own glory by his great

actions, so that he was looked on as one who might challenge

comparison with Pompey. Nor did he let go any of those

advantages which were now given him, both by Pompey himself

and the times, and the ill government of Rome, where all who

were candidates for office publicly gave money, and without

any shame bribed the people, who, having received their pay,

did not contend for their benefactors with their bare

suffrages, but with bows, swords and slings. So that after

having many times stained the place of election with the blood

of men killed upon the spot, they left the city at last

without a government at all, to be carried about like a ship

without a pilot to steer her; while all who had any wisdom

could only be thankful if a course of such wild and stormy

disorder and madness might end no worse than in a monarchy.

Some were so bold as to declare openly that the government was

incurable but by a monarchy, and that they ought to take that

remedy from the hands of the gentlest physician, meaning

Pompey, who, though in words he pretended to decline it, yet

in reality made his utmost efforts to be declared dictator.

{2691}

Cato, perceiving his design, prevailed with the Senate to make

him sole consul [B. C. 52], that with the offer of a more

legal sort of monarchy he might be withheld from demanding the

dictatorship. They over and above voted him the continuance of

his provinces, for he had two, Spain and all Africa, which he

governed by his lieutenants, and maintained armies under him,

at the yearly charge of a thousand talents out of the public

treasury. Upon this Cæsar also sent and petitioned for the

consulship, and the continuance of his provinces. Pompey at

first did not stir in it, but Marcellus and Lentulus opposed

it, who had always hated Cæsar, and now did everything,

whether fit or unfit, which might disgrace and affront him.

For they took away the privilege of Roman citizens from the

people of New Comum, who were a colony that Cæsar had lately

planted in Gaul; and Marcellus, who was then consul, ordered

one of the senators of that town, then at Rome, to be whipped

[B. C. 51], and told him he laid that mark upon him to signify

he was no citizen of Rome, bidding him, when he went back

again, to show it to Cæsar. After Marcellus's consulship,

Cæsar began to lavish gifts upon all the public men out of the

riches he had taken from the Gauls; discharged Curio, the

tribune, from his great debts; gave Paulus, then consul, 1,500

talents, with which he built the noble court of justice

adjoining the forum, to supply the place of that called the

Fulvian. Pompey, alarmed at these preparations, now openly

took steps, both by himself and his friends, to have a

successor appointed in Cæsar's room, and sent to demand back

the soldiers whom he had lent him to carry on the wars in

Gaul. Cæsar returned them, and made each soldier a present of

250 drachmas. The officer who brought them home to Pompey,

spread amongst the people no very fair or favorable report of

Cæsar, and flattered Pompey himself with false suggestions

that he was wished for by Cæsar's army; and though his affairs

here were in some embarrassment through the envy of some, and

the ill state of the government, yet there the army was at his

command, and if they once crossed into Italy, would presently

declare for him; so weary were they of Cæsar's endless

expeditions, and so suspicious of his designs for a monarchy.

Upon this Pompey grew presumptuous, and neglected all warlike

preparations, as fearing no danger. … Yet the demands which

Cæsar made had the fairest colors of equity imaginable. For he

proposed to lay down his arms, and that Pompey should do the

same, and both together should become private men, and each

expect a reward of his services from the public. For that

those who proposed to disarm him, and at the same time to

confirm Pompey in all the power he held, were simply

establishing the one in the tyranny which they accused the

other of aiming at. When Curio made these proposals to the

people in Cæsar's name, he was loudly applauded, and some

threw garlands towards him, and dismissed him as they do

successful wrestlers, crowned with flowers. Antony, being

tribune, produced a letter sent from Cæsar on this occasion,

and read it, though the consuls did what they could to oppose

it. But Scipio, Pompey's father-in-law, proposed in the

Senate, that if Cæsar did not lay down his arms within such a

time, he should be voted an enemy; and the consuls putting it

to the question, whether Pompey should dismiss his soldiers,

and again, whether Cæsar should disband his, very few assented

to the first, but almost all to the latter. But Antony

proposing again, that both should lay down their commissions,

all but a very few agreed to it. Scipio was upon this very

violent, and Lentulus the consul cried aloud, that they had

need of arms, and not of suffrages, against a robber; so that

the senators for the present adjourned, and appeared in

mourning as a mark of their grief for the dissension.

Afterwards there came other letters from Cæsar, which seemed

yet more moderate, for he proposed to quit everything else,

and only to retain Gaul within the Alps, Illyricum, and two

legions, till he should stand a second time for consul.

Cicero, the orator, who was lately returned from Cilicia,

endeavored to reconcile differences, and softened Pompey, who

was willing to comply in other things, but not to allow him

the soldiers. At last Cicero used his persuasions with Cæsar's

friends to accept of the provinces and 6,000 soldiers only,

and so to make up the quarrel. And Pompey was inclined to give

way to this, but Lentulus, the consul, would not hearken to

it, but drove Antony and Curio out of the senate-house with

insults, by which he afforded Caesar [then at Ravenna] the

most plausible pretence that could be, and one which he could

readily use to inflame the soldiers, by showing them two

persons of such repute and authority, who were forced to

escape in a hired carriage in the dress of slaves. For so they

were glad to disguise themselves, when they fled out of Rome.

There were not about him at that time [November, B. C. 50]

above 300 horse, and 5,000 foot: for the rest of his army,

which was left behind the Alps, was to be brought after him by

officers who had received orders for that purpose. But he

thought the first motion towards the design which he had on

foot did not require large forces at present, and that what

was wanted was to make this first step suddenly, and so as to

astound his enemies with the boldness of it. … Therefore, he

commanded his captains and other officers to go only with

their swords in their hands, without any other arms, and make

themselves masters of Ariminum, a large city cf Gaul, with as

little disturbance and bloodshed as possible. He committed the

care of these forces to Hortensius, and himself spent the day

in public as a stander-by and spectator of the gladiators, who

exercised before him. A little before night he attended to his

person, and then went into the hall, and conversed for some

time with those he had invited to supper, till it began to

grow dusk, when he rose from table, and made his excuses to

the company, begging them to stay till he came back, having

already given private directions to a few immediate friends,

that they should follow him, not all the same way, but some

one way, some another. He himself got into one of the hired

carriages, and drove at first another way, but presently

turned towards Ariminum."

Plutarch,

Cæsar

(Clough's Dryden's translation)

ALSO IN

Cæsar,

Commentaries on the Civil War,

book 1, chapters 1-8.

T. Arnold,

History of the Later Roman Commonwealth,

chapter 8 (volume 1).

{2692}

ROME: B. C. 50-49.

Cæsar's passage of the Rubicon.

Flight of Pompeius and the Consuls from Italy.

Cæsar at the capital.

"About ten miles from Ariminum, and twice that distance from

Ravenna, the frontier of Italy and Gaul was traced by the

stream of the Rubicon. This little river, red with the

drainage of the peat mosses from which it descends [and

evidently deriving its name from its color], is formed by the

union of three mountain torrents, and is nearly dry in the

summer, like most of the water courses on the eastern side of

the Appenines. In the month of November the winter flood might

present a barrier more worthy of the important position which

it once occupied; but the northern frontier of Italy had long

been secure from invasion, and the channel was spanned by a

bridge of no great dimensions. … The ancients amused

themselves with picturing the guilty hesitation with which the

founder of a line of despots stood, as they imagined, on the

brink of the fatal river [in the night of the 27th of

November, B. C. 50, corrected calendar, or January 15, B. C.

49, without the correction], and paused for an instant before

he committed the irrevocable act, pregnant with the destinies

of a long futurity. Cæsar, indeed, in his Commentaries, makes

no allusion to the passage of the Rubicon, and, at the moment

of stepping on the bridge, his mind was probably absorbed in

the arrangements he had made for the march of his legions or

for their reception by his friends in Ariminum."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 14.

After the crossing of the Rubicon there were still more,

messages between Cæsar and Pompey, and the consuls supporting

the latter. "Each demands that the other shall first abandon

his position. Of course, all these messages mean nothing.

Cæsar, complaining bitterly of injustice, sends a portion of

his small army still farther into the Roman territory. Marc

Antony goes to Arezzo with five cohorts, and Cæsar occupies

three other cities with a cohort each. The marvel is that he

was not attacked and driven back by Pompey. We may probably

conclude that the soldiers, though under the command of

Pompey, were not trustworthy as against Cæsar. As Cæsar

regrets his two legions, so no doubt do the two legions regret

their commander. At any rate, the consular forces, with Pompey

and the consuls and a host of senators, retreat southwards to

Brundusium—Brindisi—intending to leave Italy. … During this

retreat, the first blood in the civil war is spilt at

Corfinium, a town which, if it now stood at all, would stand

in the Abruzzi. Cæsar there is victor in a small engagement,

and obtained possession of the town. The Pompeian officers

whom he finds there he sends away, and allows them even to

carry with them money which he believes to have been taken

from the public treasury. Throughout his route southward the

soldiers of Pompey—who had heretofore been his soldiers—return

to him. Pompey and the consuls still retreat, and still Cæsar

follows them, though Pompey had boasted, when first warned to

beware of Cæsar, that he had only to stamp upon Italian soil

and legions would arise from the earth ready to obey him. He

knows, however, that away from Rome, in her provinces, in

Macedonia and Achaia, in Asia and Cilicia, in Sicily,

Sardinia, and Africa, in Mauritania and the two Spains, there

are Roman legions which as yet know no Cæsar. It may be better

for Pompey that he should stamp his foot somewhere out of

Italy. At any rate he sends the obedient consuls and his

attendant senators over to Dyrrhachium in Illyria with a part

of his army, and follows with the remainder as soon as Cæsar

is at his heels. Cæsar makes an effort to intercept him and

his fleet, but in that he fails. Thus Pompey deserts Rome and

Italy,—and never again sees the imperial city or the fair

land. Cæsar explains to us why he does not follow his enemy

and endeavour at once to put an end to the struggle. Pompey is

provided with shipping and he is not; and he is aware that the

force of Rome lies in her provinces. Moreover, Rome may be

starved by Pompey, unless he, Cæsar, can take care that the

corn-growing countries, which are the granaries of Rome, are

left free for the use of the city."

A. Trollope,

The Commentaries of Cæsar,

chapter 9.

Turning back from Brundisium, Cæsar proceeded to Rome to take

possession of the seat of government which his enemies had

abandoned to him. He was scrupulous of legal forms, and, being

a proconsul, holding military command, did not enter the city

in person. But he called together, outside of the walls, such

of the senators as were in Rome and such as could be persuaded

to return to the city, and obtained their formal sanction to

various acts. Among the measures so authorized was the

appropriation of the sacred treasure stored up in the vaults

of the temple of Saturn. It was a consecrated reserve, to be

used for no purpose except the repelling of a Gallic invasion

which had been, for many generations, the greatest dread of

Rome. Cæsar claimed it, because he had put an end to that

fear, by conquering the Gauls. His stay at Rome on this

occasion (April, B. C. 49) was brief, for he needed to make

haste to encounter the Pompeian legions in Spain, and to

secure the submission of all the west before he followed

Pompeius into the Eastern world.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 5, chapters 1-4.

ALSO IN

J. A. Froude,

Cæsar,

chapter 21.

ROME: B. C. 49.

Cæsar's first campaign against the Pompeians in Spain.

His conquest of Massilia.

In Spain, all the strong forces of the country were commanded

by partisans of Pompeius and the Optimate party. Cæsar had

already sent forward C. Fabius from Southern Gaul with three

legions, to take possession of the passes of the Pyrenees and

the principal Spanish roads. Following quickly in person, he

found that his orders had been vigorously obeyed. Fabius was

confronting the Pompeian generals, Afranius and Petreius at

Ilerda (modern Lerida in Catalonia), on the river Sicoris

(modern Segre), where they made their stand. They had five

legions of well-trained veterans, besides native auxiliaries

to a considerable number. Cæsar's army, with the

reinforcements that he had added to it, was about the same.

The Pompeians had every advantage of position, commanding the

passage of the river by a permanent bridge of stone and

drawing supplies from both banks. Cæsar, on the other hand,

had great difficulty in maintaining his communications, and

was placed in mortal peril by a sudden flood which destroyed

his bridges. Yet, without any general battle, by pure

strategic skill and by resistless energy, he forced the

hostile army out of its advantageous position, intercepted its

retreat and compelled an unconditional surrender. This Spanish

campaign, which occupied but forty days, and which was

decisive of the contest for all Spain, was one of the finest

of Cæsar's military achievements.

{2693}

The Greek city of Massilia (modern Marseilles), still

nominally independent and the ally of Rome, although

surrounded by the Roman conquests in Gaul, had seen fit to

range itself on the side of Pompeius and the Optimates, and to

close its gates in the face of Cæsar, when he set out for his

campaign in Spain. He had not hesitated to leave three legions

of his moderate army before the city, while he ordered a fleet

to be built at Arelates (Arles), for coöperation in the siege.

Decimus Brutus commanded the fleet and Trebonius was the

general of the land force. The siege was made notable by

remarkable engineering operations on both sides, but the

courage of the Massiliots was of no long endurance. When Cæsar

returned from his Spanish campaign he found them ready to

surrender. Notwithstanding they had been guilty of a great act

of treachery during the siege, by breaking an armistice, he

spared their city, on account, he said, of its name and

antiquity. His soldiers, who had expected rich booty, were

offended, and a dangerous mutiny, which occurred soon

afterwards at Placentia, had this for its main provocation.

Cæsar,

The Civil War,

book 1, chapters 36-81,

and book 2, chapters 1-22.

ALSO IN

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 5, chapters 5 and 8.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapters 15-16.

ROME: B. C. 48.

The war in Epirus and Thessaly.

Cæsar's decisive victory at Pharsalia.

Having established his authority in Italy, Gaul and Spain, and

having legalized it by procuring from the assembly of the

Roman citizens his formal election to the consulship, for the

year A. U. 706 (B. C. 48), Cæsar prepared to follow Pompeius

and the Senatorial party across the Adriatic. As the calendar

then stood, it was in January that he arrived at Brundisium to

take ship; but the season corresponded with November in the

calendar as Cæsar, himself, corrected it soon afterwards. The

vessels at his command were so few that he could transport

only 15,500 of his troops on the first expedition, and it was

with that number that he landed at Palæste on the coast of

Epirus. The sea was swarming with the fleets of his enemies,

and, although he escaped them in going, his small squadron was

caught on the return voyage and many of its ships destroyed.

Moreover, the Pompeian cruisers became so vigilant that the

second detachment of his army, left behind at Brundisium,

under Marcus Antonius, found no opportunity to follow him

until the winter had nearly passed. Meantime, with his small

force, Cæsar proceeded boldly into Macedonia to confront

Pompeius, reducing fortresses and occupying towns as he

marched. Although his great antagonist had been gathering

troops in Macedonia for months, and now numbered an army of

some 90,000 or 100,000 men, it was Cæsar, not Pompeius, who

pressed for a battle, even before Mark Antony had joined him.

As soon as the junction had occurred he pushed the enemy with

all possible vigor. But Pompeius had no confidence in his

untrained host. He drew his whole army into a strongly

fortified, immense camp, on the sea coast near Dyrrhachium, at

a point called Petra, and there he defied Cæsar to dislodge

him. The latter undertook to wall him in on the land-side of

his camp, by a line of ramparts and towers seventeen miles in

length. It was an undertaking too great for his force.

Pompeius made a sudden flank movement which disconcerted all

his plans, and so defeated and demoralized his men that he was

placed in extreme peril for a time. Had the Senatorial chief

shown half of Cæsar's energy at that critical moment, the

cause of Cæsar would probably have been lost. But Pompeius and

his party took time to rejoice over their victory, while Cæsar

framed plans to repair his defeat. He promptly abandoned his

lines before the enemy's camp and fell back into the interior

of the country, to form a junction with certain troops which

he had previously sent eastward to meet reënforcements then

coming to Pompeius. He calculated that Pompeius would follow

him, and Pompeius did so. The result was to give Cæsar, at

last, the opportunity he had been seeking for months, to

confront with his tried legions the motley levies of his

antagonist on an open field. The decisive and ever memorable

battle was fought in Thessaly, on the plain of Pharsalia,

through which flows the river Enipeus, and overlooking which,

from a contiguous height, stood anciently the city of

Pharsalus. It was fought on the 9th of August, in the year 48

before Christ. It was a battle quickly ended. The

foot-soldiers of Pompeius out-numbered those of Cæsar at least

as two to one; but they could not stand the charge which the

latter made upon them. His cavalry was largely composed of the

young nobility of Rome, and Cæsar had few horsemen with which

to meet them; but he set against them a strong reserve of his

sturdy veterans on foot, and they broke the horsemen's ranks.

The defeat was speedily a rout; there was no rallying.

Pompeius fled with a few attendants and made his way to

Alexandria, where his tragical fate overtook him. Some of the

other leaders escaped in different directions. Some, like

Brutus, submitted to Cæsar, who was practically the master,

from that hour, of the Roman realm, although Thapsus had still

to be fought.

Cæsar,

The Civil War,

book 3.

ALSO IN

W. W. Fowler,

Julius Cæsar,

chapter 16.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 5, chapters 10-17.

T. A. Dodge,

Cæsar,

chapters 31-35.

ROME: B. C. 48-47.

Pursuit or Pompeius to Egypt.

His assassination.

Cæsar at Alexandria, with Cleopatra.

The rising against him.

His peril.

His deliverance.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

ROME: B. C. 47-46.

Cæsar's overthrow or Pharnaces at Zela.

His return to Rome.

The last stand or his opponents in Africa.

Their defeat at Thapsus.

At the time when Cæsar was in a difficult position at

Alexandria, and the subjects of Rome were generally uncertain

as to whether their yoke would be broken or not by the pending

civil war, Pharnaces, son of the vanquished Pontic king,

Mithridates, made an effort to recover the lost kingdom of his

father. He himself had been a traitor to his father, and had

been rewarded for his treason by Pompeius, who gave him the

small kingdom of Bosporus, in the Crimea. He now thought the

moment favorable for regaining Pontus, Cappadocia and Lesser

Armenia. Cæsar's lieutenant in Asia Minor, Domitius Calvinus,

marched against him with a small force, and was badly defeated

at Nicopolis (B. C. 48), in Armenia Minor.

{2694}

As a consequence, Cæsar, on being extricated from Alexandria,

could not return to Rome, although his affairs there sorely

needed him, until he had restored the Roman authority in Asia

Minor. As soon as he could reach Pharnaces, although his army

was small in numbers, he struck and shattered the flimsy

throne at a single blow. The battle was fought (B. C. 47) at

Zela, in Pontus, where Mithridates had once gained a victory

over the Romans. It was of this battle that Cæsar is said to

have written his famous 'Veni, vidi, vici.' "Plutarch says

that this expression was used in a letter to one Amintius; the

name is probably a mistake. Suetonius asserts that the three

words were inscribed on a banner and carried in Cæsar's

triumph. Appian and Dion refer to them as notorious."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 18.

After defeating Pharnaces at Zela, destroying his army, "Cæsar

passed on through Galatia and Bithynia to the province of Asia

proper, settling affairs in every centre; and leaving the

faithful Mithridates [of Pergamum—See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47]

with the title of King of the Bosphorus, as a guarantee for

the security of these provinces, he sailed for Italy, and

arrived at Tarentum before anyone was aware of his approach.

If he had really wasted time or lost energy in Egypt, he was

making up for it now. On the way from Tarentum to Brundisium

he met Cicero, who had been waiting for him here for nearly a

year. He alighted, embraced his old friend, and walked with

him some distance. The result of their talk was shown by

Cicero's conduct for the rest of Cæsar's lifetime; he retired

to his villas, and sought relief in literary work, encouraged

doubtless by Cæsar's ardent praise. The magical effect of

Cæsar's presence was felt throughout Italy; all sedition

ceased, and Rome, which had been the scene of riot and

bloodshed under the uncertain rule of Antonius, was quiet in

an instant. The master spent three months in the city, working

hard. He had been a second time appointed dictator while he

was in Egypt, and probably without any limit of time, space or

power; and he acted now without scruple as an absolute

monarch. Everything that had to be done he saw to himself.

Money was raised, bills were passed, the Senate recruited,

magistrates and provincial governors appointed. But there was

no time for any attempt at permanent organisation; he must

wrest Africa from his enemies. … He quelled a most serious

mutiny, in which even his faithful tenth legion was concerned,

with all his wonderful skill and knowledge of human nature;

sent on all available forces to Sicily, and arrived himself at

Lilybæum in the middle of December."

W. W. Fowler,

Julius Cæsar,

chapter 17.

The last stand of Cæsar's opponents as a party—the senatorial

party, or the republicans, as they are sometimes called—was

made in Africa, on the old Carthaginian territory, with the

city of Utica for their headquarters, and with Juba, the

Numidian king, for their active ally. Varus, who had held his

ground there, defeating and slaying Cæsar's friend Curio, was

joined first by Scipio, afterwards by Cato, Labienus and other

leaders, Cato having led a wonderful march through the desert

from the Lesser Syrtis. In the course of the year of respite

from pursuit which Cæsar's occupations elsewhere allowed them,

they gathered and organized a formidable army. It was near the

end of the year 47 B. G. that Cæsar assembled his forces at

Lilybæum, in Sicily, and sailed with the first detachment for

Africa. As happened so often to him in his bold military

adventures, the troops which should follow were delayed by

storms, and he was exposed to imminent peril before they

arrived. But he succeeded in fortifying and maintaining a

position on the coast, near Ruspina, until they came. As soon

as they reached him he offered battle to his adversaries, and

found presently an opportunity to force the fighting upon them

at Thapsus, a coast town in their possession, which he

attacked. The battle was decided by the first charge of

Cæsar's legionaries, which swept everything—foot-soldiers,

cavalry and elephants —before it. The victors in their

ferocity gave no quarter and slaughtered 10,000 of the enemy,

while losing from their own ranks but fifty men. The decisive

battle of Thapsus was fought on the 6th of April, B. C. 46,

uncorrected calendar, or February 6th, as corrected later.

Scipio, the commander, fled to Spain, was intercepted on the

voyage, and ended his own life. The high-minded, stoical Cato

committed suicide at Utica, rather than surrender his freedom

to Cæsar. Juba, the Numidian king, likewise destroyed himself

in despair; his kingdom was extinguished and Numidia became a

Roman province. A few scattered leaders of revolt still

disputed Cæsar's supremacy, but his power was firmly fixed.

A. Hirtius,

The African War.

ALSO IN

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 5, chapters 24-27.

ROME: B. C. 45:

Cæsar's last campaign against the Pompeians in Spain.

His victory at Munda.

After Thapsus, Cæsar had one more deadly and desperate battle

to fight for his sovereignty over the dominions of Rome. Cnæus

Pompeius, son of Pompeius Magnus, with Labienus and Varus, of

the survivors of the African field, had found disaffection in

Spain, out of which they drew an army, with Pompeius in

command. Cæsar marched in person against this new revolt,

crossing the Alps and the Pyrenees with his customary

celerity. After a number of minor engagements had been fought,

the decisive battle occurred at Munda, in the valley of the

Guadalquiver (modern Munda, between Honda and Malaga), on the

17th of March, B. C. 45. "Never, it is said, was the great

conqueror brought so near to defeat and destruction;" but he

won the day in the end, and only Sextus Pompeius survived

among the leaders of his enemies. The dead on the field were

30,000.

Julius Cæsar,

Commentary on the Spanish War.

ALSO IN

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 19.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 5, chapter 30.

ROME: B. C. 45-44.

The Sovereignty of Cæsar and his titles.

His permanent Imperatorship.

His unfulfilled projects.

"At Home, official enthusiasm burst forth anew at the tidings

of these successes [in Spain]. The Senate decreed fifty days

of supplications, and recognized Cæsar's right to extend the

pomœrium, since he had extended the limits of the Empire. …

After Thapsus he was more than a demi-god; after Munda he was

a god altogether. A statue was raised to him in the temple of

Quirinus with the inscription: 'To the invincible God,' and a

college of priests, the Julian, was consecrated to him. … On

the 18th September the dictator appeared at the gates of Rome,

but he did not triumph till the beginning of October.

{2695}

This time there was no barbarian king or chieftain to veil the

victories won over citizens. But Cæsar thought he had no

longer need to keep up such consideration; since he was now

the State, his enemies, whatever name they bore, must be

enemies of the State. … It was expected that Cæsar, having

suffered so many outrages, would now punish severely, and

Cicero, who had always doubted his clemency, believed that

tyranny would break out as soon as the tyrant was above fear.

But jealousies, recollections of party strifes, did not reach

to the height of Cæsar. … He restored the statues of Sylla; he

replaced that of Pompey on the rostra. … He pardoned Cassius,

who had tried to assassinate him, the consularis Marcellus who

had stirred up war against him, and Quintus Ligarius who had

betrayed him in Africa. As a temporary precaution, however, he

forbade to the Pompeians, by a 'lex Hirtia,' admission to the

magistracy. For his authority, Cæsar sought no new forms. …

Senate, comitia, magistracies existed as before; but he

centred public action in himself alone by combining in his own

hands all the republican offices. The instrument which Cæsar

used in order to give to his power legal sanction was the

Senate. In former times, the general, after the triumph; laid

aside his title of imperator and imperium, which included

absolute authority over the army, the judicial department and

the administrative power; Cæsar, by a decree of the Senate,

retained both during life, with the right of drawing freely

from the treasury. His dictatorship and his office of

præfectus morum were declared perpetual; the consulship was

offered him for ten years, but he would not accept it; the

Senate wished to join executive to electoral authority by

offering him the right of appointment in all curule and

plebeian offices; he reserved for himself merely the privilege

of nominating half the magistracy. The Senate had enjoined the

members chosen to swear, before entering on office, that they

would undertake nothing contrary to the dictator's acts, these

having the force of law. Further, they gave to his person the

legal inviolability of the tribunes, and in order to ensure

it, knights and senators offered to serve as guards, while the

whole Senate took an oath to watch over his safety. To the

reality of power were added the outward signs. In the Senate,

at the theatre, in the circus, on his tribunal, he sat,

dressed in the royal robe, on a throne of gold, and his effigy

was stamped on the coins, where the Roman magistrates had not

yet ventured to engrave more than their names. They even went

as far as talking of succession, as in a regular monarchy. His

title of imperator and the sovereign pontificate were

transmissible to his legitimate or adopted children. … Cæsar

was not deceived by the secret perfidy which prompted such

servilities, and he valued them as they deserved. But his

enemies found in them fresh reasons for hating the great man

who had saved them. … The Senate had … sunk from its character

of supreme council of the Republic into that of a committee of

consultation, which the master often forgot to consult. The

Civil war had decimated it; Cæsar appointed to it brave

soldiers, even sons of freedmen who had served him well, and a

considerable number of provincials, Spaniards, Gauls of Gallia

Narbonensis, who had long been Romans. He had so many services

to reward that his Senate reached the number of 900 members. …

One day the Senate went in a body to the temple of Venus

Genetrix to present to Cæsar certain decrees drawn up in his

honor. The demi-god was ill and dared not leave his couch.

This was imprudent, for the report spread that he had not

deigned to rise. … The higher nobles remained apart, not from

honours, but from power; but they forgot neither Pharsalia nor

Thapsus. They would have consented to obey on condition of

having the appearance of commanding. This disguised obedience

is for an able government more convenient than outward

servility. A few concessions made to vanity obtain tranquil

possession of power. This was the policy of Augustus, but it

is not that of great ambitions or of a true statesman. These

pretences leave everything doubtful; nothing is settled; and

Cæsar wished to lay the foundations of a government which

should bring a new order of things out of a chaos of ruins.

Unless we are paying too much attention to mere anecdotes, he

desired the royal diadem. … It is difficult not to believe

that Cæsar considered the constituting of a monarchical power

as the rational achievement of the revolution which he was

carrying out. In this way we could explain the persistence of

his friends in offering him a title odious to the Romans, who

were quite ready to accept a monarch, but not monarchy. … In

order to attain to this royal title … he must mount still

higher, and this new greatness he would seek in the East. … It

was meet that he should wipe out the second military

humiliation of Rome after effacing the first; that he should

avenge Crassus."

V. Duruy,

History of Rome,

chapter 58, sections 2-3 (volume 3).

"Cæsar was born to do great things, and had a passion after

honor. … It was in fact a sort of emulous struggle with

himself, as it had been with another, how he might outdo his

past actions by his future. In pursuit of these thoughts he

resolved to make war upon the Parthians, and when he had

subdued them, to pass through Hyrcania; thence to march along

by the Caspian Sea to Mount Caucasus, and so on about Pontus,

till he came into Scythia; then to overrun all the countries

bordering upon Germany, and Germany itself; and so to return

through Gaul into Italy, after completing the whole circle of

his intended empire, and bounding it on every side by the

ocean. While preparations were making for this expedition, he

proposed to dig through the isthmus on which Corinth stands;

and appointed Anienus to superintend the work. He had also a

design of diverting the Tiber, and carrying it by a deep

channel directly from Rome to Circeii, and so into the sea

near Tarracina, that there might be a safe and easy passage

for all merchants who traded to Rome. Besides this, he

intended to drain all the marshes by Pomentium and Setia, and

gain ground enough from the water to employ many thousands of

men in tillage. He proposed further to make great mounds on

the shore nearest Rome, to hinder the sea from breaking in

upon the land, to clear the coast at Ostia of all the hidden

rocks and shoals that made it unsafe for shipping, and to form

ports and harbors fit to receive the large number of vessels

that would frequent them. These things were designed without

being carried into effect; but his reformation of the calendar

[See CALENDAR, JULIAN], in order to rectify the irregularity

of time, was not only projected with great scientific

ingenuity, but was brought to its completion, and proved of

very great use."

Plutarch,

Cæsar (Clough's Dryden's translation).

ALSO IN

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 5, chapter 11, with note.

{2696}

ROME: B. C. 44.

The Assassination of Cæsar.

"The question of the kingship was over; but a vague alarm had

been created, which answered the purpose of the Optimates.

Cæsar was at their mercy any day. They had sworn to maintain

all his acts. They had sworn, after Cicero's speech,

individually and collectively to defend his life. Cæsar,

whether he believed them sincere or not, had taken them at

their word, and came daily to the Senate unarmed and without a

guard. … There were no troops in the city. Lepidus, Cæsar's

master of the horse, who had been appointed governor of Gaul,

was outside the gates with a few cohorts; but Lepidus was a

person of feeble character, and they trusted to be able to

deal with him. Sixty senators, in all, were parties to the

immediate conspiracy. Of these, nine tenths were members of

the old faction whom Cæsar had pardoned, and who, of all his

acts, resented most that he had been able to pardon them. They

were the men who had stayed at home, like Cicero, from the

fields of Thapsus and Munda, and had pretended penitence and

submission that they might take an easier road to rid

themselves of their enemy. Their motives were the ambition of

their order and personal hatred of Cæsar; but they persuaded

themselves that they were animated by patriotism, and as, in

their hands, the Republic had been a mockery of liberty, so

they aimed at restoring it by a mock tyrannicide. … One man

only they were able to attract into coöperation who had a

reputation for honesty, and could be conceived, without

absurdity, to be animated by a disinterested purpose. Marcus

Brutus was the son of Cato's sister Servilia, the friend, and

a scandal said the mistress, of Cæsar. That he was Cæsar's son

was not too absurd for the credulity of Roman drawing-rooms.

Brutus himself could not have believed in the existence of

such a relation, for he was deeply attached to his mother; and

although, under the influence of his uncle Cato, he had taken

the Senate's side in the war, he had accepted afterwards not

pardon only from Cæsar, but favors of many kinds, for which he

had professed, and probably felt, some real gratitude. …

Brutus was perhaps the only member of the senatorial party in

whom Cæsar felt genuine confidence. His known integrity, and

Cæsar's acknowledged regard for him, made his accession to the

conspiracy an object of particular importance. … Brutus, once

wrought upon, became with Cassius the most ardent in the cause

which assumed the aspect to him of a sacred duty. Behind them

were the crowd of senators of the familiar faction, and others

worse than they, who had not even the excuse of having been

partisans of the beaten cause; men who had fought at Cæsar's

side till the war was over, and believed, like Labienus, that

to them Cæsar owed his fortune, and that he alone ought not to

reap the harvest. … The Ides of March drew near. Cæsar was to

set out in a few days for Parthia. Decimus Brutus was going,

as governor, to the north of Italy, Lepidus to Gaul, Marcus

Brutus to Macedonia, and Trebonius to Asia Minor. Antony,

Cæsar's colleague in the consulship, was to remain in Italy.

Dolabella, Cicero's son-in-law, was to be consul with him as

soon as Cæsar should have left for the East. The foreign

appointments were all made for five years, and in another week

the party would be scattered. The time for action had come, if

action there was to be. … An important meeting of the Senate

had been called for the Ides (the 15th) of the month. The

Pontifices, it was whispered, intended to bring on again the

question of the Kingship before Cæsar's departure. The

occasion would be appropriate. The Senate-house itself was a

convenient scene of operations. The conspirators met at supper

the evening before at Cassius's house. Cicero, to his regret,

was not invited. The plan was simple, and was rapidly

arranged. Cæsar would attend unarmed. The senators not in the

secret would be unarmed also. The party who intended to act

were to provide themselves with poniards, which could be

easily concealed in their paper boxes. So far all was simple;

but a question rose whether Cæsar only was to be killed, or

whether Antony and Lepidus were to be dispatched along with

him. They decided that Cæsar's death would be sufficient. …

Antony and Lepidus were not to be touched. For the rest the

assassins had merely to be in their places in the Senate in

good time. When Cæsar entered, Trebonius was to detain Antony

in conversation at the door. The others were to gather about

Cæsar's chair on pretence of presenting a petition, and so

could make an end. A gang of gladiators were to be secreted in

the adjoining theatre to be ready should any unforeseen

difficulty present itself. … Strange stories were told in

after years of the uneasy labors of the elements that night. …

Calpurnia dreamt her husband was murdered, and that she saw

him ascending into heaven, and received by the hand of God. In

the morning (March 15th) the sacrifices were again

unfavorable. Cæsar was restless. Some natural disorder

affected his spirits, and his spirits were reacting on his

body. Contrary to his usual habit, he gave way to depression.

He decided, at his wife's entreaty, that he would not attend

the Senate that day. The house was full. The conspirators were

in their places with their daggers ready. Attendants came in

to remove Cæsar's chair. It was announced that he was not

coming. Delay might be fatal. They conjectured that he already

suspected something. A day's respite, and all might be

discovered. His familiar friend whom he trusted —the

coincidence is striking—was employed to betray him. Decimus

Brutus, whom it was impossible for him to distrust, went to

entreat his attendance. … Cæsar shook off his uneasiness, and

rose to go. As he crossed the hall his statue fell and

shivered on the stones. Some servant, perhaps, had heard

whispers, and wished to warn him. As he still passed on, a

stranger thrust a scroll into his hand, and begged him to read

it on the spot. It contained a list of the conspirators, with

a clear account of the plot. He supposed it to be a petition

and placed it carelessly among his other papers. The fate of

the Empire hung upon a thread, but the thread was not broken.

… Cæsar entered and took his seat.

{2697}

His presence awed men, in spite of themselves, and the

conspirators had determined to act at once, lest they should

lose courage to act at all. He was familiar and easy of

access. They gathered round him. … One had a story to tell

him; another some favor to ask. Tullius Cimber, whom he had

just made governor of Bithynia, then came close to him, with

some request which he was unwilling to grant. Cimber caught

his gown, as if in entreaty, and dragged it from his

shoulders. Cassius, who was standing behind, stabbed him in

the throat. He started up with a cry and caught Cassius's arm.

Another poniard entered his breast, giving a mortal wound. He

looked round, and seeing not one friendly face, but only a

ring of daggers pointing at him, he drew his gown over his

head, gathered the folds about him that he might fall

decently, and sank down without uttering another word. … The

Senate rose with shrieks and confusion, and rushed into the

Forum. The crowd outside caught the words that Cæsar was dead,

and scattered to their houses. Antony, guessing that those who

had killed Cæsar would not spare himself, hurried off into

concealment. The murderers, bleeding some of them from wounds

which they had given one another in their eagerness, followed,

crying that the tyrant was dead, and that Rome was free; and

the body of the great Cæsar was left alone in the house where

a few weeks before Cicero told him that he was so necessary to

his country that every senator would die before harm should

reach him."

J. A. Froude,

Cæsar,

chapter 26.

ROME: B. C. 44.

The genius and character of Cæsar.

His rank among great men.

"Was Cæsar, upon the whole, the greatest of men? Dr. Beattie

once observed, that if that question were left to be collected

from the suffrages already expressed in books, and scattered

throughout the literature of all nations, the scale would be

found to have turned prodigiously in Cæsar's favor, as against

any single competitor; and there is no doubt whatsoever, that

even amongst his own countrymen, and his own contemporaries,

the same verdict would have been returned, had it been

collected upon the famous principle of Themistocles, that he

should be reputed the first, whom the greatest number of rival

voices had pronounced the second."

T. De Quincey,

The Cæsars,

chapter 1.

"The founder of the Roman Empire was a very great man. With

such genius and such fortune it is not surprising that he

should be made an idol. In intellectual stature he was at

least an inch higher than his fellows, which is in itself

enough to confound all our notions of right and wrong. He had

the advantage of being a statesman before he was a soldier,

whereas Napoleon was a soldier before he was a statesman. His

ambition coincided with the necessity of the world, which

required to be held together by force; and, therefore, his

Empire endured for four hundred, or, if we include its Eastern

offset, for fourteen hundred years, while that of Napoleon

crumbled to pieces in four. But unscrupulous ambition was the

root of his character. It was necessary, in fact, to enable

him to trample down the respect for legality which still

hampered other men. To connect him with any principle seems to

me impossible. He came forward, it is true, as the leader of

what is styled the democratic party, and in that sense the

empire which he founded may be called democratic. But to the

gamblers who brought their fortunes to that vast hazard table,

the democratic and aristocratic parties were merely rouge and

noir. The social and political equity, the reign of which we

desire to see, was, in truth, unknown to the men of Cæsar's

time. It is impossible to believe that there was an essential

difference of principle between one member of the triumvirate

and another. The great adventurer had begun by getting deeply

into debt, and had thus in fact bound himself to overthrow the

republic. He fomented anarchy to prepare the way for his

dictatorship. He shrank from no accomplice however tainted,

not even from Catiline; from no act however profligate or even

cruel. … The noblest feature in Cæsar's character was his

clemency. But we are reminded that it was ancient, not modern

clemency, when we find numbered among the signal instances of

it his having cut the throats of the pirates before he hanged

them, and his having put to death without torture (simplici

morte punivit) a slave suspected of conspiring against his

life. Some have gone so far as to speak of him as the

incarnation of humanity. But in the whole history of Roman

conquest will you find a more ruthless conqueror? A million of

Gauls we are told perished by the sword. Multitudes were sold

into slavery. The extermination of the Eburones went to the

verge even of ancient licence. The gallant Vercingetorix, who

had fallen into Cæsar's hands under circumstances which would

have touched any but a depraved heart, was kept by him a

captive for six years, and butchered in cold blood on the day

of the triumph. The sentiment of humanity was then

undeveloped. Be it so, but then we must not call Cæsar the

incarnation of humanity. Vast plans are ascribed to Cæsar at

the time of his death, and it seems to be thought that a world

of hopes for humanity perished when he fell. But if he had

lived and acted for another century, what could he have done

with those moral and political materials but found, what he

did found, a military and sensualist empire. A multitude of

projects are attributed to him by writers, who, we must

remember, are late, and who make him ride a fairy charger with

feet like the hands of a man. Some of these projects are

really great, such as the codification of the law, and

measures for the encouragement of intellect and science;

others are questionable, such as the restoration of commercial

cities from which commerce had departed; others, great works

to be accomplished by an unlimited command of men and money,

are the common dreams of every Nebuchadnezzar. … Still Cæsar

was a very great man, and he played a dazzling part, as all

men do who come just at the fall of an old system, when

society is as clay in the hands of the potter, and found a new

system in its place; while the less dazzling task of making

the new system work, by probity and industry, and of restoring

the shattered allegiance of a people to its institutions,

descends upon unlaurelled heads. But that the men of his time

were bound to recognise in him a Messiah, to use the phrase of

the Emperor of the French, and that those who opposed him were

Jews crucifying their Messiah is an impression which I venture

to think will in time subside."

Goldwin Smith,

The Last Republicans of Rome

(Macmillan's Magazine, April, 1868).

ALSO IN:

T. Arnold,

History of the Later Roman Commonwealth,

chapter 9 (volume 2).

A. Trollope,

Life of Cicero,

volume 2, chapter 8.

{2698}

ROME: B. C. 44.

After Cæsar's death.

Flight of "the Liberators."

Mark Antony in power.-

Arrival and wise conduct of Cæsar's heir, the young Octavius.

The assassins of Cæsar were not long in discovering that Rome

gave no applause to their bloody deed. Its first effect was a

simply stupefying consternation. The Senators fled,—the forum

and the streets were nearly emptied. When Brutus attempted an

harangue his hearers were few and silent. In gloomy alarm, he

made haste, with his associates, to take refuge on the heights

of the capitol. During the night which followed, a few

senators, who approved the assassination—Cicero among the

number—climbed the hill and held council with them in their

place of retreat. The result was a second attempt made, on the

following day, to rouse public feeling in their favor by

speeches in the forum. The demonstration was again a failure,

and the "liberators," as they wished to be deemed, returned

with disappointment to the capitol. Meantime, the surviving

consul, who had been Cæsar's colleague for the year, M.

Antonius—known more commonly as Mark Antony—had acted with

vigor to secure power in his own hands. He had taken

possession of the great treasure which Cæsar left, and had

acquired his papers. He had come to a secure understanding,

moreover, with Lepidus, Cæsar's Master of Horse, who

controlled a legion quartered near by, and who really

commanded the situation, if his energy and his abilities had

been equal to it. Lepidus marched his legion into the city,

and its presence preserved order. Yet, with all the advantage

in their favor, neither Antony nor Lepidus took any bold

attitude against Cæsar's murderers. On the contrary, Antony

listened to propositions from them and consented, as consul,

to call a meeting of the Senate for deliberation on their act.

At that meeting he even advocated what might be called a

decree of oblivion, so far as concerned the striking down of

Cæsar, and a confirmation of all the acts executed and

unexecuted, of the late Imperator. These had included the

recent appointment of Brutus, Cassius and other leaders among

the assassins to high proconsular commands in the provinces.

Of course the proposed measure was acceptable to them and

their friends, while Antony, having Cæsar's papers in his

possession, expected to gain everything from it. Under cover

of the blank confirmation of Cæsar's acts, he found in Cæsar's

papers a ground of authority for whatever he willed to do, and

was accused of forging without limit where the genuine

documents failed him. At the same time, taking advantage of

the opportunity that was given to him by a public funeral

decreed to Cæsar, he delivered an artful oration, which

infuriated the people and drove the bloodstained "liberators"

in terror from the city. But in many ways Antonius weakened

the strong position which his skilful combinations had won for

him. In his undisguised selfishness he secured no friends of

his own; he alienated the friends of Cæsar by his calm

indifference to the crime of the assassins of Cæsar, while he

harvested for himself the fruits of it; above all, he offended

and insulted the people by his impudent appropriation of

Cæsar's vast hoard of wealth. The will of the slain Imperator

had been read, and it was known that he had bequeathed three

hundred sesterces—nearly £3 sterling, or $15—to every citizen

of Rome. The heir named to the greater part of the estate was

Cæsar's favorite grand-nephew (grandson of his younger sister,

Julia) Caius Octavius, who became, by the terms of the will,

his adopted son, and who was henceforth to bear the name Caius

Julius Cæsar Octavianus. The young heir, then but eighteen

years of age, was at Apollonia, in Illyria, at the quarters of

a considerable force which Cæsar had assembled there. With

wonderful coolness and prudence for his age, he declined

proposals to lead the army to Rome, for the assertion of his

rights, but went quietly thither with a few friends, feeling

the public pulse as he journeyed. At Rome he demanded from

Antony the moneys which Cæsar had left, but the profligate and

reckless consul had spent them and would give no account. By

great exertions Octavius raised sufficient means on his own

account to pay Cæsar's legacy to the Roman citizens, and

thereby he consolidated a popular feeling in his own favor,

against Antony, which placed him, at once, in important

rivalry with the latter. It enabled him presently to share the

possession of power with Antony and Lepidus, in the Second

Triumvirate, and, finally, to seize the whole sovereignty

which Cæsar intended to bequeath to him.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapters 23-24.

ALSO IN:

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 5, chapter 34.

ROME: B. C. 44-42.

Destruction of the Liberators.

Combination of Antony, Octavius and Lepidus.

The Second Triumvirate.

Mark Antony's arrangement of peace with the murderers of

Cæsar, on the basis of a confirmation in the Senate of all

Cæsar's acts, gave to Marcus Brutus the government of

Macedonia, to Decimus Brutus that of Cisalpine Gaul, and to

Cassius that of Syria, since Cæsar had already named them to

those several commands before they slew him. But Antony

succeeded ere long in procuring decrees from the Senate,

transferring Macedonia to his brother, and Syria to Dolabella.

A little later he obtained a vote of the people giving

Cisalpine Gaul to himself, and cancelling the commission of

Decimus Brutus. His consular term was now near its expiration

and he had no intention to surrender the power he had enjoyed.

An army in northern Italy would afford the support which his

plans required. But, before those plans were ripe, his

position had grown exceedingly precarious. The Senate and the

people were alike unfriendly to him, and alike disposed to

advance Octavius in opposition. The latter, without office or

commission, had already, in the lawless manner of the time, by

virtue of the encouragement given to him, collected an army of

several legions under his personal banner. Decimus Brutus

refused to surrender the government of Gaul, and was supported

by the best wishes of the Senate in defying Antony to wrest it

from him. The latter now faced the situation boldly, and,

although two legions brought from Epirus went over to

Octavius, he collected a strong force at Ariminum, marched

into Cisalpine Gaul and blockaded Decimus Brutus in Mutina

(modern Modena). Meantime, new consuls, Hirtius and Pansa, had

taken office at Rome, and the Senate, led by Cicero, had

declared its hostility to Antony.

{2699}

Octavius was called upon to join the new consuls with his

army, in proceeding against the late consul—now treated as a

public enemy, though not so pronounced. He did so, and two

battles were fought, on the 15th of April, B. C. 43, at Forum

Gallorum, and on the 27th of the same month under the walls of

Mutina, which forced Antony to retreat, but which cost Rome

the lives of both her consuls. Antony retired across the Alps

and joined his old friend Lepidus in Transalpine Gaul.

Octavius declined to follow. Instead of doing so, he sent a

military deputation to Rome to demand the consulship, and

quickly followed it with his army when the demand had been

refused. The demonstration proved persuasive, and he was

elected consul, with his half-brother for colleague. His next

business was to come to terms with Antony and Lepidus, as

against the Liberators and their friends. A conference was

arranged, and the three new masters of Rome met in October, B.

C. 43, on an island near Bononia (modern Bologna),

constituting themselves a commission of three—a triumvirate

—to settle the affairs of the commonwealth. They framed a

formal contract of five years' duration; divided the powers of

government between themselves; named officials for the

subordinate places; and—most serious proceeding of

all—prepared a proscription list, as Sulla had done, of

enemies to be put out of the way. It was an appalling list of

300 senators (the immortal Cicero at their head) and 2,000

knights. When the work of massacre in Rome and Italy had been

done, and when the terrified Senate had legalized the

self-assumed title and authority of the triumvirs, these

turned their attention to the East, where M. Brutus and

Cassius had established and maintained themselves in power.

Decimus Brutus was already slain, after desertion by his army

and capture in attempted flight. In the summer of the year 42

B. C., Antony led a division of the joint army of the

triumvirate across the sea and through Macedonia, followed

soon after by Octavius with additional forces. They were met

at Philippi, and there, in two great battles, fought with an

interval of twenty days between, the republic of Rome was

finally done to death. "The battle of Philippi, in the

estimation of the Roman writers, was the most memorable

conflict in their military annals. The numbers engaged on

either side far exceed all former experience. Eighty thousand

legionaries alone were counted on the one side, and perhaps

120,000 on the other—at least three times as many as fought at

Pharsalia." Both Cassius and Brutus died by their own hands.

There was no more opposition to the triumvirs, except from

Sextus Pompeius, last survivor of the family of the great

Pompeius, who had created for himself at sea a little

half-piratical realm, and who forced the three to recognize

him for a time as a fourth power in the Roman world. But he,

too, perished, B. C. 35. For seven years, from B. C. 42 to B.

C. 36, Antony ruled the East, Octavius the West, and Lepidus

reigned in Africa.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapters 24-28.

ALSO IN:

C. Merivale,

The Fall of the Roman Republic,

chapter 15.

ROME: B. C. 31.

The victory of Octavius at Actium.

The rise of the Empire.

The battles of Philippi, which delivered the whole Roman world

to Antony, Octavius and Lepidus (the Triumvirs), were fought

in the summer of 42 B. C. The battle of Actium, which made

Octavius—soon to be named Augustus—the single master of a now

fully founded Empire, was fought on the 2d of September, B. C.

31. In the interval of eleven years, Octavius, governing Rome,

Italy, and the provinces of the West, had steadily

consolidated and increased his power, gaining the confidence,

the favor and the fear of his subject people. Antony,

oppressing the East, had consumed his energies and his time in

dalliance with Cleopatra, and had made himself the object of

hatred and contempt. Lepidus, who had Africa for his dominion

to begin with, had measured swords with Octavius and had been

summarily deposed, in the year 36 B. C. It was simply a

question of time as to when Antony, in his turn, should make

room for the coming monarch. Already, in the year after

Philippi, the two sovereign-partners had been at the verge of

war. Antony's brother and his wife, Fulvia, had raised a

revolt in Italy against Octavius, and it had been crushed at

Perusia, before Antony could rouse himself to make a movement

in support of it. He did make a formidable demonstration at

last; but the soldiers of the two rivals compelled them on

that occasion to patch up a new peace, which was accomplished

by a treaty negotiated at Brundisium and sealed by the

marriage of Antony to Octavia, sister of Octavius. This peace

was maintained for ten years, while the jealousies and

animosities of the two potentates grew steadily more bitter.

It came to an end when Octavius felt strong enough to defy the

superior resources, in money, men and ships, which Antony held

at his command. The preparations then made on both sides for

the great struggle were stupendous and consumed a year. It was

by the determination of Antony that the war assumed chiefly a

naval character; but Octavius, not Antony, forced the

sea-fight when it came. His smaller squadrons sought and

attacked the swarming fleets of Egypt and Asia, in the

Ambracian gulf, where they had been assembled. The great

battle was fought at the inlet of the gulf, off the point, or

"acte," of a tongue of land, projecting from the shores of

Acarnania, on which stood a temple to Apollo, called the

Actium. Hence the name of the battle. The cowardly flight of

Cleopatra, followed by Antony, ended the conflict quickly, and

the Antonian fleet was entirely destroyed. The deserted army,

on shore, which had idly watched the sea-fight, threw down its

arms, when the flight of Antonius was known. Before Octavius

pursued his enemy into Egypt and to a despairing death, he had

other work to do, which occupied him for nearly a year. But he

was already sure of the sole sovereignty that he claimed. The

date of the battle of Actium "has been formally recorded by

historians as signalizing the termination of the republic and

the commencement of the Roman monarchy."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 28.

{2700}

ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

The settlement of the Empire by the second Cæsar,

Octavius, called Augustus.

His organization of government.

"Power and repute had passed away from the old forms of the

Republic. The whole world lay at the feet of the master of

many legions; it remained only to define the constitutional

forms in which the new forces were to work. But to do this was

no easy task. The perplexities of his position, the fears and

hopes that crossed his mind, are thrown into dramatic form by

the historian Dion Cassius, who brings a scene before our

fancy in which Octavianus listens to the conflicting counsels

of his two great advisers, Agrippa and Mæcenas. … There is

little doubt that schemes of resignation were at some time

discussed by the Emperor and by his circle of advisers. It is

even possible, as the same writer tells us, that he laid

before the Senators at this time some proposal to leave the

helm of state and let them guide it as of old. … The scene, if

ever really acted, was but an idle comedy. … It is more

probable that he was content with some faint show of

resistance when the Senate heaped their honours on his head,

as afterwards when, more than once, after a ten years'

interval, they solemnly renewed the tenure of his power. But

we cannot doubt his sincerity in one respect—in his wish to

avoid the kingly title and all the odious associations of the

same. … He shrank also from another title, truly Roman in its

character, but odious since the days of Sulla; and though the

populace of Rome, when panic-struck by pestilence and famine,

clamoured to have him made dictator, … yet nothing would

induce him to bear the hateful name. But the name of Cæsar he

had taken long ago, after his illustrious uncle's death, and

this became the title first of the dynasty and then of the

imperial office.

See CÆSAR, THE TITLE.

Besides this he allowed himself to be styled Augustus, a name

which roused no jealousy and outraged no Roman sentiment, yet

vaguely implied some dignity and reverence from its long

association with the objects of religion. …

See AUGUSTUS, THE TITLE.

With this exception he assumed no new symbol of monarchic

power, but was satisfied with the old official titles, which,

though charged with memories of the Republic, yet singly

corresponded to some side or fragment of absolute authority.

The first of these was Imperator, which served to connect him

with the army. … The title of the tribunician power connected

the monarch with the interests of the lower orders. … The

Emperor did not, indeed, assume the tribunate, but was vested

with the tribunician power which overshadowed the annual

holders of the office. It made his person sacred. … The

'princeps senatus' in old days had been the foremost senator

of his time. … No one but the Emperor could fill this position

safely, and he assumed the name henceforth to connect him with

the Senate, as other titles seemed to bind him to the army and

the people. For the post of Supreme Pontiff, Augustus was

content to wait awhile, until it passed by death from the

feeble hands of Lepidus. He then claimed the exclusive tenure

of the office, and after this time Pontifex Maximus was always

added to the long list of imperial titles. … Besides these

titles to which he assumed an exclusive right he also filled

occasionally and for short periods most of the republican

offices of higher rank, both in the capital and in the country

towns. He took from time to time the consular power, with its

august traditions and imposing ceremonial. The authority of

censor lay ready to his hands when a moral reform was to be

set on foot, … or when the Senate was to be purged of unworthy

members and the order of equites or knights to be reviewed and

its dignity consulted. Beyond the capital the pro-consular

power was vested in him without local limitations. … The

offices of state at Rome, meantime, lasted on from the

Republic to the Empire, unchanged in name, and with little

seeming change of functions. Consuls, Prætors, Quæstors,

Tribunes, and Ædiles rose from the same classes as before, and

moved for the most part in the same round of work, though they

had lost for ever their power of initiative and real control.

… They were now mainly the nominees of Cæsar, though the forms

of popular election were still for a time observed. … The

consulship was entirely reserved for his nominees, but passed

rapidly from hand to hand, since in order to gratify a larger

number it was granted at varying intervals for a few months

only. … It was part of the policy of Augustus to disturb as

little as possible the old names and forms of the Republic. …

But besides these he set up a number of new offices, often of

more real power, though of lower rank. … The name præfectus,

the 'préfêt' of modern France, stood in earlier days for the

deputy of any officer of state charged specially to execute

some definite work. The præfects of Cæsar were his servants,

named by him and responsible to him, set to discharge duties

which the old constitution had commonly ignored. The præfect

of the city had appeared in shadowy form under the Republic to

represent the consul in his absence. Augustus felt the need,

when called away from Rome, to have some one there whom he

could trust to watch the jealous nobles and control the fickle

mob. His trustiest confidants, Mæcenas and Agrippa, filled the

post, and it became a standing office, with a growing sphere

of competence, overtopping the magistracies of earlier date.

The præfects of the prætorian cohorts first appeared when the

Senate formally assigned a body-guard to Augustus later in his

reign. …

See PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

Next to these in power and importance came the præfects of the

watch—the new police force organised by Augustus as a

protection against the dangers of the night, and of the corn

supplies of Rome, which were always an object of especial care

on the part of the imperial government. … The title

'procurator,' which has come down to us in the form of

'proctor,' was at first mainly a term of civil law, and was

used for a financial agent or attorney. The officers so called

were regarded at the first as stewards of the Emperor's

property or managers of his private business. … The agents of

the Emperor's privy purse throughout the provinces were called

by the same title, but were commonly of higher rank and more

repute. Such in its bare outline was the executive of the

imperial government. We have next to see what was the position

of the Senate. … It was one of the first cares of Augustus to

restore its credit. At the risk of odium and personal danger

he more than once revised the list, and purged it of unworthy

members, summoning eminent provincials in their place. … The

functions also of the Senate were in theory enlarged. … But

the substance of power and independence had passed away from

it forever. Matters of great moment were debated first, not in

the Senate House, but in a sort of Privy Council formed by the

trusted advisers of the Emperor. …

{2701}

If we now turn our thoughts from the centre to the provinces

we shall find that the imperial system brought with it more

sweeping changes and more real improvement. … Augustus left to

the Senate the nominal control of the more peaceful provinces,

which needed little military force. … The remaining countries,

called imperial provinces, were ruled by generals, called

'legati,' or in some few cases by proctors only. They held

office during the good pleasure of their master. … There are

signs that the imperial provinces were better ruled, and that

the transference of a country to this class from the other was

looked upon as a real boon, and not as an empty honour. Such

in its chief features was the system of Augustus. … This was

his constructive policy, and on the value of this creative

work his claims to greatness must be based."

W. W. Capes,

Roman History: The Early Empire,

chapter 1.

"The arrangement undoubtedly satisfied the requirements of the

moment. It saved, at least in appearance, the integrity of the

republic, while at the same time it recognised and legalised

the authority of the man, who was already by common consent

'master of all things'; and this it effected without any

formal alteration of the constitution, without, the creation

of any new office, and by means of the old constitutional

machinery of senate and assembly. But it was an arrangement

avowedly of an exceptional and temporary character. The powers

voted to Augustus were, like those voted to Pompey in 67 B.

C., voted only to him, and, with the exception of the

tribunician power, voted only for a limited time. No provision

was made for the continuance of the arrangement, after his

death, in favour of any other person. And though in fact the

powers first granted to Augustus were granted in turn to each

of the long line of Roman Cæsars, the temporary and

provisional character impressed upon the 'principate' at its

birth clung to it throughout. When the princeps for the time

being died or was deposed, it was always in theory an open

question whether any other citizen should be invested with the

powers he had held. Who the man should be, or how he should be

chosen, were questions which it was left to circumstances to

answer, and even the powers to be assigned to him were,

strictly speaking, determined solely by the discretion of the

senate and people in each case. It is true that necessity

required that some one must always be selected to fill the

position first given to Augustus; that accidents, such as

kinship by blood or adoption to the last emperor, military

ability, popularity with the soldiers or the senate,

determined the selection; and that usage decided that the

powers conferred upon the selected person should be in the

main those conferred upon Augustus. But to the last the Roman

emperor was legally merely a citizen whom the senate and

people had freely invested with an exceptional authority for

special reasons. Unlike the ordinary sovereign, he did not

inherit a great office by an established law of succession;

and in direct contrast to the modern maxim that 'the king

never dies,' it has been well said that the Roman

'principate,' died with the princeps. Of the many attempts

made to get rid of this irregular, intermittent character,

none were completely successful, and the inconveniences and

dangers resulting from it are apparent throughout the history

of the empire."

H. F. Pelham,

Outlines of Roman History,

book 5, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

W. T. Arnold,

The Roman System of Provincial Administration,

chapter 3.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans under the Empire,

chapters 30-34 (volume 3-4).

ROME: B. C. 16-15

Conquest of Rhætia.

See RHÆTIA.

ROME: B. C. 12-9.

Campaigns of Drusus in Germany.

See GERMANY: B. C. 12-9.

ROME: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

Campaigns of Tiberius in Germany.

See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

ROME: A. D. 14-16.

Campaigns of Germanicus in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 14-16.

ROME: A. D. 14-37.

Reign of Tiberius.

Increasing vices and cruelties of his rule.

Campaigns of Germanicus in Germany.

His death.

The Delatores and their victims.

Malignant ascendancy of Sejanus.

The Prætorians quartered at Rome.

Augustus had one child only, a daughter, Julia, who was

brought to him by his second wife Scribonia; but on his last

marriage, with Livia, divorced wife of Tiberius Claudius Nero

(divorced by his command), he had adopted her two sons,

Tiberius and Drusus. He gave his daughter Julia in marriage,

first, to his nephew, Marcellus, the son of his sister

Octavia, by her first husband, C. Marcellus. But Marcellus

soon died, without offspring, and Julia became the spouse of

the emperor's friend and counsellor, Agrippa, to whom she bore

three sons, Caius, Lucius, and Agrippa Posthumus (all of whom

died before the end of the life of Augustus), and two

daughters. Thus the emperor was left with no male heir in his

own family, and the imperial succession fell to his adopted

son Tiberius—the eldest son of his wife Livia and of her first

husband, Tiberius Claudius Nero. There were suspicions that

Livia had some agency in bringing about the several deaths

which cleared her son's way to the throne. When Augustus died,

Tiberius was "in his 56th year, or at least at the close of

the 55th. … He had by this time acquired a perfect mastery in

dissembling his lusts, and his mistrust. … He was anxious to

appear as a moral man, while in secret he abandoned himself to

lusts and debaucheries of every kind. … In accordance with

this character, Tiberius now played the farce which is so

admirably but painfully described by Tacitus; he declined

accepting the imperium, and made the senate beg and intreat

him to accept it for the sake of the public good. In the end

Tiberius yielded, inasmuch as he compelled the senate to

oblige him to undertake the government. This painful scene

forms the beginning of Tacitus' Annals. The early part of his

reign is marked by insurrections among the troops in Pannonia

and on the Rhine. … Drusus [the son of Tiberius] quelled the

insurrection in Illyricum, and Germanicus [the emperor's

nephew, son of his brother Drusus, who had died in Germany, B.

C. 9], that on the Rhine; but, notwithstanding this, it was in

reality the government that was obliged to yield. … The reign

of Tiberius, which lasted for 23 years, that is till A. D. 37,

is by no means rich in events; the early period of it only is

celebrated for the wars of Germanicus in Germany. … The war of

Germanicus was carried into Germany as far as the river Weser

[see GERMANY. A. D. 14-16], and it is surprising to see that

the Romans thought it necessary to employ such numerous armies

against tribes which had no fortified towns. …

{2702}

The history of his reign after the German wars becomes more

and more confined to the interior and to his family. He had an

only son, Drusus, by his first wife Agrippina; and Germanicus,

the son of his brother Drusus, was adopted by him. Drusus must

have been a young man deserving of praise; but Germanicus was

the adored darling of the Roman people, and with justice: he

was the worthy son of a worthy father, the hero of the German

wars. … Germanicus had declined the sovereignty, which his

legions had offered to him after the death of Augustus, and he

remained faithful to his adopted father, although he certainly

could not love him. Tiberius, however, had no faith in virtue,

because he himself was destitute of it; he therefore

mistrusted Germanicus, and removed him from his victorious

legions." He sent him "to superintend the eastern frontiers

and provinces. On his arrival there he was received with the

same enthusiasm as at Rome; but he died very soon afterwards,

whether by a natural death or by poison is a question upon

which the ancients themselves are not agreed. … In the reign

of Augustus, any offence against the person of the imperator

had, by some law with which we are not further acquainted,

been made a 'crimen majestatis,' as though it had been

committed against the republic itself. This 'crimen' in its

undefined character was a fearful thing; for hundreds of

offences might be made to come within the reach of the law

concerning it. All these deplorable cases were tried by the

senate, which formed a sort of condemning machine set in

motion by the tyrant, just like the national convention under

Robespierre. … In the early part of Tiberius' reign, these

prosecutions occurred very rarely; but there gradually arose a

numerous class of denouncers ('delatores'), who made it their

business to bring to trial anyone whom the emperor disliked."

See DELATION.—DELATORS).

This was after the death of the emperor's mother, Livia, whom

he feared, and who restrained his worst propensities. After

her influence was removed, "his dark and tyrannical nature got

the upper hand: the hateful side of his character became daily

more developed, and his only enjoyment was the indulgence of

his detestable lust. … His only friend was Aelius Sejanus, a

man of equestrian rank. … His character bore the greatest

resemblance to that of his sovereign, who raised him to the

office of præfectus praetorio. … Sejanus increased the number

of the praetorian cohorts, and persuaded Tiberius to

concentrate them in the neighbourhood of Rome, in the 'castrum

praetorianum,' which formed us it were the citadel outside the

wall of Servius Tullius, but in the midst of the present city.

The consequences of this measure render it one of the most

important events in Roman history; for the praetorians now

became the real sovereigns, and occupied a position similar to

that which the Janissaries obtained in Algeria: they

determined the fate of the empire until the reign of

Diocletian. …

See PRÆTORIAN GUARDS.

The influence of Sejanus over Tiberius increased every day,

and he contrived to inspire his imperial friend with

sufficient confidence to go to the island of Capreae. While

Tiberius was there indulging in his lusts, Sejanus remained at

Rome and governed as his vicegerent. … Prosecutions were now

instituted against all persons of any consequence at Rome; the

time when Tiberius left the capital is the beginning of the

fearful annals of his reign." The tyrannical proceedings of

Sejanus "continued for a number of years, until at length he

himself incurred the suspicion of Tiberius," and was put out

of the way. "But a man worse even than he succeeded; this was

Macro, who had none of the great qualities of Sejanus, but

only analogous vices. … The butchery at Rome even increased. …

Caius Caesar, the son of Germanicus, commonly known by the

name of Caligula, formed with Macro a connexion of the basest

kind, and promised him the high post of 'praefectus praetorio'

if he would assist him in getting rid of the aged monarch.

Tiberius was at the time severely ill at a villa near cape

Misenum. He fell into a state of lethargy, and everybody

believed him to be dead. He came to life again however; on

which he was suffocated, or at least his death was accelerated

in some way, for our accounts differ on this point. Thus

Tiberius died in the 23d year of his reign, A. D. 37, at the

age of 78."

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on the History of Rome,

lectures 111-112 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

Tacitus,

Annals,

books 1-6.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans under the Empire,

chapters 42-46 (volume 5).

ROME: A. D. 37-41.

Reign of Caligula, the first of the imperial madmen.

Cains Cæsar, son of Germanicus, owed his nickname, Caligula,

to the soldiers of his father's command, among whom he was a

great favorite in his childhood. The name was derived from

"Caliga," a kind of foot covering worn by the common soldiers,

and is sometimes translated "Little Boots." "Having … secured

the imperial power, he fulfilled by his elevation the wish of

the Roman people, I may venture to say, of all mankind: for he

had long been the object of expectation and desire to the

greater part of the provincials and soldiers, who had known

him when a child; and to the whole people of Rome, from their

affection for the memory of Germanicus, his father, and

compassion for the family almost entirely destroyed. …

Immediately on his entering the city, by the joint

acclamations of the senate, and people, who broke into the

senate-house, Tiberius's will was set aside, it having left

his other grandson, then a minor, coheir with him; the whole

government and administration of affairs was placed in his

hands; so much to the joy and satisfaction of the public that,

in less than three months after, above 160,000 victims are

said to have been offered in sacrifice. … To this

extraordinary love entertained for him by his countrymen was

added an uncommon regard by foreign nations. … Caligula

himself inflamed this devotion by practising all the arts of

popularity. … He published accounts of the proceedings of the

government—a practice which had been introduced by Augustus,

but discontinued by Tiberius. He granted the magistrates a

full and free jurisdiction, without any appeal to himself. He

made a very strict and exact review of the Roman knights, but

conducted it with moderation; publicly depriving of his horse

every knight who lay under the stigma of any thing base and

dishonourable. … He attempted likewise to restore to the

people their ancient right of voting in the choice of

magistrates. … He twice distributed to the people a bounty of

300 sesterces a man, and as often gave a splendid feast to the

senate and the equestrian order, with their wives and

children. …

{2703}

He frequently entertained the people with stage-plays of

various kinds, and in several parts of the city, and sometimes

by night, when he caused the whole city to be lighted. … He

likewise exhibited a great number of circensian games from

morning until night; intermixed with the hunting of wild

beasts from Africa. … Thus far we have spoken of him as a

prince. What remains to be said of him bespeaks him rather a

monster than a man. … He was strongly inclined to assume the

diadem, and change the form of government from imperial to

regal; but being told that he far exceeded the grandeur of

kings and princes, he began to arrogate to himself a divine

majesty. He ordered all the images of the gods which were

famous either for their beauty or the veneration paid them,

among which was that of Jupiter Olympius, to be brought from

Greece, that he might take the heads off, and put on his own.

Having continued part of the Palatium as far as the Forum, and

the temple of Castor and Pollux being converted into a kind of

vestibule to his house, he often stationed himself between the

twin brothers, and so presented himself to be worshipped by

all votaries; some of whom saluted him by the name of Jupiter

Latialis. He also instituted a temple and priests, with

choicest victims, in honour of his own divinity. … The most

opulent persons in the city offered themselves as candidates

for the honour of being his priests, and purchased it

successively at an immense price. … In the day-time he talked

in private to Jupiter Capitolinus; one while whispering to

him, and another turning his ear to him. … He was unwilling to

be thought or called the grandson of Agrippa, because of the

obscurity of his birth. … He said that his mother was the

fruit of an incestuous commerce maintained by Augustus with

his daughter Julia. … He lived in the habit of incest with an

his sisters. … Whether in the marriage of his wives, in

repudiating them, or retaining them, he acted with greater

infamy, it is difficult to say." Some senators, "who had borne

the highest offices in the government, he suffered to run by

his litter in their togas for several miles together, and to

attend him at supper, sometimes at the head of his couch,

sometimes at his feet, with napkins. Others of them, after he

had privately put them to death, he nevertheless continued to

send for, as if they were still alive, and after a few days

pretended that they had laid violent hands upon themselves. …

When flesh was only to be had at a high price for feeding his

wild beasts reserved for the spectacles, he ordered that

criminals should be given them to be devoured; and upon

inspecting them in a row, while he stood in the middle of the

portico, without troubling himself to examine their cases he

ordered them to be dragged away, from 'bald-pate to bald-pate'

[a proverbial expression, meaning, without

distinction.—Translator's foot-note]. … After disfiguring many

persons of honourable rank, by branding them in the face with

hot irons, he condemned them to the mines, to work in

repairing the high-ways, or to fight with wild beasts; or

tying them, by the neck and heels, in the manner of beasts

carried to slaughter, would shut them up in cages, or saw them

asunder. … He compelled parents to be present at the execution

of their sons. … He generally prolonged the sufferings of his

victims by causing them to be inflicted by slight and

frequently repeated strokes; this being his well-known and

constant order: . Strike so that he may feel himself die.' …

Being incensed at the people's applauding a party at the

Circensian games in opposition to him, he exclaimed, 'I wish

the Roman people had but one neck.' … He used also to complain

aloud of the state of the times, because it was not rendered

remarkable by any public calamities. … He wished for some

terrible slaughter of his troops, a famine, a pestilence,

conflagrations, or an earthquake. Even in the midst of his

diversions, while gaming or feasting, this savage ferocity,

both in his language and actions, never forsook him. Persons

were often put to the torture in his presence, whilst he was

dining or carousing. A soldier, who was an adept in the art of

beheading, used at such times to take off the heads of

prisoners, who were brought in for that purpose. … He never

had the least regard either to the chastity of his own person,

or that of others. … Besides his incest with his sisters …

there was hardly any lady of distinction with whom he did not

make free. … Only once in his life did he take an active part

in military affairs. … He resolved upon an expedition into

Germany. … There being no hostilities, he ordered a few

Germans of his guard to be carried over and placed in

concealment on the other side of the Rhine, and word to be

brought him after dinner that an enemy was advancing with

great impetuosity. This being accordingly done, he immediately

threw himself, with his friends, and a party of the pretorian

knights, into the adjoining wood, where, lopping branches from

the trees, and forming trophies of them, he returned by

torch-light, upbraiding those who did not follow him with

timorousness and cowardice. … At last, as if resolved to make

war in earnest, he drew up his army upon the shore of the

ocean, with his balistæ and other engines of war, and while no

one could imagine what he intended to do, on a sudden

commanded them to gather up the sea shells, and fill their

helmets and the folds of their dress with them, calling them

'the spoils of the ocean due to the Capitol and the Palatium.'

As a monument of his success he raised a lofty tower. … He was

crazy both in body and mind, being subject, when a boy, to the

falling sickness. … What most of all disordered him was want

of sleep, for he seldom had more than three or four hours'

rest in a night; and even then his sleep was not sound."

Suetonius,

Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Caligula

(translated by A. Thomson).

ALSO IN:

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans under the Empire,

chapters 47-48 (volume 5).

S. Baring-Gould,

The Tragedy of the Cæsars,

volume 2.

ROME: A. D. 41.

The murder of Caligula.

Elevation of Claudius to the throne by the Prætorians.

Beginning of the domination of the soldiery.

"If we may believe our accounts, the tyrant's overthrow was

due not to abhorrence of his crimes or indignation at his

assaults on the Roman liberties, so much as to resentment at a

private affront. Among the indiscretions which seem to

indicate the partial madness of the wretched Caius, was the

caprice with which he turned from his known foes against his

personal friends and familiars. … No one felt himself secure,

neither the freedmen who attended on his person, nor the

guards who watched over his safety.

{2704}

Among these last was Cassius Chærea, tribune of a prætorian

cohort, whose shrill woman's voice provoked the merriment of

his master, and subjected him to injurious insinuations. Even

when he demanded the watchword for the night the emperor would

insult him with words and gestures. Chærea resolved to wipe

out the affront in blood. He sought Callistus and others … and

organized with them and some of the most daring of the nobles

a plot against the emperor's life. … The festival of the

Palatine games was fixed on for carrying the project into

effect. Four days did Caius preside in the theatre, surrounded

by the friends and guards who were sworn to slay him, but

still lacked the courage. On the fifth and last, the 24th of

January 794 [A. D. 41], feeling indisposed from the evening's

debauch, he hesitated at first to rise. His attendants,

however, prevailed on him to return once more to the shows;

and as he was passing through the vaulted passage which led

from the palace to the Circus, he inspected a choir of noble

youths from Asia, who were engaged to perform upon the stage.

… Caius was still engaged in conversation with them when

Chærea and another tribune, Sabinus, made their way to him:

the one struck him on the throat from behind with his sword,

while the other was in the act of demanding the watchword. A

second blow cleft the tyrant's jaw. He fell, and drawing his

limbs together to save his body, still screamed, 'I live! I

live!' while the conspirators thronging over him, and crying,

'again! again!' hacked him with thirty wounds. The bearers of

his litter rushed to his assistance with their poles, while

his body-guard of Germans struck wildly at the assassins, and

amongst the crowd which surrounded them, killed, it was said,

more than one senator who had taken no part in the affair. …

When each of the conspirators had thrust his weapon into the

mangled body, and the last shrieks of its agony had been

silenced, they escaped with all speed from the corridor in

which it lay; but they had made no dispositions for what was

to follow, and were content to leave it to the consuls and

senate, amazed and unprepared, to decide on the future destiny

of the republic. … Some cohorts of the city guards accepted

the orders of the consuls, and occupied the public places

under their direction. At the same time the consuls, Sentins

Saturninus and Pomponins Secundus, the latter of whom had been

substituted for Caius himself only a few days before, convened

the senate. … The first act of the sitting was to issue an

edict in which the tyranny of Caius was denounced, and a

remission of the most obnoxious of his taxes proclaimed,

together with the promise of a donative to the soldiers. The

fathers next proceeded to deliberate on the form under which

the government should be henceforth administered. On this

point no settled principles prevailed. Some were ready to vote

that the memory of the Cæsars should be abolished, their

temples overthrown, and the free state of the Scipios and

Catos restored; others contended for the continuance of

monarchy in another family, and among the chiefs of nobility

more than one candidate sprang up presently to claim it. The

debate lasted late into the night; and in default of any other

specific arrangement, the consuls continued to act as the

leaders of the commonwealth. … But while the senate

deliberated, the prætorian guards had resolved. … In the

confusion which ensued on the first news of the event, several

of their body had flung themselves furiously into the palace,

and begun to plunder its glittering chambers. None dared to

offer them any opposition; the slaves and freedmen fled or

concealed themselves. One of the inmates, half hidden behind a

curtain in an obscure corner, was dragged forth with brutal

violence; and great was the intruders' surprise when they

recognised him as Claudius, the long despised and neglected

uncle of the murdered emperor. He sank at their feet almost

senseless with terror: but the soldiers in their wildest mood

still respected the blood of the Cæsars, and instead of

slaying or maltreating the suppliant, the brother of

Germanicus, they hailed him, more in jest perhaps than

earnest, with the title of Imperator, and carried him off to

their camp. … In the morning, when it was found that the

senate had come to no conclusion, and that the people crowding

about its place of meeting were urging it with loud cries to

appoint a single chief, and were actually naming him as the

object of their choice, Claudius found courage to suffer the

prætorians to swear allegiance to him, and at the same time

promised them a donative of 15,000 sesterces apiece. … The

senators assembled once again in the temple of Jupiter; but

now their numbers were reduced to not more than a hundred, and

even these met rather to support the pretensions of certain of

their members, who aspired to the empire … than to maintain

the cause of the ancient republic. But the formidable array of

the prætorians, who had issued from their camp into the city,

and the demonstrations of the popular will, daunted all

parties in the assembly. … Presently the Urban cohorts passed

over, with their officers and colours, to the opposite side.

All was lost; the prætorians, thus reinforced, led their hero

to the palace, and there he commanded the senate to attend

upon him. Nothing remained but to obey and pass the decree,

which had now become a formal act of investiture, by which the

name and honours of Imperator were bestowed upon the new chief

of the commonwealth. Such was the first creation of an emperor

by the military power of the prætorians. … Surrounded by drawn

swords Claudius had found courage to face his nephew's

murderers, and to vindicate his authority to the citizens, by

a strong measure of retribution, in sending Chærea and Lupus,

with a few others of the blood-embrued, to immediate

execution. … Claudius was satisfied with this act of vigour,

and proceeded, with a moderation but little expected, to

publish an amnesty for all the words and acts of the late

interregnum. Nevertheless for thirty days he did not venture

to come himself into the Curia. … The personal fears, indeed,

of the new emperor contributed, with a kindly and placable

disposition, to make him anxious to gain his subjects'

good-will by the gentleness and urbanity of his deportment. …

His proclamation of amnesty was followed by the pardon of

numerous exiles and criminals, especially such as were

suffering under sentence for the crime of majestas. … The

popularity of the new prince, though manifested, thanks to his

own discretion, by no such grotesque and impious flatteries as

attended on the opening promise of Caius, was certainly not

less deeply felt. …

{2705}

The confidence indeed of the upper classes, after the bitter

disappointment they had so lately suffered, was not to be so

lightly won. The senate and knights might view their new ruler

with indulgence, and hope for the best; but they had been too

long accustomed to regard him as proscribed from power by

constitutional unfitness, as imbecile in mind, and which was

perhaps in their estimation even a worse defect, as misshapen

and half-developed in physical form, to anticipate from him a

wise or vigorous administration. … In another rank he would

have been exposed perhaps in infancy; as the son of Drusus and

Antonia he was permitted to live: but he became from the first

an object of disgust to his parents, who put him generally out

of their sight, and left him to grow up in the hands of

hirelings without judgment or feeling. … That the judgment of

one from whom the practical knowledge of men and things had

been withheld was not equal to his learning, and that the

infirmities of his body affected his powers of decision, his

presence of mind, and steadfastness of purpose, may easily be

imagined: nevertheless, it may be allowed that in a private

station, and anywhere but at Rome, Claudius would have passed

muster as a respectable, and not, perhaps, an useless member

of society. The opinion which is here given of this prince's

character may possibly be influenced in some degree by the

study of his countenance in the numerous busts still existing,

which represent it as one of the most interesting of the whole

imperial series. If his figure, as we are told, was tall, and

when sitting appeared not ungraceful, his face, at least in

repose, was eminently handsome. But it is impossible not to

remark in it an expression of pain and anxiety which forcibly

arrests our sympathy. It is the face of an honest and

well-meaning man, who feels himself unequal to the task

imposed upon him. … There is the expression of fatigue both of

mind and body, which speaks of midnight watches over books,

varied with midnight carouses at the imperial table, and the

fierce caresses of rival mistresses. There is the glance of

fear, not of open enemies, but of pretended friends; the

reminiscence of wanton blows, and the anticipation of the

deadly potion. Above all, there is the anxious glance of

dependence, which seems to cast about for a model to imitate,

for ministers to shape a policy, and for satellites to execute

it. The model Claudius found was the policy of the venerated

Augustus; but his ministers were the most profligate of women,

and the most selfish of emancipated slaves. … The commencement

of the new reign was marked by the renewed activity of the

armies on the frontiers."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans under the Empire,

chapters 48-49 (volume 5).

ALSO IN:

W. W. Capes,

The Early Empire,

chapters 3-4.

ROME: A. D. 42-67.

St. Peter and the Roman Church: The question.

See PAPACY: ST. PETER AND THE CHURCH AT ROM[E.

ROME: A. D. 43-53.

Conquests of Claudius in Britain.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53.

ROME: A. D. 47-54.

The wives of Claudius, Messalina and Agrippina.

Their infamous and terrible ascendancy.

Murder of the emperor.

Advent of Nero.

The wife of Claudius was "Valeria Messalina, the daughter of

his cousin Barbatus Messala, a woman whose name has become

proverbial for infamy. His most distinguished freedmen were

the eunuch Posidus; Felix, whom he made governor of Judæa, and

who had the fortune to be the husband of three queens; and

Callistus, who retained the power which he had acquired under

Caius. But far superior in point of influence to these were

the three secretaries (as we may term them), Polybius,

Narcissus, and Pallas. … The two last were in strict league

with Messalina; she only sought to gratify her lusts; they

longed for honours, power, and wealth. … Their plan, when they

would have anyone put to death, was to terrify Claudius … by

tales of plots against his life. … Slaves and freedmen were

admitted as witnesses against their masters; and, though

Claudius had sworn, at his accession, that no freeman should

be put to the torture, knights and senators, citizens and

strangers, were tortured alike. … Messalina now set no bounds

to her vicious courses. Not content with being infamous

herself, she would have others so; and she actually used to

compel ladies to prostitute themselves even in the palace, and

before the eyes of their husbands, whom she rewarded with

honours and commands, while she contrived to destroy those who

would not acquiesce in their wives' dishonour." At length (A.

D. 48) she carried her audacity so far as to go publicly

through a ceremony of marriage with one of her lovers. This

nerved even the weak Claudius to resolution, and she was put

to death. The emperor then married his niece, Julia Agrippina,

the daughter of Germanicus. "The woman who had now obtained

the government of Claudius and the Roman empire was of a very

different character from the abandoned Messalina. The latter

had nothing noble about her; she was the mere bond-slave of

lust, and cruel and avaricious only for its gratification; but

Agrippina was a woman of superior mind, though utterly devoid

of principle. In her, lust was subservient to ambition; it was

the desire of power, or the fear of death, and not wantonness,

that made her submit to the incestuous embraces of her brutal

brother Caius, and to be prostituted to the companions of his

vices. It was ambition and parental love that made her now

form an incestuous union with her uncle. … The great object of

Agrippina was to exclude Britannicus [the son of Claudius by

Messalina], and obtain the succession for her own son, Nero

Domitius, now a boy of twelve years of age. She therefore

caused Octavia [daughter of Claudius] to be betrothed to him,

and she had the philosopher Seneca recalled from Corsica,

whither he had been exiled by the arts of Messalina, and

committed to him the education of her son, that he might be

fitted for empire. In the following year (51) Claudius,

yielding to her influence, adopted him." But, although

Britannicus was thrust into the background and treated with

neglect, his feeble father began after a time to show signs of

affection for him, and Agrippina, weary of waiting and fearful

of discomfiture, caused poison to be administered to the old

emperor in his food (A. D. 54). "The death of Claudius was

concealed till all the preparations for the succession of Nero

should be made, and the fortunate hour marked by the

astrologers be arrived. He then (October 13) issued from the

palace, … and, being cheered by the cohort which was on guard,

he mounted a litter and proceeded to the camp. He addressed the

soldiers, promising them a donative, and was saluted emperor.

The senate and provinces acquiesced without a murmur in the

will of the guards. Claudius was in his 64th year when he was

poisoned."

T. Keightley,

History of the Roman Empire,

part 1, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans under the Empire,

chapter 50 (volume 5).

Tacitus,

Annals,

books 11-12.

{2706}

ROME: A. D. 54-64.

The atrocities of Nero.

The murder of his mother.

The burning of the city.

"Nero … was but a variety of the same species [as Caligula].

He also was an amateur, and an enthusiastic amateur, of

murder. But as this taste, in the most ingenious hands, is

limited and monotonous in its modes of manifestation, it would

be tedious to run through the long Suetonian roll-call of his

peccadilloes in this way. One only we shall cite, to

illustrate the amorous delight with which he pursued any

murder which happened to be seasoned highly to his taste by

enormous atrocity, and by almost unconquerable difficulty. …

For certain reasons of state, as Nero attempted to persuade

himself, but in reality because no other crime had the same

attractions of unnatural horror about it, he resolved to

murder his mother Agrippina. This being settled, the next

thing was to arrange the mode and the tools. Naturally enough,

according to the custom then prevalent in Rome, he first

attempted the thing by poison. The poison failed: for

Agrippina, anticipating tricks of this kind, had armed her

constitution against them, like Mithridates; and daily took

potent antidotes and prophylactics. Or else (which is more

probable) the emperor's agent in such purposes, fearing his

sudden repentance and remorse, … had composed a poison of

inferior strength. This had certainly occurred in the case of

Britannicus, who had thrown off with ease the first dose

administered to him by Nero," but who was killed by a second

more powerful potion. "On Agrippina, however, no changes in

the poison, whether of kind or strength, had any effect; so

that, after various trials, this mode of murder was abandoned,

and the emperor addressed himself to other plans. The first of

these was some curious mechanical device, by which a false

ceiling was to have been suspended by bolts above her bed; and

in the middle of the night, the bolt being suddenly drawn, a

vast weight would have descended with a ruinous destruction to

all below. This scheme, however, taking air from the

indiscretion of some amongst the accomplices, reached the ears

of Agrippina. … Next, he conceived the idea of an artificial

ship, which, at the touch of a few springs, might fall to

pieces in deep water. Such a ship was prepared, and stationed

at a suitable point. But the main difficulty remained, which

was to persuade the old lady to go on board." By complicated

stratagems this was brought about. "The emperor accompanied

her to the place of embarkation, took a most tender leave of

her, and saw her set sail. It was necessary that the vessel

should get into deep water before the experiment could be

made; and with the utmost agitation this pious son awaited

news of the result. Suddenly a messenger rushed breathless

into his presence, and horrified him by the joyful information

that his august mother had met with an alarming accident; but,

by the blessing of Heaven, had escaped safe and sound, and was

now on her road to mingle congratulations with her

affectionate son. The ship, it seems, had done its office; the

mechanism had played admirably; but who can provide for

everything? The old lady, it turned out, could swim like a

duck; and the whole result had been to refresh her with a

little sea-bathing. Here was worshipful intelligence. Could

any man's temper be expected to stand such continued sieges? …

Of a man like Nero it could not be expected that he should any

longer dissemble his disgust, or put up with such repeated

affronts. He rushed upon his simple congratulating friend,

swore that he had come to murder him, and as nobody could have

suborned him but Agrippina, he ordered her off to instant

execution. And, unquestionably, if people will not be murdered

quietly and in a civil way, they must expect that such

forbearance is not to continue for ever; and obviously have

themselves only to blame for any harshness or violence which

they may have rendered necessary. It is singular, and shocking

at the same time, to mention, that, for this atrocity, Nero

did absolutely receive solemn congratulations from all orders

of men. With such evidences of base servility in the public

mind, and of the utter corruption which they had sustained in

their elementary feelings, it is the less astonishing that he

should have made other experiments upon the public patience,

which seem expressly designed to try how much it would

support. Whether he were really the author of the desolating

fire which consumed Rome for six days and seven nights [A. D.

64], and drove the mass of the people into the tombs and

sepulchres for shelter, is yet a matter of some doubt. But one

great presumption against it, founded on its desperate

imprudence, as attacking the people in their primary comforts,

is considerably weakened by the enormous servility of the

Romans in the case just stated: they who could volunteer

congratulations to a son for butchering his mother (no matter

on what pretended suspicions), might reasonably be supposed

incapable of any resistance which required courage, even in a

case of self-defence or of just revenge. … The great loss on

this memorable occasion was in the heraldic and ancestral

honours of the city. Historic Rome then went to wreck for

ever. Then perished the 'domus priscorum ducum hostilibus

ad-huc spoliis adornatæ'; the 'rostral' palace; the mansion of

the Pompeys; the Blenheims and the Strathfieldsayes of the

Scipios, the Marcelli, the Paulli, and the Cæsars; then

perished the aged trophies from Carthage and from Gaul; and,

in short, as the historian sums up the lamentable desolation,

'quidquid visendum atque memorabile ex antiquitate duraverat.'

And this of itself might lead one to suspect the emperor's

hand as the original agent; for by no one act was it possible

so entirely and so suddenly to wean the people from their old

republican recollections. … In any other sense, whether for

health or for the conveniences of polished life, or for

architectural magnificence, there never was a doubt that the

Roman people gained infinitely by this conflagration. For,

like London, it arose from its ashes with a splendour

proportioned to its vast expansion of wealth and population;

and marble took the place of wood. For the moment, however,

this event must have been felt by the people as an

overwhelming calamity.

{2707}

And it serves to illustrate the passive endurance and timidity

of the popular temper, and to what extent it might be provoked

with impunity, that in this state of general irritation and

effervescence Nero absolutely forbade them to meddle with the

ruins of their own dwellings—taking that charge upon himself,

with a view to the vast wealth which he anticipated from

sifting the rubbish."

T. De Quincey,

The Cæsars

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

Suetonius,

Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Nero.

Tacitus,

Annals,

books 13-16.

S. Baring-Gould,

The Tragedy of the Cæsars,

volume 2.

ROME: A. D. 61.

Campaigns of Suetonius Paulinus in Britain.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

ROME: A. D. 64-68.

The first persecution of Christians.

The fitting end of Nero.

"Nero was so secure in his absolutism, he had hitherto found

it so impossible to shock the feelings of the people or to

exhaust the terrified adulation of the Senate, that he was

usually indifferent to the pasquinades which were constantly

holding up his name to execration and contempt. But now [after

the burning of Rome] he felt that he had gone too far, and

that his power would be seriously imperilled if he did not

succeed in diverting the suspicions of the populace. He was

perfectly aware that when the people in the streets cursed

those who set fire to the city, they meant to curse him. If he

did not take some immediate step he felt that he might perish,

as Gaius [Caligula], had perished before him, by the dagger of

the assassin. It is at this point of his career that Nero

becomes a prominent figure in the history of the Church. It

was this phase of cruelty which seemed to throw a blood-red

light over his whole character, and led men to look on him as

the very incarnation of the world-power in its most demoniac

aspect—as worse than the Antiochus Epiphanes of Daniel's

Apocalypse—as the Man of Sin whom (in language figurative,

indeed, yet awfully true) the Lord should slay with the breath

of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

For Nero endeavoured to fix the odious crime of having

destroyed the capital of the world upon the most innocent and

faithful of his subjects—upon the only subjects who offered

heartfelt prayers on his behalf—the Roman Christians. … Why he

should have thought of singling out the Christians, has always

been a curious problem, for at this point St. Luke ends the

Acts of the Apostles, perhaps purposely dropping the curtain,

because it would have been perilous and useless to narrate the

horrors in which the hitherto neutral or friendly Roman

Government began to play so disgraceful a part. Neither

Tacitus, nor Suetonius, nor the Apocalypse, help us to solve

this particular problem. The Christians had filled no large

space in the eye of the world. Until the days of Domitian we

do not hear of a single noble or distinguished person who had

joined their ranks. … The slaves and artisans, Jewish and

Gentile, who formed the Christian community at Rome, had never

in any way come into collision with the Roman Government. …

That the Christians were entirely innocent of the crime

charged against them was well known both at the time and

afterwards. But how was it that Nero sought popularity and

partly averted the deep rage which was rankling in many hearts

against himself, by torturing men and women, on whose agonies

he thought that the populace would gaze not only with a stolid

indifference, but even with fierce satisfaction? Gibbon has

conjectured that the Christians were confounded with the Jews,

and that the detestation universally felt for the latter fell

with double force upon the former. Christians suffered even

more than the Jews because of the calumnies so assiduously

circulated against them, and from what appeared to the

ancients to be the revolting absurdity of their peculiar

tenets. 'Nero,' says Tacitus, 'exposed to accusation, and

tortured with the most exquisite penalties, a set of men

detested for their enormities, whom the common people called

Christians. Christus, the founder of this sect, was executed

during the reign of Tiberius by the Procurator Pontius Pilate,

and the deadly superstition, suppressed for a time, began to

burst out once more, not only throughout Judaea, where the

evil had its root, but even in the City, whither from every

quarter all things horrible or shameful are drifted, and find

their votaries.' The lordly disdain which prevented Tacitus

from making any inquiry into the real views and character of

the Christians, is shown by the fact that he catches up the

most baseless allegations against them. … The masses, he says,

called them 'Christians;' and while he almost apologises for

staining his page with so vulgar an appellation, he merely

mentions in passing, that, though innocent of the charge of

being turbulent incendiaries, on which they were tortured to

death, they were yet a set of guilty and infamous sectaries,

to be classed with the lowest dregs of Roman criminals. But

the haughty historian throws no light on one difficulty,

namely, the circumstances which led to the Christians being

thus singled out. The Jews were in no way involved in Nero's

persecution. … The Jews were by far the deadliest enemies of

the Christians; and two persons of Jewish proclivities were at

this time in close proximity to the person of the Emperor. One

was the pantomimist Aliturus, the other was Poppaea, the

harlot Empress. … If, as seems certain, the Jews had it in

their power during the reign of Nero more or less to shape the

whisper of the throne, does not historical induction drive us

to conclude with some confidence that the suggestion of the

Christians as scapegoats and victims came from them? … Tacitus

tells us that 'those who confessed were first seized, and then

on their evidence a huge multitude were convicted, not so much

on the charge of incendiarism as for their hatred to mankind.'

Compressed and obscure as the sentence is, Tacitus clearly

means to imply by the 'confession' to which he alludes the

confession of Christianity; and though he is not sufficiently

generous to acquit the Christians absolutely of all complicity

in the great crime, he distinctly says that they were made the

scapegoats of a general indignation. The phrase—'a huge

multitude'—is one of the few existing indications of the

number of martyrs in the first persecution, and of the number

of Christians in the Roman Church. When the historian says

that they were convicted on the charge of 'hatred against

mankind' he shows how completely he confounds them with the

Jews, against whom he elsewhere brings the accusation of

'hostile feelings towards all except themselves.' Then the

historian adds one casual but frightful sentence—a sentence

which flings a dreadful light on the cruelty of Nero and the

Roman mob.

{2708}

He adds, 'And various forms of mockery were added to enhance

their dying agonies. Covered with the skins of wild beasts,

they were doomed to die by the mangling of dogs, or by being

nailed to crosses; or to be set on fire and burnt after

twilight by way of nightly illumination. Nero offered his own

gardens for this show, and gave a chariot race, mingling with

the mob in the dress of a charioteer, or actually driving

about among them. Hence, guilty as the victims were, and

deserving of the worst punishments, a feeling of compassion

towards them began to rise, as men felt that they were being

immolated not for any advantage to the commonwealth, but to

glut the savagery of a single man.' Imagine that awful scene,

once witnessed by the silent obelisk in the square before St.

Peter's at Rome! … Retribution did not linger, and the

vengeance fell at once on the guilty Emperor and the guilty

city. The air was full of prodigies. There were terrible

storms; the plague wrought fearful ravages. Rumours spread

from lip to lip. Men spoke of monstrous births; of deaths by

lightning under strange circumstances; of a brazen statue of

Nero melted by the flash; of places struck by the brand of

heaven in fourteen regions of the city; of sudden darkenings

of the sun. A hurricane devastated Campania; comets blazed in

the heavens; earthquakes shook the ground. On all sides were

the traces of deep uneasiness and superstitious terror. To all

these portents, which were accepted as true by Christians as

well as by Pagans, the Christians would give a specially

terrible significance.… In spite of the shocking servility

with which alike the Senate and the people had welcomed him

back to the city with shouts of triumph, Nero felt that the

air of Rome was heavy with curses against his name. He

withdrew to Naples, and was at supper there on March 19, A. D.

68, the anniversary of his mother's murder, when he heard that

the first note of revolt had been sounded by the brave C.

Julius Vindex, Præfect of Farther Gaul. He was so far from

being disturbed by the news, that he showed a secret joy at

the thought that he could now order Gaul to be plundered. For

eight days he took no notice of the matter. … At last, when he

heard that Virginius Rufus had also rebelled in Germany, and

Galba in Spain, he became aware of the desperate nature of his

position. On receiving this intelligence he fainted away, and

remained for some time unconscious. He continued, indeed, his

grossness and frivolity, but the wildest and fiercest schemes

chased each other through his melodramatic brain. … Meanwhile

he found that the palace had been deserted by his guards, and

that his attendants had robbed his chamber even of the golden

box in which he had stored his poison. Rushing out, as though

to drown himself in the Tiber, he changed his mind, and begged

for some quiet hiding-place in which to collect his thoughts.

The freedman Phaon offered him a lowly villa about four miles

from the city. Barefooted, and with a faded coat thrown over

his tunic, he hid his head and face in a kerchief, and rode

away with only four attendants. … There is no need to dwell on

the miserable spectacle of his end, perhaps the meanest and

most pusillanimous which has ever been recorded. The poor

wretch who, without a pang, had caused so many brave Romans

and so many innocent Christians to be murdered, could not

summon up resolution to die. … Meanwhile a courier arrived for

Phaon. Nero snatched his despatches out of his hand, and read

that the Senate had decided that he should be punished in the

ancestral fashion as a public enemy. Asking what the ancestral

fashion was, he was informed that he would be stripped naked

and scourged to death with rods, with his head thrust into a

fork. Horrified at this, he seized two daggers, and after

theatrically trying their edges, sheathed them again, with the

excuse that the fatal moment had not yet arrived! Then he bade

Sporus begin to sing his funeral song, and begged some one to

show him how to die. … The sound of horses' hoofs then broke

on his ears, and, venting one more Greek quotation, he held

the dagger to his throat. It was driven home by Epaphroditus,

one of his literary slaves. … So died the last of the Cæsars!

And as Robespierre was lamented by his landlady, so even Nero

was tenderly buried by two nurses who had known him in the

exquisite beauty of his engaging childhood, and by Acte, who

had inspired his youth with a genuine love."

F. W. Farrar,

The Early Days of Christianity,

book 1, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

T. W. Allies,

The Formation of Christendom,

chapter 10 (volume 2).

ROME: A. D. 68-96.

End of the Julian line.

The "Twelve Cæsars" and their successors.

A logical classification.

"In the sixth Caesar [Nero] terminated the Julian line. The

three next princes in the succession were personally

uninteresting; and, with a slight reserve in favor of Otho, …

were even brutal in the tenor of their lives and monstrous;

besides that the extreme brevity of their several reigns (all

three, taken conjunctly, having held the supreme power for no

more than twelve months and twenty days) dismisses them from

all effectual station or right to a separate notice in the

line of Caesars. Coming to the tenth in the succession,

Vespasian, and his two sons, Titus and Domitian, who make up

the list of the twelve Caesars, as they are usually called, we

find matter for deeper political meditation and subjects of

curious research. But these emperors would be more properly

classed with the five who succeed them—Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian,

and the two Antonines; after whom comes the young ruffian,

Commodus, another Caligula or Nero, from whose short and

infamous reign Gibbon takes up his tale of the decline of the

empire. And this classification would probably have prevailed,

had not the very curious work of Suetonius, whose own life and

period of observation determined the series and cycle of his

subjects, led to a different distribution. But as it is

evident that, in the succession of the first twelve Caesars,

the six latter have no connection whatever by descent,

collaterally, or otherwise, with the six first, it would be a

more logical distribution to combine them according to the

fortunes of the state itself, and the succession of its

prosperity through the several stages of splendour,

declension, revival, and final decay. Under this arrangement,

the first seventeen would belong to the first stage; Commodus

would open the second; Aurelian down to Constantine or Julian

would fill the third; and Jovian to Agustulus would bring up

the melancholy rear."

T. De Quincey,

The Cæsars,

chapter 3.

ROME: A. D. 69.

Revolt of the Batavians under Civilis.

See BATAVIANS: A. D. 69.

{2709}

ROME: A. D. 69.

Galba, Otho, Vitellius.

Vespasian.

The Vitellian conflict.

On the overthrow and death of Nero, June, A. D. 68, the

veteran soldier Galba, proclaimed imperator by his legions in

Spain, and accepted by the Roman senate, mounted the imperial

throne. His brief reign was terminated in January of the

following year by a sudden revolt of the prætorian guard,

instigated by Salvius Otho, one of the profligate favorites of

Nero, who had betrayed his former patron and was disappointed

in the results. Galba was slain and Otho made emperor, to

reign, in his turn, for a brief term of three months. Revolt

against Otho was quick to show itself in the provinces, east

and west. The legions on the Rhine set up a rival emperor, in

the person of their commander, Aulus Vitellius, whose single

talent was in gluttony, and who had earned by his vices the

favor of four beastly rulers, from Tiberius to Nero, in

succession. Gaul having declared in his favor, Vitellius sent

forward two armies by different routes into Italy. Otho met

them, with such forces as he could gather, at Bedriacum,

between Verona and Cremona, and suffered there a defeat which

he accepted as decisive. He slew himself, and Vitellius made

his way to Rome without further opposition, permitting his

soldiers to plunder the country as they advanced. But the

armies of the east were not disposed to accept an emperor by

the election of the armies of the west, and they, too, put

forward a candidate for the purple. Their choice was better

guided, for it fell on the sturdy soldier, Titus Flavius

Vespasianus, then commanding in Judea. The advance corps of

the forces supporting Vespasian (called "Flavians," or

"Flavianites") entered Cisalpine Gaul from Illyricum in the

autumn of 69, and encountered the Vitellians at Bedriacum, on

the same field where the latter had defeated the Othonians a

few weeks before. The Vitellians were defeated. Cremona, a

flourishing Roman colony, which capitulated to the conquerors,

was perfidiously given up to a merciless soldiery and totally

destroyed,—one temple, alone, escaping. Vitellius, in despair,

showed an eagerness to resign the throne, and negotiated his

resignation with a brother of Vespasian, residing in Rome. But

the mob of fugitive Vitellian soldiers which had collected in

the capital interposed violently to prevent this abdication.

Flavius Sabinus—the brother of Vespasian—took refuge, with his

supporters, in the Capitolium, or temple of Jupiter, on the

Capitoline Hill. But the sacred precincts were stormed by the

Vitellian mob, the Capitol—the august sanctuary of Rome—was

burned and Sabinus was slain. The army which had won the

victory for Vespasian at Bedriacum, commanded by Antonius

Primus, soon appeared at the gates of the city, to avenge this

outrage. The unorganized force which attempted opposition was

driven before it in worse disorder. Victors and vanquished

poured into Rome together, slaughtering and being slaughtered

in the streets. The rabble of the city joined in the bloody

hunt, and in the plundering that went with it. "Rome had seen

the conflicts of armed men in the streets under Sulla and

Cinna, but never before such a hideous mixture of levity and

ferocity." Vitellius was among the slain, his brief reign

ending on the 21st of December, A. D. 69. Vespasian was still

in the east, and did not enter Rome until the summer of the

following year.

Tacitus,

History,

book 1-3.

ALSO IN:

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapters 56-57.

ROME: A. D. 70.

Siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

ROME: A. D. 70-96.

The Flavian family.

Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian.

"Unfortunately Tacitus fails us … at this point, and this time

completely. Nothing has been saved of his 'Histories' from the

middle of the year 70, and we find ourselves reduced to the

mere biographies of Suetonius, to the fragments of Dion, to

the abridgments of Aurelius Victor and Eutropius. The majestic

stream from which we have drawn and which flowed with brimming

banks is now only a meagre thread of water. Of all the

emperors Vespasian is the one who loses the most by this, for

he was, says S. Augustine, a very good prince and very worthy

of being beloved. He came into power at an age when one is no

longer given to change, at 60 years. He had never been fond of

gaming or debauchery, and he maintained his health by a frugal

diet, even passing one day every month without eating. His

life was simple and laborious. … He had no higher aim than to

establish order in the state and in the finances; but he

accomplished this, and if his principate, like all the others,

made no preparations for the future, it did much for the

present. It was a restorative reign, the effects of which were

felt for several generations; this service is as valuable as

the most brilliant victories. Following the example of the

second Julius, the first of the Flavians resolved to seek in

the senate the support of his government. This assembly,

debased by so many years of tyranny, needed as much as it did

a century before to be submitted to a severe revision. …

Vespasian acted with resolution. Invested with the title of

censor in 73, with his son Titus for colleague, he struck from

the rolls of the two orders the members deemed unworthy,

replaced them by the most distinguished persons of the Empire,

and, by virtue of his powers as sovereign pontiff, raised

several of them to the patriciate. A thousand Italian or

provincial families came to be added to the 200 aristocratic

families which had survived, and constituted with these the

higher Roman society, from which the candidates for all civil,

military, and religious functions were taken. … This

aristocracy, borrowed by Vespasian from the provincial cities,

where it had been trained to public affairs, where it had

acquired a taste for economy, simplicity, and order, brought

into Rome pure morals. … It will furnish the great emperors of

the second century, the skilled lieutenants who will second

them, and senators who will hereafter conspire only at long

intervals. … To the senate, thus renewed and become the true

representation of the Empire, Vespasian submitted all

important matters. … Suetonius renders him this testimony,

that it would be difficult to cite a single individual

unjustly punished in his reign, at least unless it were in his

absence or without his knowledge. He loved to dispense justice

himself in the Forum. … The legions, who had made and unmade

five emperors in two years, were no longer attentive to the

ancient discipline. He brought them back to it. … The morals

of the times were bad; he did more than the laws to reform

them—he set good examples. …

{2710}

Augustus had raised two altars to Peace; Vespasian built a

temple to her, in which he deposited the most precious spoils

of Jerusalem; and … the old general closed, for the sixth

time, the doors of the temple of Janus. He built a forum

surrounded by colonnades, in addition to those already

existing, and commenced, in the midst of the city, the vast

amphitheatre, a mountain of stone, of which three-fourths

remain standing to-day. … A colossal statue raised near by for

Nero, but which Vespasian consecrated to the Sun, gave it its

name, the Coliseum. … We have no knowledge of the wars of

Vespasian, except that three times in the year 71 he assumed

the title of 'imperator,' and three times again the following

year. But when we see him making Cappadocia an imperial

proconsular province with numerous garrisons to check the

incursions which desolated it; and, towards the Danube,

extending his influence over the barbarians even beyond the

Borysthenes; when we read in Tacitus that Velleda, the

prophetess of the Bructeri, was at that time brought a captive

to Rome; that Cerialis vanquished the Brigantes and Frontinus

the Silures, we must believe that Vespasian made a vigorous

effort along the whole line of his outposts to impress upon

foreign nations respect for the Roman name. … Here is the

secret of that severe economy which appeared to the prodigal

and light-minded a shameful stinginess. … Vespasian … was 69

years old, and was at his little house in the territory of

Reate when he felt the approach of death. 'I feel that I am

becoming a god,' he said to those around him, laughing in

advance at his apotheosis. … 'An emperor,' he said, 'ought to

die standing.' He attempted to rise and expired in this

effort, on the 23rd of June, 79. The first plebeian emperor

has had no historian, but a few words of his biographer

suffice for his renown: 'rem publicam stabilivit et ornavit,'

'by him the State was strengthened and glorified.' … Vespasian

being dead, Titus assumed the title of Augustus. … His father

had prepared him for this by taking him as associate in the

Empire; he had given to him the title of Cæsar, the

censorship, the tribunitian power, the prefecture of the

prætorium, and seven consulates. Coming into power at the age

of maturity, rich in experience and satiated with pleasures by

his very excesses, he had henceforth but one passion, that of

the public welfare. At the outset he dismissed his boon

companions; in his father's lifetime he had already sacrificed

to Roman prejudices his tender sentiments for the Jewish queen

Berenice, whom he had sent back to the East. In taking

possession of the supreme pontificate he declared that he

would keep his hands pure from blood, and he kept his word: no

one under his reign perished by his orders." It was during the

short reign of Titus that Herculaneum and Pompeii were

overwhelmed by an eruption of Vesuvius (August 23, A. D. 79),

while other calamities afflicted Italy. "Pestilence carried

off thousands of people even in Rome [see PLAGUE: A. D.

78-266]; and at last a conflagration, which raged three days,

consumed once more the Capitol, the library of Augustus, and

Pompey's theatre. To Campania Titus sent men of consular rank

with large sums of money, and he devoted to the relief of the

survivors the property that had fallen to the treasury through

the death of those who had perished in the disaster without

leaving heirs. At Rome he took upon himself the work of

repairing everything, and to provide the requisite funds he

sold the furniture of the imperial palace. … This reign lasted

only 26 months, from the 23rd of June, A. D. 79, to the 13th

of September, A. D. 81. As Titus was about to visit his

paternal estate in the Sabine territory he was seized by a

violent fever, which soon left no hope of his recovery. There

is a report that he partly opened the curtains of his litter

and gazed at the sky with eyes full of tears and reproaches.

'Why,' he exclaimed, 'must I die so soon? In all my life I

have, however, but one thing to repent.' What was this? No one

knows." Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian, then

thirty years old. "The youth of Domitian had been worthy of

the times of Nero, and he had wearied his father and brother

by his intrigues. Nevertheless he was sober, to the extent of

taking but one meal a day, and he had a taste for military

exercises, for study and poetry, especially since the

elevation of his family. Vespasian had granted him honours,

but no power, and, at the death of Titus, he had only the

titles of Cæsar and Prince of the Youth. In his hurry to seize

at last that Empire so long coveted, he abandoned his dying

brother to rush to Rome, to the camp of the prætorians. … On

the day of their coronation there are few bad princes. Almost

all begin well, but, in despotic monarchies, the majority end

badly, particularly when the reigns are of long duration. …

Domitian reigned 15 years, one year longer than Nero, and his

reign reproduced the same story: at first it wise government,

then every excess. Happily the excesses did not come till

late. … Fully as vain as the son of Agrippina, Domitian heaped

every title upon his own head and decreed deification to

himself. His edicts stated: 'Our lord and our god ordains … '

The new god did not scorn vulgar honours. … He was consul 17

times, and 22 times did he have himself proclaimed 'imperator'

for victories that had not always been gained. He recalled

Nero too by his fondness for shows and for building. … There

were several wars under Domitian, all defensive excepting the

expedition against the Catti [see CHATTI], which was only a

great civil measure to drive away the hostile marauders from

the frontier. If Pliny the Younger and Tacitus are to be

believed, these wars were like those which Caligula waged:

Domitian's victories were defeats; his captives, purchased

slaves; his triumphs, audacious falsehoods. Suetonius is not

so severe. … Domitian's cruelty appeared especially, and

perhaps we should say only, after the revolt of a person of

high rank, Antonius Saturninus, who pretended to be a

descendant of the triumvir. … He was in command of two legions

in Germany whom he incited to revolt, and he called the

Germans to his aid. An unexpected thaw stopped this tribe on

the right bank of the Rhine, while Appius Norbanus Maximus,

governor of Aquitania, crushed Antonius on the opposite shore.

… This revolt must belong to the year 93, which, as Pliny

says, is that in which Domitian's great cruelties began. …

Domitian lived in a state of constant alarm; every sound

terrified him, every man seemed to him an assassin, every

occurrence was an omen of evil." He endured this life of

gloomy terror for three years, when his dread forebodings were

realized, and he was murdered by his own attendants, September

18, A. D. 96.

V. Duruy,

History of Rome,

chapters 77-78 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

Suetonius,

Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans under the Empire,

chapters 57-60 (volumes 6-7).

{2711}

ROME: A. D. 78-84.

Campaigns of Agricola in Britain.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

ROME: A. D. 96-138.

Brief reign of Nerva.-

Adoption and succession of Trajan.

His persecution of Christians.

His conquests beyond the Danube and in the east.

Hadrian's relinquishment of them.

"On the same day on which Domitian was assassinated, M.

Cocceius Nerva was proclaimed Emperor by the Prætorians, and

confirmed by the people. He owed his elevation principally to

Petronius, Prefect of the Prætorians, and Parthenius,

chamberlain to the late Emperor. He was of Cretan origin, and

a native of Narni in Umbria, and consequently the first

Emperor who was not of Italian descent. … He was prudent,

upright, generous, and of a gentle temper; but a feeble frame

and weak constitution, added to the burden of 64 years,

rendered him too reserved, timid, and irresolute for the

arduous duties of a sovereign prince. … The tolerant and

reforming administration of the new Emperor soon became

popular. Rome breathed again after the bloody tyranny under

which she had been trampled to the dust. The perjured

'delator' was threatened with the severest penalties. The

treacherous slave who had denounced his master was put to

death. Exiles returned to their native cities, and again

enjoyed their confiscated possessions. … Determined to

administer the government for the benefit of the Roman people,

he (Nerva) turned his attention to the question of finance,

and to the burdensome taxation which was the fruit of the

extravagance of his predecessors. … He diminished the enormous

sums which were lavished upon shows and spectacles, and

reduced, as far as was possible, his personal and household

expenses. … It was not probable that an Emperor of so weak and

yielding a character, notwithstanding his good qualities as a

prince and a statesman, would be acceptable to a licentious

and dominant soldiery. But a few months had elapsed when a

conspiracy was organized against him by Calpurnius Crassus. It

was, however, discovered; and the ringleader, having confessed

his crime, experienced the Emperor's usual generosity, being

only punished by banishment to Tarentum. … Meanwhile the

Prætorians, led on by Ælianus Carperius, who had been their

Prefect under Domitian, besieged Nerva in his palace, with

cries of vengeance upon the assassins of his predecessor,

murdered Petronius and Parthenius, and compelled the timid

Emperor publicly to express his approbation of the deed, and

to testify his obligation to them for wreaking vengeance on

the guilty. … Nerva was in declining years, and, taught by

circumstances that he was unequal to curb or cope with the

insolence of the soldiery, adopted Trojan as his son and

successor [A. D. 97]. Soon after, he conferred upon him in the

Senate the rank of Cæsar, and the name of Germanicus, and

added the tribuneship and the title of Emperor. This act

calmed the tumult, and was welcomed with the unanimous consent

of the Senate and the people. … Soon after the adoption of

Trajan he died of a fit of ague which brought on fever, at the

gardens of Sallust, after a reign of sixteen months, in the

sixty-sixth year of his age [A. D. 98]. … The choice which

Nerva had made proved a fortunate one. M. Ulpius Nerva

Trajanus was a Spaniard, a native of Italica, near Seville. …

He was of an ancient and distinguished family, and his father

had filled the office of consul. Although a foreigner, he was

a Roman in habits, sympathies, and language; for the south of

Spain had become so completely Roman that the inhabitants

generally spoke Latin. When a young man he had distinguished

himself in a war against the Parthians. … At the time of his

adoption by Nerva he was in command of a powerful army in

Lower Germany, his head-quarters being at Cologne. He was in

the prime of life, possessed of a robust constitution, a

commanding figure, and a majestic countenance. He was a

perfect soldier, by taste and education, and was endowed with

all the qualities of a general. … He was a strict

disciplinarian, but he knew all his veterans, spoke to them by

their names, and never let a gallant action pass unrewarded. …

The news of Nerva's death was conveyed to him at Cologne by

his cousin Hadrian, where he immediately received the imperial

power. During the first year of his reign he remained with the

army in Germany, engaged in establishing the discipline of the

troops and in inspiring them with a love of their duty. … The

ensuing year he made his entry into Rome on foot, together

with his empress, Pompeia Plotina, whose amiability and

estimable character contributed much to the popularity of her

husband. Her conduct, together with that of his sister,

Marciana, exercised a most beneficial influence upon Roman

society. They were the first ladies of the imperial court who

by their example checked the shameless licentiousness which

had long prevailed amongst women of the higher classes. … The

tastes and habits of his former life led to a change in the

peaceful policy which had so long prevailed. The first war in

which he was engaged was with the Dacians, who inhabited the

country beyond the Danube. …

See DACIA: A. D. 102-106.

A few years of peace ensued, which Trajan endured with patient

reluctance; and many great public works undertaken during the

interval show his genius for civil as well as for military

administration. … But his presence was soon required in the

East, and he joyfully hailed the opportunity thus offered him

for gaining fresh laurels. The real object of this expedition

was ambition—the pretext, that Exedarius, or Exodares, king of

Armenia, had received the crown from the king of Parthia,

instead of from the Emperor of Rome, as Tiridates had from the

hands of Nero. For this insult he demanded satisfaction.

Chosroes, the king of Parthia, at first treated his message

with contempt; but afterwards, seeing that war was imminent,

he sent ambassadors with presents to meet Trajan at Athens,

and to announce to him the deposition of Exedarius, and to

entreat him to confer the crown of Armenia upon Parthamasiris,

or Parthamaspes. Trajan received the ambassadors coldly, told

them that he was on his march to Syria, and would there act as

he thought fit. Accordingly he crossed into Asia, and marched

by way of Cilicia, Syria, and Seleucia to Antioch.

{2712}

The condemnation of the martyr bishop St. Ignatius marked his

stay in that city [A. D. 115]. It seems strange that the

persecution of the Christians should have met with countenance

and support from an emperor like Trajan; but the fact is, the

Roman mind could not separate the Christian from the Jew. The

religious distinction was beneath their notice; they

contemplated the former merely as a sect of the latter. The

Roman party in Asia were persuaded that the Jews were

meditating and preparing for insurrection; and the rebellions

of this and the ensuing reign proved that their apprehensions

were not unreasonable. Hence, at Antioch, the imperial

influence was on the side of persecution; and hence when

Pliny, the gentle governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to

Trajan for instructions respecting the Christians in his

province, his 'rescript' spoke of Christianity as a dangerous

superstition, and enjoined the punishment of its professors if

discovered, although he would not have them sought for. Having

received the voluntary sub·mission of Abgarns, prince of

Osrhoene in Mesopotamia, he marched against Armenia.

Parthamasiris, who had assumed the royal state, laid his

diadem at his feet, in the hopes that he would return it to

him as Nero had to Tiridates. Trajan claimed his kingdom as a

province of the Roman people, and the unfortunate monarch lost

his life in a useless struggle for his crown. This was the

commencement of his triumphs: he received the voluntary

submission of the kings of Iberia, Sarmatia, the Bosphorus,

Colchis, Albania; and he assigned kings to most of the

barbarous tribes that inhabited the coast of the Euxine. Still

he proceeded on his career of conquest. He chastised the king

of Adiabene, who had behaved to him with treachery, and took

possession of his dominions, subjugated the rest of

Mesopotamia, constructed a bridge of boats over the Tigris,

and commenced a canal to unite the two great rivers of

Assyria. His course of conquest was resistless; he captured

Seleucia, earned the title of Parthicus by taking Ctesiphon,

the capital of Parthia [A. D. 116], imposed a tribute on

Mesopotamia, and reduced Assyria to the condition of a Roman

province. He returned to winter at Antioch, which was in the

same winter almost destroyed by an earthquake. Trajan escaped

through a window, not without personal injury. … The river

Tigris bore the victorious Emperor from the scene of his

conquest down to the Persian Gulf; he subjugated Arabia Felix,

and, like a second Alexander, was meditating and even making

preparations for an invasion of India by sea; but his

ambitious designs were frustrated by troubles nearer at hand.

Some of the conquered nations revolted, and his garrisons were

either expelled or put to the sword. He sent his generals to

crush the rebels; one of them, Maximus, was conquered and

slain; the other, Lusius Quietus, gained considerable

advantages and was made governor of Palestine, which had begun

to be in a state of insurrection.

See JEWS: A. D. 116.

He himself marched to punish the revolted Hagareni (Saracens),

whose city was called Atra, in Mesopotamia. … Trajan laid

siege to it, but was obliged to raise the siege with great

loss. Soon after this he was seized with illness. … Leaving

his army therefore to the care of Hadrian, whom he had made

governor of Syria, he embarked for Rome at the earnest

solicitation of the Senate. On arriving at Selinus in Cilicia

(afterwards named Trajanopolis), he was seized with diarrhœa,

and expired in the twentieth year of his reign [August, A. D.

117]. … He died childless, and it is said had not intended to

nominate a successor, following in this the example of

Alexander. Hadrian owed his adoption to Plotina. … Dio

positively asserts that she concealed her husband's death for

some days, and that the letter informing the Senate of his

last intentions was signed by her, and not by Trajan. Hadrian

received the despatches declaring his adoption on the 9th of

August, and those announcing Trajan's death two days

afterwards. … As soon as he was proclaimed Emperor at Antioch,

he sent an apologetic despatch to the Senate requesting their

assent to his election; the army, he said, had chosen him

without waiting for their sanction, lest the Republic should

remain without a prince. The confirmation which he asked for

was immediately granted. … The state of Roman affairs was at

this moment a very critical one, and did not permit the new

Emperor to leave the East. Emboldened by the news of Trajan's

illness, the conquered Parthians had revolted and achieved

some great successes; Sarmatia on the north, Mauritania,

Egypt, and Syria on the south, were already in a state of

insurrection. The far-sighted prudence of Hadrian led him to

fear that the empire was not unlikely to fall to pieces by its

own weight, and that the Euphrates was its best boundary. It

was doubtless a great sacrifice to surrender all the rich and

populous provinces beyond that river which had been gained by

the arms of his predecessor. It was no coward fear or mean

envy of Trajan which prompted Hadrian, but he wisely felt that

it was worth any price to purchase peace and security.

Accordingly he withdrew the Roman armies from Armenia, Assyria

and Mesopotamia, constituted the former of these an

independent kingdom, surrendered the two latter to the

Parthians, and restored their deposed king Chosroes to his

throne. … After taking these measures for establishing peace

in the East, he left Catilius Severus governor of Syria, and

returned by way of Illyria to Rome, where he arrived the

following year. … A restless curiosity, which was one of the

principal features in his character, would not permit him to

remain inactive at Rome; he determined to make a personal

survey of every province throughout his vast dominions, and

for this reason he is so frequently represented on medals as

the Roman Hercules. He commenced his travels with Gaul, thence

he proceeded to Germany, where he established order and

discipline amongst the Roman forces, and then crossed over to

Britain. … It would be uninteresting to give a mere catalogue

of the countries which he visited during the ensuing ten years

of his reign. In the fifteenth winter of it he arrived in

Egypt, and rebuilt the tomb of Pompey the Great at Pelusium.

Thence he proceeded to Alexandria which was at that period the

university of the world. … He had scarcely passed through

Syria when the Jews revolted, and continued in arms for three

years. …

See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

{2713}

Hadrian spent the winter at Athens, where he gratified his

architectural taste by completing the temple of Jupiter

Olympius. … Conscious … of the infirmities of disease and of

advancing years, he adopted L. Aurelius Verus, a man of

pleasure and of weak and delicate health, totally unfit for

his new position. … Age and disease had now so altered his

[Hadrian's] character that he became luxurious,

self-indulgent, suspicious, and even cruel: Verus did not live

two years, and the Emperor then adopted Titus Antoninus, on

condition that he should in his turn adopt M. Annius Verus,

afterwards called M. Aurelius, and the son of Aurelius Verus."

Hadrian's malady "now became insupportably painful, his temper

savage even to madness, and many lives of senators and others

were sacrificed to his fury. His sufferings were so

excruciating that he was always begging his attendants to put

him to death. At last he went to Baiæ, where, setting at

defiance the prescriptions of his physicians, he ate and drank

what he pleased. Death, therefore, soon put a period to his

sufferings, in the sixty-third year of his age and the

twenty-first of his restless reign [A. D. 138]. Antoninus was

present at his death, his corpse was burnt at Puteoli

(Pozzuoli), and his ashes deposited in the mausoleum (moles

Hadriani) which he had himself built, and which is now the

Castle of St. Angelo."

R. W. Browne,

History of Rome from A. D. 96,

chapters 1-2.

ALSO IN:

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans under the Empire,

chapters 63-66 (volume 7).

T. Arnold and others,

History of the Roman Empire

(Encyclopædia Metropolitana).

chapters 4-6.

THE ROMAN EMPIRE AT ITS GREATEST EXTENT UNDER TRAJAN (116)

SHOWING ACQUISITIONS OF TERRITORY FROM THE ACCESSION OR AUGUSTUS.

ROMAN TERRITORY AT THE ACCESSION OF AUGUSTUS.

TERRITORY ACQUIRED TO THE ACCESSION or TRAJAN.

THE TEMPORARY CONQUESTS OF TRAJAN ARE SHOWN BY THE BORDER COLOR.

THE ACQUISITIONS OF THE DIFFERENT EMPERORS ARE INDICATED

BY THE LETTERING.

ROME: A. D. 138-180.

The Antonines.

Antoninus Pius.

Marcus Aurelius.

"On the death of Hadrian in A. D. 138, Antoninus Pius

succeeded to the throne, and, in accordance with the late

Emperor's conditions, adopted Marcus Aurelius and Lucius

Commodus. Marcus had been betrothed at the age of 15 to the

sister of Lucius Commodus, but the new Emperor broke off the

engagement, and betrothed him instead to his daughter

Faustina. The marriage, however, was not celebrated till seven

years afterwards, A. D. 146. The long reign of Antoninus Pius

is one of those happy periods that have no history. An almost

unbroken peace reigned at home and abroad. Taxes were

lightened, calamities relieved, informers discouraged;

confiscations were rare, plots and executions were almost

unknown. Throughout the whole extent of his vast domain the

people loved and valued their Emperor, and the Emperor's one

aim was to further the happiness of his people. He, too, like

Aurelius, had learnt that what was good for the bee was good

for the hive. … He disliked war, did not value the military

title of Imperator, and never deigned to accept a triumph.

With this wise and eminent prince, who was as amiable in his

private relations as he was admirable in the discharge of his

public duties, Marcus Aurelius spent the next 23 years of his

life. … There was not a shade of jealousy between them; each

was the friend and adviser of the other, and, so far from

regarding his destined heir with suspicion, the Emperor gave

him the designation 'Cæsar,' and heaped upon him all the

honours of the Roman commonwealth. It was in vain that the

whisper of malignant tongues attempted to shake this mutual

confidence. … In the year 161, when Marcus was now 40 years

old. Antoninus Pius, who had reached the age of 75, caught a

fever at Lorium. Feeling that his end was near, he summoned

his friends and the chief men of Rome to his bedside, and

there (without saying a word about his other adopted son, who

is generally known by the name of Lucius Verus) solemnly

recommended Marcus to them as his successor; and then, giving

to the captain of the guard the watchword of 'Equanimity,' as

though his earthly task was over he ordered to be transferred

to the bedroom of Marcus the little golden statue of Fortune,

which was kept in the private chamber of the Emperors as an

omen of public prosperity. The very first act of the new

Emperor was one of splendid generosity, namely, the admission

of his adoptive brother Lucius Verus into the fullest

participation of imperial honours. … The admission of Lucius

Verus to a share of the Empire was due to the innate modesty

of Marcus. As he was a devoted student, and cared less for

manly exercises, in which Verus excelled, he thought that his

adoptive brother would be a better and more useful general

than himself, and that he could best serve the State by

retaining the civil administration, and entrusting to his

brother the management of war. Verus, however, as soon as he

got away from the immediate influence and ennobling society of

Marcus, broke loose from all decency, and showed himself to be

a weak and worthless personage. … Two things only can be said

in his favour; the one, that, though depraved, he was wholly

free from cruelty; and the other, that he had the good sense

to submit himself entirely to his brother. … Marcus had a

large family by Faustina, and in the first year of his reign

his wife bore twins, of whom the one who survived became the

wicked and detested Emperor Commodus. As though the birth of

such a child were in itself an omen of ruin, a storm of

calamity began at once to burst over the long tranquil State.

An inundation of the Tiber … caused a distress which ended in

wide-spread famine. Men's minds were terrified by earthquakes,

by the burning of cities, and by plagues of noxious insects.

To these miseries, which the Emperors did their best to

alleviate, was added the horror of wars and rumours of wars.

The Parthians, under their king Vologeses, defeated and all

but destroyed a Roman army, and devastated with impunity the

Roman province of Syria. The wild tribes of the Catti burst

over Germany with fire and sword; and the news from Britain

was full of insurrection and tumult. Such were the elements of

trouble and discord which overshadowed the reign of Marcus

Aurelius from its very beginning down to its weary close. As

the Parthian war was the most important of the three, Verus

was sent to quell it, and but for the ability of his

generals—the greatest of whom was Avidius Cassius—would have

ruined irretrievably the fortunes of the Empire. These

generals, however, vindicated the majesty of the Roman name

[A. D. 165-166 —see PARTHIA], and Verus returned in triumph,

bringing back with him from the East the seeds, of a terrible

pestilence which devastated the whole Empire [see PLAGUE: A.

D. 78-266] and by which, on the outbreak of fresh wars, Verus

himself was carried off at Aquileia. … Marcus was now the

undisputed lord of the Roman world. … But this imperial

elevation kindled no glow of pride or self-satisfaction in his

meek and chastened nature. He regarded himself as being in

fact the servant of all. … He was one of those who held that

nothing should be done hastily, and that few crimes were worse

than the waste of time.

{2714}

It is to such views and such habits that we owe the

composition of his works. His 'Meditations' were written amid

the painful self-denial and distracting anxieties of his wars

with the Quadi and the Marcomanni [A. D. 168-180,—see

SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS], and he

was the author of other works which unhappily have perished.

Perhaps of all the lost treasures of antiquity there are few

which we should feel a greater wish to recover than the lost

autobiography of this wisest of Emperors and holiest of Pagan

men. … The Court was to Marcus a burden; he tells us himself

that Philosophy was his mother, Empire only his stepmother; it

was only his repose in the one that rendered even tolerable to

him the burdens of the other. … The most celebrated event of

the war [with the Quadi] took place in a great victory … which

he won in A. D. 174, and which was attributed by the

Christians to what is known as the 'Miracle of the Thundering

Legion.' …

See THUNDERING LEGION.

To the gentle heart of Marcus all war, even when accompanied

with victories, was eminently distasteful; and in such painful

and ungenial occupations no small part of his life was passed.

… It was his unhappy destiny not to have trodden out the

embers of this [the Sarmatian] war before he was burdened with

another far more painful and formidable. This was the revolt

of Avidius Cassius, a general of the old blunt Roman type,

whom, in spite of some ominous warnings, Marcus both loved and

trusted. The ingratitude displayed by such a man caused Marcus

the deepest anguish; but he was saved from all dangerous

consequences by the wide-spread affection which he had

inspired by his virtuous reign. The very soldiers of the

rebellious general fell away from him, and, after he had been

a nominal Emperor for only three months and six days, he was

assassinated by some of his own officers. … Marcus travelled

through the provinces which had favoured the cause of Avidius

Cassius, and treated them all with the most complete and

indulgent forbearance. … During this journey of pacification,

he lost his wife Faustina, who died suddenly in one of the

valleys of Mount Taurus. History … has assigned to Faustina a

character of the darkest infamy, and it has even been made a

charge against Aurelius that he overlooked or condoned her

offences. … No doubt Faustina was unworthy of her husband; but

surely it is the glory and not the shame of a noble nature to

be averse from jealousy and suspicion. … 'Marcus Aurelius

cruelly persecuted the Christians.' Let us briefly consider

this charge. … Marcus in his 'Meditations' alludes to the

Christians once only, and then it is to make a passing

complaint of the indifference to death, which appeared to him,

as it appeared to Epictetus, to arise, not from any noble

principles, but from mere obstinacy and perversity. That he

shared the profound dislike with which Christians were

regarded is very probable. That he was a cold-blooded and

virulent persecutor is utterly unlike his whole character. …

The true state of the case seems to have been this: The deep

calamities in which during the whole reign of Marcus the

Empire was involved, caused wide-spread distress, and roused

into peculiar fury the feelings of the provincials against men

whose atheism (for such they considered it to be) had kindled

the anger of the gods. … Marcus, when appealed to, simply let

the existing law take its course. … The martyrdoms took place

in Gaul and Asia Minor, not in Rome. … The persecution of the

churches in Lyons and Vienne happened in A. D. 177. Shortly

after this period fresh wars recalled the Emperor to the

North. … He was worn out with the toils, trials and travels of

his long and weary life. He sunk under mental anxieties and

bodily fatigues, and after a brief illness died in Pannonia,

either at Vienna or at Sirmium, on March 17, A. D. 180, in the

59th year of his age and the 20th of his reign."

F. W. Farrar,

Seekers after God: Marcus Aurelius.

"One moment, thanks to him, the world was governed by the best

and greatest man of his age. Frightful decadences followed;

but the little casket which contained the 'Thoughts' on the

banks of the Granicus was saved. From it came forth that

incomparable book in which Epictetus was surpassed, that

Evangel of those who believe not in the supernatural, which

has not been comprehended until our day. Veritable, eternal

Evangel, the book of 'Thoughts,' which will never grow old,

because it asserts no dogma."

E. Renan,

English Conferences: Marcus Aurelius.

ALSO IN:

W. W. Capes,

The Age of the Antonines.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans under the Empire,

chapters 67-68 (volume 7).

P. B. Watson,

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.

G. Long,

Thoughts of the Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus,

introduction.

ROME: A. D. 180-192.

The reign of Commodus.

"If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the

world during which the condition of the human race was most

happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that

which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of

Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman empire was governed by

absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The

armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four

successive emperors whose characters and authority commanded

involuntary respect. … It has been objected to Marcus, that he

sacrificed the happiness of millions to a fond partiality for

a worthless boy; and that he chose a successor in his own

family rather than in the republic. Nothing, however, was

neglected by the anxious father, and by the men of virtue and

learning whom he summoned to his assistance, to expand the

narrow mind of young Commodus, to correct his growing vices,

and to render him worthy of the throne for which he was

designed. … The beloved son of Marcus succeeded to his father,

amidst the acclamations of the senate and armies; and when he

ascended the throne, the happy youth saw round him neither

competitor to remove, nor enemies to punish. In this calm

elevated station it was surely natural that he should prefer

the love of mankind to their detestation, the mild glories of

his five predecessors to the ignominious fate of Nero and

Domitian. Yet Commodus was not, as he has been represented, a

tiger born with an insatiate thirst of human blood, and

capable, from his infancy, of the most inhuman actions. Nature

had formed him of a weak, rather than a wicked disposition.

His simplicity and timidity rendered him the slave of his

attendants, who gradually corrupted his mind. His cruelty,

which at first obeyed the dictates of others, degenerated into

habit, and at length became the ruling passion of his soul. …

{2715}

During the three first years of his reign, the forms, and even

the spirit, of the old administration were maintained by those

faithful counsellors to whom Marcus had recommended his son,

and for whose wisdom and integrity Commodus still entertained

a reluctant esteem. The young prince and his profligate

favorites revelled in all the license of sovereign power; but

his hands were yet unstained with blood; and he had even

displayed a generosity of sentiment, which might perhaps have

ripened into solid virtue. A fatal incident decided his

fluctuating character. One evening, as the emperor was

returning to the palace through a dark and narrow portico in

the amphitheatre, an assassin, who waited his passage, rushed

upon him with a drawn sword, loudly exclaiming, 'The senate

sends you this.' The menace prevented the deed; the assassin

was seized by the guards, and immediately revealed the authors

of the conspiracy. It had been formed, not in the State, but

within the walls of the palace. … But the words of the

assassin sunk deep into the mind of Commodus, and left an

indelible impression of fear and hatred against the whole body

of the senate. Those whom he had dreaded as importunate

ministers he now suspected as secret enemies. The Delators, a

race of men discouraged, and almost extinguished, under the

former reigns, again became formidable as soon as they

discovered that the emperor was desirous of finding

disaffection and treason in the senate. … Suspicion was

equivalent to proof; trial to condemnation. The execution of a

considerable senator was attended with the death of all who

might lament or revenge his fate; and when Commodus had once

tasted human blood, he became incapable of pity or remorse. …

Pestilence and famine contributed to fill up the measure of

the calamities of Rome. … His cruelty proved at last fatal to

himself. He had shed with impunity the noblest blood of Rome:

he perished as soon as he was dreaded by his own domestics.

Marcia, his favorite concubine, Eclectus, his chamberlain, and

Lætus, his Prætorian præfect, alarmed by the fate of their

companions and predecessors, resolved to prevent the

destruction which every hour hung over their heads, either

from the mad caprice of the tyrant, or the sudden indignation

of the people. Marcia seized the occasion of presenting a

draught of wine to her lover, after he had fatigued himself

with hunting some wild beasts. Commodus retired to sleep; but

whilst he was laboring with the effects of poison and

drunkenness, a robust youth, by profession a wrestler, entered

his chamber, and strangled him without resistance"

(December 31, A. D. 192).

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapters 3-4.

ALSO IN:

J. B. L. Crevier,

History of the Roman Emperors,

book 21 (volume 7).

ROME: A. D. 192-284.

From Commodus to Diocletian.

Twenty-three Emperors in the Century.

Thirteen murdered by their own soldiers or servants.

Successful wars of Severus, Aurelian, and Probus.

On the murder of Commodus, "Helvius Pertinax, the prefect of

the city, a man of virtue, was placed on the throne by the

conspirators, who would fain justify their deed in the eyes of

the world, and their choice was confirmed by the senate. But

the Prætorians had not forgotten their own power on a similar

occasion; and they liked not the virtue and regularity of the

new monarch. Pertinax was, therefore, speedily deprived of

throne and life. Prætorian insolence now attained its height.

Regardless of the dignity and honour of the empire, they set

it up to auction. The highest bidder was a senator, named

Didius Julianus [March, 193]. … The legions disdained to

receive an emperor from the life-guards. Those of Britain

proclaimed their general Clodius Albinus; those of Asia,

Pescennius Niger: the Pannonian legions, Septimius Severus.

This last was a man of bravery and conduct: by valour and

stratagem he successively vanquished his rivals [defeating

Albinus in an obstinate battle at Lyons, A. D: 197, and

finishing the subjugation of his rivals in the east by

reducing Byzantium after a siege of three years]. He

maintained the superiority of the Roman arms against the

Parthians and Caledonians.

See Britain; A. D. 208-211].

His reign was vigorous and advantageous to the state; but he

wanted either the courage or the power to fully repress the

license and insubordination of the soldiery. Severus left the

empire [A. D. 211] to his two sons. Caracalla, the elder, a

prince of violent and untamable passions, disdained to share

empire with any. He murdered his brother and colleague, the

more gentle Geta, and put to death all who ventured to

disapprove of the deed. A restless ferocity distinguished the

character of Caracalla; he was ever at war, now on the banks

of the Rhine, now on those of the Euphrates. His martial

impetuosity daunted his enemies; his reckless cruelty

terrified his subjects. … During a Parthian war Caracalla gave

offence to Macrinus, the commander of his body-guard, who

murdered him [A. D. 217). Macrinus seized the empire, but had

not power to hold it. He and his son Diadumenianus [after

defeat in battle at Immæ, near Antioch] … were put to death by

the army, who proclaimed a supposed son [and actually a second

cousin] of their beloved Caracalla. This youth was named

Elagabalus, and was priest of the Sun in the temple of Emesa,

in Syria. Every vice stained the character of this licentious

effeminate youth, whose name is become proverbial for sensual

indulgence: he possessed no redeeming quality, had no friend,

and was put to death by his own guards, who, vicious as they

were themselves, detested vice in him. Alexander Severus,

cousin to Elagabalus, but of a totally opposite character,

succeeded that vicious prince [A. D. 222]. All estimable

qualities were united in the noble and accomplished Alexander.

… The love of learning and virtue did not in him smother

military skill and valour; he checked the martial hordes of

Germany, and led the Roman eagles to victory against the

Sassanides, who had displaced the Arsacides in the dominion

over Persia, and revived the claims of the house of Cyrus over

Anterior Asia. Alexander, victorious in war, beloved by his

subjects, deemed he might venture on introducing more regular

discipline into the army. The attempt was fatal, and the

amiable monarch lost his life in the mutiny that resulted [A.

D. 235]. Maximin, a soldier, originally a Thracian shepherd,

distinguished by his prodigious size, strength and appetite, a

stranger to all civic virtues and all civic rules, rude,

brutal, cruel, and ferocious, seated himself on the throne of

the noble and virtuous prince, in whose murder he had been the

chief agent. At Rome, the senate conferred the vacant dignity

on Gordian, a noble, wealthy and virtuous senator, and on his

son of the same name, a valiant and spirited youth.

{2716}

But scarcely were they recognized when the son fell in an

engagement, and the father slew himself [A. D. 237]. Maximin

was now rapidly marching towards Rome, full of rage and fury.

Despair gave courage to the senate; they nominated Balbinus

and Pupienus [Maximus Pupienus], one to direct the internal,

the other the external affairs. Maximin had advanced as far as

Aquileia [which he besieged without success], when his

horrible cruelties caused an insurrection against him, and he

and his son, an amiable youth, were murdered [A. D. 238]. The

army was not, however, willing to acquiesce in the claim of

the senate to appoint an emperor. Civil war was on the point

of breaking out [and Balbinus and Pupienus were massacred by

the Prætorians], when the conflicting parties agreed in the

person of the third Gordian, a boy of but thirteen years of

age [A. D. 238]. Gordian III. was … chiefly guided by his

father-in-law, Misitheus, who induced him to engage in war

against the Persians. In the war, Gordian displayed a courage

worthy of any of his predecessors; but he shared what was now

become the usual fate of a Roman emperor. He was murdered by

Philip, the captain of his guard [A. D. 244]. Philip, an

Arabian by birth, originally a captain of freebooters, seized

on the purple of his murdered sovereign. Two rivals arose and

contended with him for the prize, but accomplished nothing. A

third competitor, Decius, the commander of the army of the

Danube, defeated and slew him near Verona [A. D. 249]. During

the reign of Philip, Rome attained her thousandth year."

T. Keightley,

Outlines of History

(Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopœdia),

part 1, chapter 9.

"Decius is memorable as the first emperor who attempted to

extirpate the Christian religion by a general persecution of

its professors. His edicts are lost; but the records of the

time exhibit a departure from the system which had been

usually observed by enemies of the church since the days of

Trajan. The authorities now sought out Christians; the legal

order as to accusations was neglected; accusers ran no risk;

and popular clamour was admitted instead of formal

information. The long enjoyment of peace had told unfavourably

on the church. … When, as Origen had foretold, a new season of

trial came, the effects of the general relaxation were sadly

displayed. On being summoned, in obedience to the emperor's

edict, to appear and offer sacrifice, multitudes of Christians

in every city rushed to the forum. … It seemed, says St.

Cyprian, as if they had long been eager to find an opportunity

for disowning their faith. The persecution was especially

directed against the bishops and clergy. Among its victims

were Fabian of Rome, Babylas of Antioch, and Alexander of

Jerusalem; while in the lines of other eminent men (as

Cyprian, Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Dionysius of

Alexandria) the period is marked by exile or other sufferings.

The chief object, however, was not to inflict death on the

Christians, but to force them to recantation. With this view

they were subjected to tortures, imprisonment and want of

food; and under such trials the constancy of many gave way.

Many withdrew into voluntary banishment; among these was Paul,

a young man of Alexandria, who took up his abode in the desert

of the Thebaid, and is celebrated as the first Christian

hermit."

J. C. Robertson,

History of the Christian Church,

book 1, chapter 6 (volume 1).

"This persecution [of Decius] was interrupted by an invasion

of the Goths, who, for the first time, crossed the Danube in

considerable numbers, and devastated Mœsia.

See GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.

Decius marched against them, and gained some important

advantages; but in his last battle, charging into the midst of

the enemy to avenge the death of his son, he was overpowered

and slain (A. D. 251). A great number of the Romans, thus

deprived of their leader, fell victims to the barbarians; the

survivors, grateful for the protection afforded them by the

legions of Gallus, who commanded in the neighbourhood,

proclaimed that general emperor. Gallus concluded a

dishonourable peace with the Goths, and renewed the

persecutions of the Christians. His dastardly conduct provoked

general resentment; the provincial armies revolted, but the

most dangerous insurrection was that headed by Æmilianus, who

was proclaimed emperor in Mœsia. He led his forces into Italy,

and the hostile armies met at Interamna (Terni); but just as

an engagement was about to commence, Gallus was murdered by

his own soldiers (A. D. 253), and Æmilianus proclaimed

emperor. In three months Æmilianus himself met a similar fate,

the army having chosen Valerian, the governor of Gaul, to the

sovereignty. Valerian, though now sixty years of age,

possessed powers that might have revived the sinking fortunes

of the empire, which was now invaded on all sides. The Goths,

who had formed a powerful monarchy on the lower Danube and the

northern coasts of the Black Sea, extended their territories

to the Borysthenes (Dneiper) and Tanais (Don): they ravaged

Mœsia, Thrace and Macedon; while their fleets … devastated the

coasts both of the European and Asiatic provinces.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

The great confederation of the Franks became formidable on the

lower Rhine, and not less dangerous was that of the Allemanni

on the upper part of that river.

See FRANKS: A. D. 253.

The Carpians and Sarmatians laid Mœsia waste; while the

Persians plundered Syria, Cappadocia, and Cilicia. Gallienus,

the emperor's son, whom Valerian had chosen for his colleague,

and Aurelian, destined to succeed him in the empire, gained

several victories over the Germanic tribes; while Valerian

marched in person against the Scythians and Persians, who had

invaded Asia. He gained a victory over the former in Anatolia,

but, imprudently passing the Euphrates, he was surrounded by

Sapor's army near Edessa … and was forced to surrender at

discretion (A. D. 259).

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

During nine years Valerian languished in hopeless captivity,

the object of scorn and insult to his brutal conqueror, while

no effort was made for his liberation by his unnatural son.

Gallienus succeeded to the throne. … At the moment of his

accession, the barbarians, encouraged by the captivity of

Valerian, invaded the empire on all sides. Italy itself was

invaded by the Germans, who advanced to Ravenna, but they were

forced to retire by the emperor.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 259.

{2717}

Gallienus, after this exertion, sunk into complete inactivity:

his indolence roused a host of competitors for the empire in

the different provinces, commonly called 'the thirty tyrants,'

though the number of pretenders did not exceed 19. … Far the

most remarkable of them was Odenatus, who assumed the purple

at Palmyra, gained several great victories over the Persians,

and besieged Sapor in Ctesiphon. … But this great man was

murdered by some of his own family; he was succeeded by his

wife, the celebrated Zenobia, who took the title of Queen of

the East. Gallienus did not long survive him; he was murdered

while besieging Aureolus, one of his rivals, in Mediolanum

(Milan); but before his death he transmitted his rights to

Claudius, a general of great reputation (A. D. 268). Most of

the other tyrants had previously fallen in battle or by

assassination. Marcus Aurelius Claudius, having conquered his

only rival, Aureolus, marched against the Germans and Goths,

whom he routed with great slaughter

See GOTHS: A. D. 268-270.

He then prepared to march against Zenobia, who had conquered

Egypt; but a pestilence broke out in his army, and the emperor

himself was one of its victims (A. D. 270). … His brother was

elected emperor by acclamation; but in 17 days he so

displeased the army, by attempting to revive the ancient

discipline, that he was deposed and murdered. Aurelian, a

native of Sirmium in Pannonia, was chosen emperor by the army;

and the senate, well acquainted with his merits, joyfully

confirmed the election. He made peace with the Goths, and led

his army against the Germans, who had once more invaded Italy.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

Aurelian was at first defeated; but he soon retrieved his

loss, and cut the whole of the barbarian army to pieces. His

next victory was obtained over the Vandals, a new horde that

had passed the Danube; and having thus secured the tranquility

of Europe, he marched to rescue the eastern provinces from

Zenobia," whom he vanquished and brought captive to Rome.

See PALMYRA.

This accomplished, the vigorous emperor proceeded to the

suppression of a formidable revolt in Egypt, and then to the

recovery of Gaul, Spain, and Britain, "which had now for

thirteen years been the prey of different tyrants. A single

campaign restored these provinces to the empire; and Aurelian,

returning to Rome, was honoured with the most magnificent

triumph that the city had ever beheld. … But he abandoned the

province of Dacia to the barbarians, withdrawing all the Roman

garrisons that had been stationed beyond the Danube.

Aurelian's virtues were sullied by the sternness and severity

that naturally belongs to a peasant and a soldier. His

officers dreaded his inflexibility," and he was murdered, A.

D. 275, by some of them who had been detected in peculations

and who dreaded his wrath. The senate elected as his successor

Marcus Claudius Tacitus, who died after a reign of seven

months. Florian, a brother of Tacitus, was then chosen by the

senate; but the Syrian army put forward a competitor in the

person of its commander, Marcus Aurelius Probus, and Florian

was presently slain by his own troops. "Probus, now undisputed

master of the Empire, led his troops from Asia to Gaul, which

was again devastated by the German tribes; he not only

defeated the barbarians, but pursued them into their own

country, where he gained greater advantages than any of his

predecessors.

See GAUL: A. D. 277

and GERMANY: A. D. 277.

Thence he passed into Thrace, where he humbled the Goths; and,

returning to Asia, he completely subdued the insurgent

Isaurians, whose lands he divided among his veterans," and

commanded peace on his own terms from the king of Persia. But

even the power with which Probus wielded his army could not

protect him from its licentiousness, and in a sudden mutiny

(A. D. 282) he was slain. Carus, captain of the prætorian

guards, was then raised to the throne by the army, the senate

assenting. He repelled the Sarmatians and defeated the

Persians, who had renewed hostilities; but he died, A. D. 283,

while besieging Ctesiphon. His son Numerianus was chosen his

successor; "but after a few months' reign, he was assassinated

by Aper, his father-in-law and captain of his guards. The

crime, however, was discovered, and the murderer put to death

by the army. Dioclesian, said to have been originally a slave,

was unanimously saluted Emperor by the army. He was proclaimed

at Chalcedon, on the 17th of December, A. D. 284; an epoch

that deserves to be remembered, as it marks the beginning of a

new era, called 'the Era of Dioclesian,' or 'the Era of

Martyrs,' which long prevailed in the church, and is still

used by the Copts, the Abyssinians, and other African

nations."

W. C. Taylor,

Student's Manual of Ancient History,

chapter 17, sections 6-7.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapters 5-12 (volume 1).

ROME: A. D. 213.

First collision with the Alemanni.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

ROME: A. D. 238.

Siege of Aquileia by Maximin.

See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

ROME: A. D. 238-267.

Naval incursions and ravages of the Goths

in Greece and Asia Minor.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

ROME: A. D. 284-305.

Reconstitution of the Empire by Diocletian.

Its division and subdivision between

two Augusti and two Cæsars.

Abdication of Diocletian.

"The accession of Diocletian to power marks a new epoch in the

history of the Roman empire. From this time the old names of

the republic, the consuls, the tribunes, and the Senate

itself, cease, even if still existing, to have any political

significance. The government becomes avowedly a monarchical

autocracy, and the officers by whom it is administered are

simply the nominees of the despot on the throne. The empire of

Rome is henceforth an Oriental sovereignty. Aurelian had

already introduced the use of the Oriental diadem. The

nobility of the empire derive their positions from the favor

of the sovereign; the commons of the empire, who have long

lost their political power, cease to enjoy even the name of

citizens. The provinces are still administered under the

imperial prefects by the magistrates and the assemblies of an

earlier date, but the functions of both the one and the other

are confined more strictly than ever to matters of police and

finance. Hitherto, indeed, the Senate, however intrinsically

weak, had found opportunities for putting forth its claims to

authority. … The chosen of the legions had been for some time

past the commander of an army, rather than the sovereign of

the state. He had seldom quitted the camp, rarely or never

presented himself in the capital. … The whole realm might

split asunder at any moment into as many kingdoms as there

were armies, unless the chiefs of the legions felt themselves

controlled by the strength or genius of one more eminent than

the rest. …

{2718}

The danger of disruption, thus far averted mainly by the awe

which the name of Rome inspired, was becoming yearly more

imminent, when Diocletian arose to re-establish the organic

connection of the parts, and breathe a new life into the heart

of the body politic. The jealous edict of Gallienus … had

forbidden the senators to take service in the army, or to quit

the limits of Italy. The degradation of that once illustrious

order, which was thus rendered incapable of furnishing a

candidate for the diadem, was completed by its indolent

acquiescence in this disqualifying ordinance. The nobles of

Rome relinquished all interest in affairs which they could no

longer aspire to conduct. The emperors, on their part, ceased

to regard them as a substantive power in the state; and in

constructing his new imperial constitution Diocletian wholly

overlooked their existence. … While he disregarded the

possibility of opposition at Rome, he contrived a new check

upon the rivalry of his distant lieutenants, by associating

with himself three other chiefs, welded together by strict

alliance into one imperial family, each of whom should take up

his residence in a separate quarter of the empire, and combine

with all the others in maintaining their common interest. His

first step was to choose a single colleague in the person of a

brave soldier of obscure origin, an Illyrian peasant, by name

Maximianus, whom he invested with the title of Augustus in the

year 286. The associated rulers assumed at the same time the

fanciful epithets of Jovius and Herculius, auspicious names,

which made them perhaps popular in the camps, where the

commanding genius of the one and the laborious fortitude of

the other were fully recognized. Maximianus was deputed to

control the legions in Gaul, to make head against domestic

sedition, as well as against the revolt of Carausius, a

pretender to the purple in Britain, while Diocletian

encountered the enemies or rivals who were now rising up in

various quarters in the East.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.

His dangers still multiplied, and again the powers of the

state were subdivided to meet them. In the year 292 Diocletian

created two Cæsars; the one, Galerius, to act subordinately to

himself in the East; the other, Constantius Chlorus, to divide

the government of the western provinces with Maximian. The

Cæsars were bound more closely to the Augusti by receiving

their daughters in marriage; but though they acknowledged each

a superior in his own half of the empire, and admitted a

certain supremacy of Diocletian over all, yet each enjoyed

kingly rule in his own territories, and each established a

court and capital, as well as an army and a camp. Diocletian

retained the wealthiest and most tranquil portion of the

realm, and reigned in Nicomedia [see NICOMEDIA] over Asia

Minor, Syria, and Egypt; while he intrusted to the Cæsar

Galerius, established at Sirmium, the more exposed provinces

on the Danube. Maximian occupied Italy, the adjacent islands,

and Africa, stationing himself, however, not in Rome, but at

Milan. Constantius was required to defend the Rhenish

frontier; and the martial provinces of Gaul, Spain, and

Britain were given him to furnish the forces necessary for

maintaining that important trust. The capital of the Western

Cæsar was fixed at Treves. Inspired with a common interest,

and controlled by the ascendency of Diocletian himself, all

the emperors acted with vigor in their several provinces.

Diocletian recovered Alexandria and quieted the revolt of

Egypt.

See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

Maximian routed the unruly hordes of Maurentia, and overthrew

a pretender to sovereignty in that distant quarter.

Constantius discomfited an invading host of Alemanni, kept in

check Carausius, who for a moment had seized upon Britain, and

again wrested that province from Allectus, who had murdered

and succeeded to him. Galerius brought the legions of Illyria

to the defence of Syria against the Persians, and though once

defeated on the plains of Carrhæ, at last reduced the enemy to

submission.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627].

Thus victorious in every quarter, Diocletian celebrated the

commencement of his twentieth year of power with a triumph at

the ancient capital, and again taking leave of the imperial

city, returned to his customary residence at Nicomedia. The

illness with which he was attacked on his journey suggested or

fixed his resolution to relieve himself from his cares, and on

May 1, in the year 305, being then fifty-nine years of age, he

performed the solemn act of abdication at Morgus, in Mæsia,

the spot where he had first assumed the purple at the bidding

of his soldiers. Strange to say, he did not renounce the

object of his ambition alone. On the same day a similar scene

was enacted by his colleague Maximian at Milan; but the

abdication of Maximian was not, it is said, a spontaneous

sacrifice, but imposed upon him by the influence or authority

of his elder and greater colleague. Diocletian had established

the principle of succession by which the supreme power was to

descend. Having seen the completion of all his arrangements,

and congratulated himself on the success, thus far, of his

great political experiments, he crowned his career of

moderation and self-restraint by strictly confining himself

during the remainder of his life to the tranquil enjoyment of

a private station. Retiring to the residence he had prepared

for himself at Salona, he found occupation and amusement in

the cultivation of his garden."

C. Merivale,

General History of Rome,

chapter 70.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 13.

W. T. Arnold,

The Roman System of Provincial Administration,

chapter 4.

See, also, DIOCLETIAN.

ROME: A. D. 287.

Insurrection of the Bagauds in Gaul.

See BAGAUDS;

also, DEDITITIUS.

ROME: A. D. 303-305.

The persecution of Christians under Diocletian.

"Dreams concerning the overthrow of the Empire had long been

cast into the forms of prophecies amongst the Christians. …

There were some to repeat the predictions and to count the

proofs of overthrow impending upon the Empire. But there were

more, far more, to desire its preservation. Many even laboured

for it. The number of those holding offices of distinction at

the courts and in the armies implies the activity of a still

larger number in inferior stations. … Never, on the other

hand, had the generality of Christians been the objects of

deeper or more bitter suspicions. … By the lower orders, they

would be hated as conspiring against the customs of their

province or the glories of their race. By men of position and

of education, they would be despised as opposing every

interest of learning, of property, and of rank. Darker still

were the sentiments of the sovereigns.

{2719}

By them the Christians were scorned as unruly subjects,

building temples without authority, appointing priests without

license, while they lived and died for principles the most

adverse to the laws and to the rulers of the Empire. …

Everywhere they were advancing. Everywhere they met with

reviving foes. At the head of these stood the Cæsar,

afterwards the Emperor Galerius. He who had been a herdsman of

Dacia was of the stamp to become a wanton ruler. He showed his

temper in his treatment of the Heathen. He showed it still

more clearly in his hostility towards the Christians. … He

turned to Diocletian. The elder Emperor was in the mood to

hear his vindictive son-in-law. Already had Diocletian

fulminated his edicts against the Christians. Once it was

because his priests declared them to be denounced in an oracle

from Apollo, as opposing the worship of that deity. At another

time, it was because his soothsayers complained of the

presence of his Christian attendants as interfering with the

omens on which the Heathen depended. Diocletian was

superstitious. But he yielded less to his superstition as a

man than to his imperiousness as a sovereign, when he ordered

that all employed in the imperial service should take part in

the public sacrifices under pain of scourging and dismissal. …

At this crisis he was accosted by Galerius. Imperious as he

was, Diocletian was still circumspect. … Galerius urged

instant suppression. 'The world,' replied his father-in-law,

'will be thrown into confusion, if we attack the Christians.'

But Galerius insisted. Not all the caution of the elder

Emperor was proof against the passions thus excited by his

son-in-law. The wives of Diocletian and Galerius, both said to

have been Christians, interceded in vain. Without consulting

the other sovereigns, it was determined between Diocletian and

Galerius to sound the alarum of persecution throughout their

realms. Never had persecution begun more fearfully. Without a

note of warning, the Christians of Nicomedia were startled,

one morning, by the sack and demolition of their church. … Not

until the next day, however, was there any formal declaration

of hostilities. An edict then appeared commanding instant and

terrible proceedings against the Christians. Their churches

were to be razed. Their Scriptures were to be destroyed. They

themselves were to be deprived of their estates and offices. …

Some days or weeks, crowded with resistance as well as

suffering, went by. Suddenly a fire broke out in the palace at

Nicomedia. It was of course laid at the charge of the

Christians. … Some movements occurring in the eastern

provinces were also ascribed to Christian machinations. … The

Empresses, suspected of sharing the faith of the sufferers,

were compelled to offer public sacrifice. Fiercer assaults

ensued. A second edict from the palace ordered the arrest of

the Christian priests. A third commanded that the prisoners

should be forced to sacrifice according to the Heathen ritual

under pain of torture. When the dungeons were filled, and the

racks within them were busy with their horrid work, a fourth

edict, more searching and more pitiless than any, was

published. By this the proper officers were directed to arrest

every Christian whom they could discover, and bring him to one

of the Heathen temples. … Letters were despatched to demand

the co-operation of the Emperor Maximian and the Cæsar

Constantius. The latter, it is said, refused; yet there were

no limits that could be set to the persecution by any one of

the sovereigns. … None suffered more than the Christians in

Britain. … The intensity of the persecution was in no degree

diminished by the extent over which it spread. … Some were

thrown into dungeons to renounce their faith or to die amidst

the agonies of which they had no fear. Long trains of those

who survived imprisonment were sent across the country or

beyond the sea to labour like brutes in the public mines. In

many cities the streets must have been literally blocked up

with the stakes and scaffolds where death was dealt alike to

men and women and little children. It mattered nothing of what

rank the victims were. The poorest slave and the first officer

of the imperial treasury were massacred with equal savageness.

… The memory of man embraces no such strife, if that can be

called a strife in which there was but one side armed, but one

side slain."

S. Eliot,

History of the Early Christians,

book 3, chapter 10 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

A. Carr,

The Church and the Roman Empire,

chapter 2.

G. Uhlhorn,

The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,

book 3, chapter 1.

ROME: A. D. 305-323.

The wars of Constantine and his rivals.

His triumph.

His reunion of the Empire.

On the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, Constantius and

Galerius, who had previously held the subordinate rank of

Cæsars, succeeded to the superior throne, as Augusti. A nephew

of Galerius, named Maximin, and one Severus, who was his

favorite, were then appointed Cæsars, to the exclusion of

Constantine, son of Constantius, and Maxentius, son of

Maximian, who might have naturally expected the elevation.

Little more than a year afterwards, Constantius died, in

Britain, and Constantine was proclaimed Augustus and Emperor,

in his place, by the armies of the West. Galerius had not

courage to oppose this military election, except so far as to

withhold from Constantine the supreme rank of Augustus, which

he conferred on his creature, Severus. Constantine acquiesced,

for the moment, and contented himself with the name of Cæsar,

while events and his own prudence were preparing for him a far

greater elevation. In October, 306, there was a successful

rising at Rome against Severus, Maxentius was raised to the

throne by the voice of the feeble senate and the people, and

his father, Maximian, the abdicated monarch, came out of his

retirement to resume the purple, in association at first, but

afterwards in rivalry with his son. Severus was besieged at

Ravenna and, having surrendered, was condemned to death.

Galerius undertook to avenge his death by invading Italy, but

retreated ignominiously. Thereupon he invested his friend

Licinius with the emblems and the rank of the deceased

Severus. The Roman world had then six emperors—each claiming

the great title of "Augustus": Galerius, Licinius, and Maximin

in the East (including Africa), making common cause against

Maximian, Maxentius and Constantine in the West. The first, in

these combinations, to fall out, were the father and son,

Maximian and Maxentius, both claiming authority in Italy. The

old emperor appealed to his former army and it declared

against him.

{2720}

He fled, taking shelter, first, with his enemy Galerius, but

soon repairing to the court of Constantine, who had married

his daughter Fausta. A little later, the dissatisfied and

restless old man conspired to dethrone his son-in-law and was

put to death. The next year (May, A. D. 311) Galerius died at

Nicomedia, and his dominions were divided between Licinius and

Maximin. The combinations were now changed, and Constantine

and Licinius entered into an alliance against Maxentius and

Maximin. Rome and Italy had wearied by this time of Maxentius,

who was both vicious and tyrannical, and invited Constantine

to deliver them. He responded by a bold invasion of Italy,

with a small army of but 40,000 men; defeated the greater army

of Maxentius at Turin; occupied the imperial city of Milan;

took Verona, after a siege and a desperate battle fought

outside its walls, and finished his antagonist in a third

encounter (October 28, A. D. 312), at Saxa Rubra, within nine

miles of Rome. Maxentius perished in the flight from this

decisive field and Constantine possessed his dominions. In the

next year, Maximin, rashly venturing to attack Licinius, was

defeated near Heraclea, on the Propontis, and died soon

afterwards. The six emperors of the year 308 were now (A. D.

313) reduced to two, and the friendship between them was

ostentatious. But it endured little longer than a single year.

Licinius was accused of conspiring against Constantine, and

the latter declared war. The first battle was fought near

Cibalis, in Pannonia, the second on the plain of Mardia, in

Thrace, and Constantine was the victor in both. Licinius sued

for peace and obtained it (December, A. D. 315) by the cession

of all his dominion in Europe, except Thrace. For eight years,

Constantine was contented with the great empire he then

possessed. In 323 he determined to grasp the entire Roman

world. Licinius opposed him with a vigor unexpected and the

war was prepared for on a mighty scale. It was practically

decided by the first great battle, at Hadrianople, on the 3d

of July, 323. Licinius, defeated, took refuge in Byzantium,

which Constantine besieged. Escaping from Byzantium into Asia,

Licinius fought once more at Chrysopolis and then yielded to

his fate. He died soon after. The Roman empire was again

united and Constantine was its single lord.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 14.

ALSO IN:

E. L. Cutts,

Constantine the Great,

chapters 7-22.

ROME: A. D. 306.

Constantine's defeat of the Franks.

See FRANKS: A. D. 306.

ROME: A. D. 313.

Constantine's Edict of Milan.

Declared toleration of Christianity.

After the extension of the sovereignty of Constantine over the

Italian provinces as well as Gaul and the West, he went, in

January, A. D. 313, to Milan, and there held a conference with

Licinius, his eastern colleague in the empire. One of the

results of that conference was the famous Edict of Milan,

which recognized Christianity and admitted it to a footing of

equal toleration with the paganisms of the empire—in terms as

follows: "Wherefore, as I, Constantine Augustus, and I,

Licinius Augustus, came under favourable auspices to Milan,

and took under consideration all affairs that pertained to the

public benefit and welfare, these things among the rest

appeared to us to be most advantageous and profitable to all.

We have resolved among the first things to ordain, those

matters by which reverence and worship to the Deity might be

exhibited. That is, how we may grant likewise to the

Christians, and to all, the free choice to follow that mode of

worship which they may wish. That whatsoever divinity and

celestial power may exist may be propitious to us, and to all

that live under our government. Therefore, we have decreed the

following ordinance as our will, with a salutary and most

correct intention, that no freedom at all shall be refused to

Christians, to follow or to keep their observances or worship.

But that to each one power be granted to devote his mind to

that worship which he may think adapted to himself. That the

Deity may in all things exhibit to us His accustomed favour

and kindness. … And this we further decree, with respect to

the Christians, that the places in which they were formerly

accustomed to assemble, concerning which also we formerly

wrote to your fidelity, in a different form, that if any

persons have purchased these, either from our treasurer, or

from any other one, these shall restore them to the

Christians, without money and without demanding any price. …

They who as we have said restore them without valuation and

price may expect their indemnity from our munificence and

liberality."

Eusebius,

Ecclesiastical History,

book 10, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

P. Schaff,

Progress of Religious Freedom,

chapter 2.

ROME: A. D. 318-325.

The Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicæa.

See ARIANISM;

and NICÆA: A. D. 325.

ROME: A. D. 323.

The conversion of Constantine.

His Christianity.

His character.

"The alleged supernatural conversion of Constantine has

afforded a subject of doubt and debate from that age to the

present. Up to the date of his war against Maxentius, the

Emperor believed, like his father, in one god, whom he

represented to himself, not with the attributes of Jupiter,

best and greatest, father of gods and men, but under the form

of Apollo, with the attributes of the glorified youth of

manhood, the god of light and life. … His conversion to

Christianity took place at the period of the war with

Maxentius. The chief contemporary authorities on the subject

are Lactantius and Eusebius. Lactantius, an African by birth,

was a rhetorician (or, as we should call him, professor) at

Nicomedia, of such eminence that Constantine entrusted to him

the education of his eldest son, Crispus. Writing before the

death of Licinius, i. e. before the year 314 A. D., or within

two, or at most three, years of the event, Lactantius says,

'Constantine was admonished in his sleep to mark the celestial

sign of God on the shields, and so to engage in the battle. He

did as he was commanded and marked the name of Christ on the

shields by the letter X drawn across them, with the top

circumflexed. Armed with this sign his troops proceed,' etc.

Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, the historian of the early

Church, the most learned Christian of his time, was, after

Constantine's conquest of the East, much about the court, in

the confidence of the Emperor, and one of his chief advisers

in ecclesiastical matters. In his 'Life of Constantine',

published twenty-six years after the Emperor's death, he gives

us an interesting account of the moral process of the

Emperor's conversion.

{2721}

Reflecting on the approaching contest with Maxentius, and

hearing of the extraordinary rites by which he was

endeavouring to win the favour of the gods, 'being convinced

that he needed some more powerful aid than his military forces

could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical

enchantments which were so diligently practised by the tyrant,

he began to seek for divine assistance. … And while he was

thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvellous sign

appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might

have been difficult to receive with credit, had it been

related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor

himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this

history, when he was honoured with his acquaintance and

society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could

hesitate to credit the relation, especially since the

testimony of after time has established its truth? He said

that at mid-day, when the sun was beginning to decline, he

saw, with his own eyes, the trophy of a cross of light in the

heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, "Conquer

by this." At this sight he himself was struck with amazement,

and his whole army also, which happened to be following him on

some expedition, and witnessed the miracle. He said, moreover,

that he doubted within himself what the import of this

apparition could be. And while he continued to ponder and

reason on its meaning, night imperceptibly drew on; and in his

sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign

which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to procure

a standard made in the likeness of that sign, and to use it as

a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.'" The

standard which is said to have had this origin was the famous

Labarum.

E. L. Cutts,

Constantine the Great,

chapter 11.

"He [Constantine] was not lacking in susceptibility to certain

religious impressions; he acknowledged the peculiar providence

of God in the manner in which he had been delivered from

dangers, made victorious over all his pagan adversaries, and

finally rendered master of the Roman world. It flattered his

vanity to be considered the favourite of God, and his destined

instrument to destroy the empire of the evil spirits (the

heathen deities). The Christians belonging to court were

certainly not wanting on their part to confirm him in this

persuasion. … Constantine must indeed have been conscious that

he was striving not so much for the cause of God as for the

gratification of his own ambition and love of power; and that

such acts of perfidy, mean revenge, or despotic jealousy, as

occurred in his political course, did not well befit an

instrument and servant of God, such as he claimed to be

considered. … Even Eusebius, one of the best among the bishops

at his court, is so dazzled by what the emperor had achieved

for the outward extension and splendour of the church, as to

be capable of tracing to the purest motives of a servant of

God all the acts which a love of power that would not brook a

rival had, at the expense of truth and humanity, put into the

heart of the emperor in the war against Licinius. … Bishops in

immediate attendance on the emperor so far forgot indeed to

what master they belonged, that, at the celebration of the

third decennium of his reign (the tricennalia), one of them

congratulated him as constituted by God the ruler over all in

the present world, and destined to reign with the Son of God

in the world to come, The feelings of Constantine himself were

shocked at such a parallel."

A. Neander,

General History of the Christian Religion and Church,

period 2, section. 1, A.

"As he approached the East, he [Constantine] adopted oriental

manners; he affected the gorgeous purple of the monarchs of

Persia; he decorated his head with false hair of different

colours, and with a diadem covered with pearls and gems. He

substituted flowing silken robes, embroidered with flowers,

for the austere garb of Rome, or the unadorned purple of the

first Roman emperors. He filled his palace with eunuchs, and

lent an ear to their perfidious calumnies; he became the

instrument of their base intrigues, their cupidity, and their

jealousy. He multiplied spies, and subjected the palace and

the empire, alike, to a suspicious police. He lavished the

wealth of Rome on the sterile pomp of stately buildings. … He

poured out the best and noblest blood in torrents, more

especially of those nearly connected with himself. The most

illustrious victim of his tyranny was Crispus, his son by his

first wife, whom he had made the partner of his empire, and

the commander of his armies. … In a palace which he had made a

desert, the murderer of his father-in-law, his

brothers-in-law, his sister, his wife, his son, and his

nephew, must have felt the stings of remorse, if hypocritical

priests and courtier bishops had not lulled his conscience to

rest. We still possess the panegyric in which they represent

him as a favourite of Heaven, a saint worthy of our highest

veneration; we have also several laws by which Constantine

atoned for all his crimes, in the eyes of the priests, by

heaping boundless favours on the church. The gifts he bestowed

on it, the immunities he granted to persons and to property

connected with it, soon directed ambition entirely to

ecclesiastical dignities. The men who had so lately been

candidates for the honours of martyrdom, now found themselves

depositaries of the greatest wealth and the highest power. How

was it possible that their characters should not undergo a

total change?"

J. C. L. de Sismondi,

History of the Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 4 (volume 1).

See, also,

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 312-337.

ROME: A. D. 330.

Transference of the capital of the Empire to

Byzantium (Constantinople).

See CONSTANTINOPLE A. D. 330.

ROME: A. D. 337-361.

Redivision of the Empire.

Civil wars between the sons of Constantine

and their successors.

Elevation of Julian to the throne.

Before the death of Constantine, "his three sons, Constantine,

Constantius, and Constans, had already been successively

raised to the rank of Cæsar about the tenth, twentieth, and

thirtieth years of his reign. The royal family contained also

two other young princes, sons of Dalmatius, one of the

half-brothers of Constantine; the elder of these nephews of

the Emperor was called Dalmatius, after his father, the other

Hanniballianus. … Constantine shared—not the Empire, but—the

imperial power among his three sons. The eldest, Constantine,

was to hold the first rank among the three Augusti, and to

take the western Gallic provinces under his especial

administration; Constantius was to take the east, viz., Asia,

Syria, and Egypt; Constans was to take the central portion of

the Empire, Italy, Africa, and Western Illyricum."

E. L. Cutts,

Constantine the Great,

chapter 33.

{2722}

The father of these three princes was no sooner dead (A. D.

337) than they made haste to rid themselves of all the

possible rivals in a family which seemed too numerous for

peace. Two uncles and seven cousins—including Dalmatius and

Hannibalianus—with other connections by marriage and

otherwise, were quickly put out of the way under one and

another pretence and with more or less mockery of legal forms.

The three brothers then divided the provinces between them on

much the same plan as before; but Constantine, the eldest, now

reigned in the new capital of his father, which bore his name.

There was peace between them for three years. It was broken by

Constantine, who demanded the surrender to him of a part of

the dominions of Constans. War ensued and Constantine was

killed in one of the earliest engagements of it. Constans took

possession of his dominions, refusing any share of them to

Constantius, and reigned ten years longer, when he was

destroyed, A. D. 350, by a conspiracy in Gaul, which raised to

his throne one Magnentius, a soldier of barbarian extraction.

Magnentius was acknowledged in Gaul and Italy; but the troops

in Illyricum invested their own general, Vetranio, with the

purple. Constantius, in the East, now roused himself to oppose

these rebellions, and did so with success. Vetranio, an aged

man, was intimidated by artful measures and driven to

surrender his unfamiliar crown. Magnentius advanced boldly to

meet an enemy whom he despised, and was defeated in a great

battle fought September 21, A. D. 351, at Mursa (Essek, in

modern Hungary, on the Drave). Retreating to Italy, and from

Italy to Gaul, he maintained the war for another year, but

slew himself finally in despair and the empire had a single

ruler, once more. The sole emperor, Constantius, now found his

burden of power too great, and sought to share it. Two young

nephews had been permitted to live, when the massacre of the

house of Constantine occurred, and he turned to these. He

raised the elder, Gallus, to the rank of Cæsar, and gave him

the government of the præfecture of the East. But Gallus

conducted himself like a Nero and was disgraced and executed

in little more than three years. The younger nephew, Julian,

escaped his brother's fate by great prudence of behavior and

by the friendship of the Empress Eusebia. In 355, he, in turn,

was made Cæsar and sent into Gaul. Distinguishing himself

there in several campaigns against the Germans (see GAUL: A.

D. 355-361), he provoked the jealousy of Constantius and of

the eunuchs who ruled the imperial court. To strip him of

troops, four Gallic legions were ordered to the East, for the

Persian war. They rose in revolt, at Paris, proclaimed Julian

emperor and forced him to assume the dangerous title. He

promptly sent an embassy to Constantius asking the recognition

and confirmation of this procedure; but his overtures were

rejected with disdain. He then declared war, and conducted an

extraordinary expedition into Illyricum, through the Black

Forest and down the Danube, occupying Sirmium and seizing the

Balkan passes before he was known to have left Gaul. But the

civil war so vigorously opened was suddenly arrested at this

stage by the death of Constantius (A. D. 361), and Julian

became sole emperor without more dispute. He renounced

Christianity and is known in history as Julian the Apostate.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapters 18-22.

ROME: A. D. 338-359.

Wars of Constantius with the Persians.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ROME: A. D. 350-361.

Extensive abandonment of Gaul to the Germans.

Its recovery by Julian.

See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

ROME: A. D. 361-363.

Julian and the Pagan revival.

"Heathenism still possessed a latent power greater than those

supposed who persuaded the Emperors that now it could be

easily extirpated. The state of affairs in the West differed

from that in the East. In the West it was principally the

Roman aristocracy, who with few exceptions still adhered to

their ancient religion, and with them the great mass of the

people. In the East, on the contrary, Christianity had made

much more progress among the masses, and a real aristocracy

could scarcely be said to exist. In its stead there was an

aristocracy of learning, whose hostility was far more

dangerous to Christianity than the aversion of the Roman

nobility. The youth still thronged to the ancient and

illustrious schools of Miletus, Ephesus, Nicomedia, Antioch,

and above all Athens, and the teachers in these schools were

almost without exception heathen. … There the ancient heathen

spirit was imbibed, and with it a contempt for barbarian

Christianity. The doctrinal strife in the Christian Church was

held up to ridicule, and, alas! with too much reason. For,

according to the Emperor's favor and caprice, one doctrine

stood for orthodoxy to-day and another to-morrow. To-day it

was decreed that Christ was of the same essence with the

Father, and all who refused to acknowledge this were deposed

and exiled. Tomorrow the court theology had swung round, it

was decreed that Christ was a created being, and now it was

the turn of the other party to go into banishment. The

educated heathen thought themselves elevated far above all

this in their classic culture. With what secret anger they

beheld the way in which the temples were laid waste, the works

of art broken to pieces, the memorials of an age of greatness

destroyed, and all in favor of a barbarian religion destitute

of culture. The old rude forms of Heathenism, indeed, they

themselves did not desire, but the refined Heathenism of the

Neoplatonic school seemed to them not merely the equal but the

superior of Christianity. … These were the sources of the

re-action against Christianity. Their spirit was embodied in

Julian. In him it ascended for the last time the imperial

throne, and made the final attempt to stop the triumphal

progress of Christianity. But it succeeded only in giving to

the world irresistible evidence that the sceptre of the spirit

of Antiquity was forever broken. … What influenced Julian was

chiefly enthusiasm for Greek culture. Even in a religious

aspect Polytheism seemed to him superior to Monotheism,

because more philosophic. Neoplatonism filled the whole soul

of the young enthusiast, and seemed to him to comprehend all

the culture of the ancient world in a unified system. But of

course his vanity had a great share in the matter, for he

naturally received the most devoted homage among the

Hellenists, and his rhetorical friends did not stint their

flattery. … He made his entry … [into Constantinople) as a

declared heathen. Although at the beginning of his campaign he

had secretly sacrificed to Bellona, yet he had attended the

church in Vienne.

{2723}

But on the march he put an end to all ambiguity, and publicly

offered sacrifices to the ancient gods. The Roman Empire once

more had a heathen Emperor. At first all was joy; for as

universally as Constantius was hated, Julian was welcomed as a

deliverer. Even the Christians joined in this rejoicing. They

too had found the arbitrary government of the last few years

hard enough to bear. And if some who looked deeper began to

feel anxiety, they consoled themselves by the reflection that

even a heathen Emperor could not injure the Church so much as

a Christian Emperor who used his power in promoting whatever

seemed to him at the time to be orthodoxy in the dogmatic

controversies of the age. And Julian proclaimed, not the

suppression of Christianity, but only complete religious

liberty. He himself intended to be a heathen, but no Christian

should be disturbed in his faith. Julian was certainly

thoroughly in earnest in this. To be a persecutor of the

Church, was the last thing he would have thought of. Besides,

he was much too fully persuaded of the untruth of Christianity

and the truth of Heathenism to persecute. Julian was an

enthusiast, like all the rhetoricians and philosophers who

surrounded him. He regarded himself as called by a divine

voice to the great work of restoring Heathenism, and this was

from the beginning avowedly his object. And he was no less

firmly convinced that this restoration would work itself out

without any use of force; as soon as free scope was given to

Heathenism it would, by its own powers, overcome Christianity.

… The Emperor himself was evidently in all respects a heathen

from sincere conviction. In this regard at least he was honest

and no hypocrite. The flagrant voluptuousness, which had

corrupted the court, was banished, and a large number of

useless officials dismissed. The life of the court was to be

simple, austere, and pure. Men had never before seen an

Emperor who conducted himself with such simplicity, whose

table was so economically supplied, and who knew no other

employments than hard work, and devoted worship of the gods. A

temple was built in the palace, and there Julian offered a

daily sacrifice. Often he might be seen serving at the

sacrifice himself, carrying the wood and plunging the knife

into the victim with his own hand. He remembered every

festival which should be celebrated, and knew how to observe

the whole half-forgotten ritual most punctiliously. He was

equally zealous in performing the duties of his office as

Pontifex Maximus. Everywhere he revived the ancient worship

which had fallen into neglect. Here a closed temple was

re-opened, there a ruined shrine restored, images of the gods

were set up again, and festivals which had ceased to be

celebrated, were restored. … Soon conversions became

plentiful; governors, officials, soldiers, made themselves

proficient in the ancient cultus; and even a bishop, Pegasius

of New Ilium, whom Julian had previously learned to know as a

secret friend of the gods, when he had heen the Emperor's

guide to the classic sites of Troy, changed his religion, and

from a Christian bishop became a heathen high-priest. … The

dream of a restoration of Heathenism nevertheless soon began

to prove itself a dream. Though now surrounded by heathen

only, Julian could not help feeling that he was really

isolated in their midst. He himself was naturally a mystic,

and lived in his ideals. His Heathenism was one purified by

poetic feeling. But there was little or nothing of this to be

found actually existing. His heathen friends were courtiers,

who agreed with him without inward conviction. … He was far

too serious and severely moral for their tastes. They

preferred the theatre to the temple, they liked amusement

best, and found the daily attendance at worship and the

monotonous ceremonies and sacrifices very dull. A measurably

tolerant Christian Emperor would doubtless have suited them

better than this enthusiastically pious heathen. Blinded as

Julian was by his ideal views, he soon could not escape the

knowledge that things were not going well. If Heathenism was

to revive, it must receive new life within. The restoration

must be also a reformation. Strangely enough Julian felt

compelled to borrow from Christianity the ways and means for

such a reformation. The heathen priests, like the Christian,

were to instruct the people, and exhort them to holy living.

The heathen, like the Christians, were to care for the poor. …

While new strength was thus to be infused into Heathenism,

other measures were adopted to weaken Christianity. An

imperial edict, June 17, A. D. 362, forbade the Christians to

act as teachers of the national literature, the ancient

classics. It was, the Emperor explained, a contradiction for

Christians to expound Homer, Thucydides, or Demosthenes, when

they regarded them as godless men and aliens. He would not

compel them to change their convictions, but also he could not

permit the ancient writers to be expounded by those who took

them to task for impiety. … This, of course, was not a

persecution, if the use of force alone makes a persecution,

yet it was a persecution, and in a sense a worse one than any

which went before. Julian tried to deprive the Christians of

that which should be common to all men,—education. …

Nevertheless he had to confess to himself that the restoration

of Heathenism was making no progress worth speaking of. … He

spent his whole strength, he sacrificed himself, he lived only

for the Empire over which Providence had made him lord, and

yet found himself alone in his endeavor. Even his heathen

friends, the philosophers and rhetoricians, kept at a

distance. … With such thoughts as these, Julian journeyed to

Antioch, in Syria, in order to make preparations there for the

great campaign he purposed to make against the Persians. There

new disappointments awaited him. He found the shrines of his

gods forsaken and desolate. … The temple of Apollo was

restored with the greatest splendor. Julian went there to

offer a sacrifice to the god. He expected to find a multitude

of worshippers, but no one even brought oil for a lamp or

incense to burn in honor of the deity. Only an old man

approached to sacrifice a goose. … Shortly afterwards, the

newly restored temple burned down in the night. Now the

Emperor's wrath knew no bounds. He ascribed the guilt to the

Christians; and although the temple, as is probable, caught

fire through the fault of a heathen philosopher, who carried a

dedicatory lamp about in it without due precautions, many

Christians were arrested and tortured. The Church had its

martyrs once more; and Julian, discontented with himself and

the whole world besides, advanced to new measures.

{2724}

The cathedral of Antioch was closed and its property

confiscated. Julian decreed that the Christians, whose God had

forbidden them to kill, should not be intrusted with any

office with which judicial functions were connected. … Julian

himself became more and more restless. He hurried from temple

to temple, brought sacrifice after sacrifice; he knelt for

hours before his gods and covered their statues with kisses.

Then at night he sat in the silence at his writing-table, and

gave vent to his bitterness and disgust with every thing. Then

he wrote his works full of brilliant wit, thought out and

expressed with Greek refinement, but full of bitterest hatred

especially against the Galileans and their Carpenter's Son. …

Finally, his immense preparations for the campaign against the

Persians were finished. Julian started, after finally setting

over the Antiochians a wretch as governor, with the remark

that the man did not deserve to be a governor, but they

deserved to be governed by such a one."

G. Uhlhorn,

The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,

book 3, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

G. H. Rendall.

Julian the Emperor.

B. L. Gildersleeve,

The Emperor Julian

(Essays and Studies, pages 355-400).

Gregory Nazianzen,

Invectives against Julian, and Libanius,

Funeral Oration upon Julian,

translated by C. W. King.

ROME: A. D. 363.

The Persian expedition of Julian.

His death.

Jovian made Emperor by the retreating army.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ROME: A. D. 363-379.

Christianity reascendant.

Secret hostility of Paganism.

Reign of Valentinian and Valens.

Approach of the Huns.

The struggle with the Goths.

Elevation of Theodosius to the throne.

When Julian's successor, Jovian, "who did not reign long

enough to lead back to Constantinople the army which he had

marched from the banks of the Tigris, made public profession

of Christianity, he, at the same time, displaced a great

number of brave officers and able functionaries, whom Julian

had promoted in proportion to their zeal for paganism. From

that period, up to the fall of the empire, a hostile sect,

which regarded itself as unjustly stripped of its ancient

honours, invoked the vengeance of the gods on the heads of the

government, exulted in the public calamities, and probably

hastened them by its intrigues, though inextricably involved

in the common ruin. The pagan faith, which was not attached to

a body of doctrine, nor supported by a corporation of priests,

nor heightened by the fervour of novelty, scarcely ever

displayed itself in open revolt, or dared the perils of

martyrdom; but pagans still occupied the foremost rank in

letters:—the orators, the philosophers (or, as they were

otherwise called, sophists), the historians, belonged, almost

without an exception, to the ancient religion. It still kept

possession of the most illustrious schools, especially those

of Athens and Alexandria; the majority of the Roman senate

were still attached to it; and in the breasts of the common

people, particularly the rural population, it maintained its

power for several centuries, branded, however, with the name

of magic. … Less than eight months after his elevation to the

throne, on the 17th of February, 364, Jovian died in a small

town of Galatia. After the expiration of ten days, the army

which he was leading home from Persia, at a solemn assembly

held at Nice, in Bithynia, chose as his successor the son of a

captain from a little village of Pannonia, the count

Valentinian, whom his valour and bodily prowess had raised to

one of the highest posts of the army. … Spite of his savage

rudeness, and the furious violence of his temper, the Roman

empire found in him an able chief at the moment of its

greatest need. Unhappily, the extent of the empire required,

at least, two rulers. The army felt this, and demanded a

second. … Valentinian … chose his brother. Valens, with whom

he shared his power, had the weak, timid, and cruel character

which ordinarily distinguishes cowards. Valentinian, born in

the West, … reserved the government of it to himself. He ceded

to his brother a part of Illyricum on the Danube, and the

whole of the East. He established universal toleration by law,

and took no part in the sectarian controversies which divided

Christendom. Valens adopted the Arian faith, and persecuted

the orthodox party. The finances of the empire demanded a

reform, which neither of the emperors was in a condition to

undertake. They wanted money, and they were ignorant where to

seek the long exhausted sources of public wealth. … Vast

provinces in the interior were deserted; enlistments daily

became more scanty and difficult; the magistrates of the

'curiæ' or municipalities, who were responsible both for the

contributions and the levies of their respective towns, sought

by a thousand subterfuges to escape the perilous honour of the

magistrature. …

See CURIA, MUNICIPAL, OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE.

During the twelve years that Valentinian reigned over the West

(A. D. 364-376), he redeemed his cruelties by several

brilliant victories. …

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 365-367.

Valentinian had undertaken the defence of Gaul in person, and

generally resided at Treves, then the capital of that vast

prefecture; but at the time he was thus occupied, invasions

not less formidable had devastated the other provinces of the

West. …

See BRITAIN. A. D. 367-370.

At this period Valens reigned over the Greeks, whose language

he did not understand (A. D. 364-378). His eastern frontier

was menaced by the Persians, his northern by the Goths. …

Armenia and Iberia became subject to Persia; but as the people

of both these countries were Christian, they remained faithful

to the interests of Rome, though conquered by her enemy. … The

dominion of the Goths extended along the shores of the Danube

and the Black Sea, and thirty years had elapsed since they had

made any incursion into the Roman territory. But during that

period they had gone on increasing in greatness and in power.

… Spite of the formidable neighbourhood of the Goths and the

Persians—spite of the cowardice and the incapacity of

Valens—the East had remained at peace, protected by the mere

name of Valentinian, whose military talents, promptitude, and

severity were known to all the barbarian tribes. But the

career of this remarkable man, so dreaded by his enemies and

by his subjects, had now reached its term." He died in a fit

of rage, from the bursting of a blood-vessel in his chest,

November 17, A. D. 375. "His two sons,—Gratian, who was

scarcely come to manhood, and Valentinian, still a

child,—shared the West between them. …

{2725}

Never, however, was the empire in greater need of an able and

vigorous head. The entire nation of the Huns, abandoning to

the Sienpi its ancient pastures bordering on China, had

traversed the whole north of Asia by a march of 1,300

leagues." The Goths, overwhelmed and flying before them,

begged permission to cross the Danube and take refuge in Mœsia

and Thrace. They were permitted to do so; but such extortions

and outrages were practiced on them, at the same time, that

they were exasperated to a passionate hatred. This bore fruit

in a general rising in 377. Two years of war ensued, marked by

two great battles, that of Ad Salices, or The Willows, which

neither side could fully claim, and that of Adrianople, August

9, 378, in which Valens perished, and more than 60,000 of his

soldiers fell.

See GOTHS: A. D. 376, and 378.

"The forces of the East were nearly annihilated at the

terrible battle of Adrianople. … The Goths … advanced,

ravaging all around them, to the foot of the walls of

Constantinople; and, after some unimportant skirmishes,

returned westward through Macedonia, Epirus, and Dalmatia.

From the Danube to the Adriatic, their passage was marked by

conflagration and blood. … No general in the East attempted to

take advantage of the anarchy in favour of his own ambition;

no army offered the purple to its chief; all dreaded the

responsibility of command at so tremendous a crisis. All eyes

were turned on the court of Treves, the only point whence help

was hoped for. But Gratian, eldest son of Valentinian, and

emperor of the West, was only 19. He … marched upon Illyricum

with his army, when he learned the event of the battle of

Adrianople, and the death of Valens, who had been so eager to

secure the undivided honours of victory, that he would not

wait for his arrival. Incapable of confronting such a tempest,

he retreated to Sirmium. The news of an invasion of the

Allemans into Gaul recalled him to the defence of his own

territory. Danger started up on every hand at once. The empire

stood in need of a new chief, and one of approved valour.

Gratian had the singular generosity to choose from among his

enemies, and from a sense of merit alone. Theodosius, the

Spaniard, his father's general, who had successively

vanquished the Scots and afterwards the Moors, and who had

been unjustly condemned to the scaffold at the beginning of

Gratian's reign, had left a son 33 years of age, who bore his

name. The younger Theodosius had distinguished himself in the

command he held in Mœsia, but was living in retirement and

disgrace on his estates in Spain, when, with, the confidence

of a noble mind, Gratian chose him out, presented him to the

army on the 19th of January, 379, and declared him his

colleague, and emperor of the East."

J. C. L. de Sismondi,

The Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 5 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

introduction, and book 1, chapter 1.

ROME: A. D. 378.

Gratian's overthrow of the Alemanni in Gaul.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.

ROME: A. D. 379-395.

Theodosius and the Goths.

His Trinitarian Edict.

Revolt of Maximus.

Death of Gratian.

Overthrow of Maximus by Theodosius.

Usurpation of Eugenius, and his fall.

Death of Theodosius.

"The first duty that Theodosius had to undertake was to

restore the self-confidence and trust in victory of the Roman

army, terribly shaken as these qualities had been by the

disastrous rout of Hadrianople. This he accomplished by waging

a successful guerilla war with the Gothic marauders. Valens

had played into the hands of the barbarians by risking

everything on one great pitched battle. Theodosius adopted the

very opposite policy. He outmanoeuvred the isolated and

straggling bands of the Goths, defeated them in one skirmish

after another that did not deserve the name of a battle, and

thus restored the courage and confidence of the Imperial

troops. By the end of 379 he seems to have succeeded in

clearing the territory south of the Balkan range of the

harassing swarms of the barbarians. In February, 380, he fell

sick at Thessalonica (which was his chief basis of operations

throughout this period), and this sickness, from which he did

not fully recover for some months, was productive of two

important results, (1) his baptism as a Trinitarian Christian,

(2) a renewal of the war against fresh swarms of barbarians.

(1) Theodosius appears up to this point of his career not to

have definitively ranged himself on either side of the great

Arian controversy, though he had a hereditary inclination

towards the Creed of Nicaea. Like his father, however, he had

postponed baptism in accordance with the prevalent usage of

his day: but now upon a bed of sickness which seemed likely to

be one of death, he delayed no longer, but received the rite

at the hands of Ascholius, the Catholic Bishop of

Thessalonica. Before he was able to resume his post at the

head of the legions, he published his celebrated Edict: 'To

the people of Constantinople.—We desire that all the nations

who are governed by the rule of our Clemency shall practise

that religion which the Apostle Peter himself delivered to the

Romans, and which it is manifest that the pontiff Damasus, and

Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of Apostolic sanctity, do

now follow: that according to the discipline of the Apostles

and the teaching of the Evangelists they believe in the one

Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in equal Majesty, and

in the holy Trinity. We order all who follow this law to

assume the name of Catholic Christians, decreeing that all

others, being mad and foolish persons, shall bear the infamy

of their heretical dogmas, and that their Conventicles shall

not receive the name of Churches: to be punished first by

Divine vengeance, and afterwards by that exertion of our power

to chastise which we have received from the decree of heaven.'

Thus then at length the Caesar of the East was ranged on the

side of Trinitarian orthodoxy. Constantine in the latter part

of his reign, Constantius, Valens, had all been Arians or

semi-Arians, some of them bitter in their heterodoxy. Julian

had been a worshipper of the gods of Olympus. Thus for nearly

two generations the influence of the Court of Constantinople

had been thrown into the scale against the teaching of

Athanasius, which was generally accepted throughout the

Western realm. Now by the accession of Theodosius to the

Trinitarian side, religious unity was restored to the Empire:

but at the same time a chasm, an impassable chasm, was opened

between the Empire itself and its new Teutonic guests, nearly

all of whom held fast to the Arian teaching of their great

Apostle Ulfilas. (2) The other consequence of the sickness of

Theodosius was, as I have said, a fresh incursion of barbarian

hordes, swarming across the Danube and climbing all the high

passes of the Balkans.

{2726}

The work of clearing the country of these marauders had to be

all done over again. … At length, in the closing months of

380, the provinces south of the Balkans (Macedonia and Thrace)

were once more cleared of their barbarian intruders. Peace, in

which Gratian concurred, was concluded with the Goths who

still doubtless abounded in Moesia. …

See GOTHS: A. D. 379-382.

The insurrection at Antioch [A. D. 387] displayed the

character of Theodosius in a favourable light, as a strong but

merciful and magnanimous ruler of men. Very different was the

effect on his fame of the insurrection which broke out three

years later (390) in the Macedonian city of Thessalonica. …

See THESSALONICA: A. D. 390.

In the year 383 a military revolt broke out in Britain against

the young Emperor Gratian. … The army revolted and proclaimed

Magnus Clemens Maximus, Emperor. He was, like Theodosius, a

native of Spain, and though harsh and perhaps rapacious, a man

of ability and experience, not unworthy of the purple if he

had come to it by lawful means. Gratian on his side had

evidently given some real cause for dissatisfaction to his

subjects. … Hence it was that when Maximus with the army of

Britain landed in Gaul, he shook down the fabric of his power

without difficulty. Gratian, finding himself deserted by his

troops, escaped from the battle-field, but was overtaken and

killed at Lyons. For more than four years, Maximus, satisfied

with ruling over the three great Western provinces which had

fallen to the share of Gratian, maintained at any rate the

appearance of harmony with his two colleagues. … At length, in

the autumn of 387, Maximus deemed that the time had come for

grasping the whole Empire of the West. Lulling to sleep the

suspicions of Valentinian and his mother by embassies and

protestations of friendship, he crossed the Alps with an army

and marched towards Aquileia, where the young Emperor was then

dwelling in order to be as near as possible to the dominions

of his friendly colleague and protector. Valentinian did not

await the approach of his rival, but going down to the port of

Grado, took ship and sailed for Thessalonica, his mother and

sisters accompanying him. The Emperor and the Senate of

Constantinople met the Imperial fugitives at Thessalonica, and

discussed the present position of affairs. … What the

entreaties of the mother might have failed to effect, the

tears of the daughter [Galla] accomplished. Theodosius, whose

wife Flaccilla had died two years before (385), took Galla for

his second wife, and vowed to avenge her wrongs and replace

her brother on the throne. He was some time in preparing for

the campaign, but, when it was opened, he conducted it with

vigour and decision. His troops pressed up the Save valley,

defeated those of Maximus in two engagements, entered Aemona

(Laybach) in triumph, and soon stood before the walls of

Aquileia [July, 388], behind which Maximus was sheltering

himself. … A mutiny among the troops of Maximus did away with

the necessity for a siege," and the usurper, betrayed and

delivered to Theodosius, was speedily put to death. Theodosius

"handed over to Valentinian II. the whole of the Western

Empire, both his own especial share and that which had

formerly been held by his brother Gratian. The young Emperor

was now 17 years of age; his mother, Justina, had died

apparently on the eve of Theodosius's victory, and he

governed, or tried to govern alone." But one of his Frankish

generals, named Arbogast, gathered all the power of the

government into his hands, reduced Valentinian to helpless

insignificance, and finally, in May, 392, caused him to be

strangled. "The Frankish general, who durst not shock the

prejudices of the Roman world by himself assuming the purple,

hung that dishonoured robe upon the shoulders of a

rhetorician, a confidant, and almost a dependent of his own,

named Eugenius. This man, like most of the scholars and

rhetoricians of the day, had not abjured the old faith of

Hellas. As Arbogast also was a heathen, though worshipping

Teutonic rather than Olympian gods, this last revolution

looked like a recurrence to the days of Julian, and threatened

the hardly-won supremacy of Christianity." Again Theodosius

was summoned to the rescue of the West, and, after two years

of careful preparation, marched against Eugenius by the same

route that he had taken before. The two armies met at a place

"half-way between Aemona and Aquileia, where the Julian Alps

are crossed, and where a little stream called the Frigidus

(now the Wipbach) burst suddenly from a limestone hill." The

battle was won by Theodosius after a terrible struggle,

lasting two days (September 5-6, A. D. 394). Eugenius was

taken prisoner and put to death; Arbogast fell by his own

hand. "Theodosius, who was still in the prime of life, had now

indeed 'the rule of the world,' without a rival or a colleague

except his own boyish sons. … Had his life been prolonged, as

it well might have been for twenty or thirty years longer,

many things might have gone differently in the history of the

world. But, little more than four months after the victory of

the Frigidus, Theodosius died [January 17, A. D. 395] of

dropsy, at Milan."

T. Hodgkin,

The Dynasty of Theodosius,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

F. W. Farrar,

Lives of the Fathers,

chapter 15: Ambrose and Theodosius (volume 2).

R. Thornton,

St. Ambrose,

chapters 6-14.

ROME: A. D. 388.

Formal establishment of Christianity.

Until the year 384, "paganism was still the constitutional

religion of the [Roman] senate. The hall or temple in which

they assembled was adorned by the statue and altar of Victory.

… The senators were sworn on the altar of the goddess to

observe the laws of the emperor and of the empire; and a

solemn offering of wine and incense was the ordinary prelude

of their public deliberations. The removal of this ancient

monument was the only injury which Constantius had offered to

the superstition of the Romans. The altar of Victory was again

restored by Julian, tolerated by Valentinian, and once more

banished from the senate by the zeal of Gratian. But the

emperor yet spared the statues of the gods which were exposed

to the public veneration: four hundred and twenty-four temples

or chapels still remained to satisfy the devotion of the

people, and in every quarter of Rome the delicacy of the

Christians was offended by the fumes of idolatrous sacrifice.

But the Christians formed the least numerous party in the

senate of Rome." The senate addressed several petitions to

Gratian, to the young Valentinian, and to Theodosius for the

restoration of the altar of Victory.

{2727}

They were supported by the eloquence of the orator Symmachus,

and opposed by the energy of Ambrose, the powerful Archbishop

of Milan. The question is said to have been, in the end,

submitted to the senate, itself, by the Emperor Theodosius (A.

D. 388)—he being present in person—"Whether the worship of

Jupiter or that of Christ should be the religion of the

Romans? The liberty of suffrages, which he affected to allow,

was destroyed by the hopes and fears that his presence

inspired. … On a regular division of the senate, Jupiter was

condemned and degraded by the sense of a very large majority."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 28.

ROME: A. D. 391-395.

Suppression of Paganism.

"The religious liberty of the Pagans, though considerably

abridged by Gratian, was yet greater than had been allowed by

the laws of Constantine and his immediate successors. The

priests and vestals were deprived of their immunities; the

revenues of the temples were confiscated for the service of

the State; but the heathen rites of their forefathers were

still allowed to those who were conscientiously attached to

them, provided they abstained from nocturnal sacrifices and

magical incantations. But when Theodosius, in the early part

of his reign, prohibited the immolation of victims, their

superstition was attacked in its most vital part, and, in the

course of a few years, the success of his measures against

heresy, and his triumph over Maximus, emboldened him to

proceed to steps of a still more decisive kind, and to attempt

the entire subversion of the already tottering fabric of

paganism. A commission was issued to the præfect of the East,

directing him to close all heathen temples within his

jurisdiction; and while the imperial officers were engaged in

this task, assisted by the clergy, and especially by the

monks, with a vigour not always strictly legal, Theodosius

gradually increased the rigour of his legislative

prohibitions. A law was passed in the year 391, declaring that

to enter a heathen temple, with a religious purpose, was an

offence liable to a fine of fifteen pounds of gold; and in the

following year, not only all public, but even all private and

domestic, exercise of heathen rites was interdicted under the

severest penalties. In some few instances, the intemperate and

tumultous proceedings of the monks in destroying the temples,

excited the opposition of the fanatical heathen peasantry, and

at Alexandria a serious commotion, fatal to many Christians,

was occasioned by the injudicious measures of the patriarch

Theophilus. But, generally speaking, the pagans showed little

disposition to incur the rigorous penalties of the laws, still

less to become martyrs for a religion so little calculated to

inspire real faith or fortitude. Some show of zeal in the

cause of paganism was made at Rome, where the votaries of the

ancient superstition still had a strong party, both among the

senate and populace. But the eloquent exertions of Symmachus,

the champion of heathenism, were easily baffled by Ambrose,

who encountered him with equal ability, better argument, and a

confident reliance on the support of his sovereign; and not

long after, a more important victory was gained, in an

enactment by the senate, carried, through the influence of

Theodosius, by an overwhelming majority, that Christianity

should for the future be the sole religion of the Roman State.

This decisive measure sealed the ruin of paganism in Rome and

its dependencies. The senators and nobles hastened to conform,

nominally at least, to the dominant religion; the inferior

citizens followed their example, and St. Jerome was in a

little while able to boast that every heathen altar in Rome

was forsaken, and every temple had become a place of

desolation."

J. B. S. Carwithen and A. Lyall,

History of the Christian Church,

page 63-65.

ALSO IN:

P. Schaff,

History of the Christian Church,

period 3, chapter 1, section 7 (volume 2).

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 28.

ROME: A. D. 394-395.

Final division of the Empire between the sons of Theodosius.

Arcadius in the East, Honorius in the West.

Ministries of Rufinus and Stilicho.

Advent of Alaric the Visigoth.

"The division of the Empire between East and West on the

accession of the sons of Theodosius [A. D. 395], though it was

possibly meant to be less complete than some preceding

partitions, proved to be the final one. It is worth while to

indicate the line of division, which is sufficiently

accurately traced for us in the Notitia. In Africa it was the

well-known frontier marked by 'the Altars of the Philaeni,'.

which separated Libya (or Cyrenaica) on the East from Africa

Tripolitana on the West. Modern geographers draw exactly the

same line (about 19° E. of Greenwich) as the boundary of Barca

and Tripoli. On the Northern shore of the Mediterranean the

matter is a little more complicated. Noricum, Pannonia, Savia,

and Dalmatia belonged to the West, and Dacia—not the original

but the later province of Dacia—to the East. This gives us for

the frontier of the Western Empire the Danube as far as

Belgrade, and on the Adriatic the modern town of Lissa. The

inland frontier is traced by geographers some 60 miles up the

Save from Belgrade, then southwards by the Drina to its

source, and so across the mountains to Lissa. Thus Sclavonia,

Croatia, and Dalmatia in the Austrian Empire, and Croatia,

most of Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Montenegro in the state which

was lately called Turkey in Europe, belonged to the Western

Empire. The later province of Dacia, which fell to the Eastern

share, included Servia (Old and New), the south-east corner of

Bosnia, the north of Albania, and the west of Bulgaria. By

this partition the Prefecture of Illyricum, as constituted by

Diocletian, was divided into two nearly equal parts. … What

makes the subject somewhat perplexing to the student is the

tendency to confuse Illyricum the 'province' and Illyricum the

'prefecture,'" the latter of which embraced, in modern

geographical terms, Servia, Western Bulgaria, Macedon, Epirus

and Greece.

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 1, chapter 4, note C,

and chapter 3 (volume 1).

"This decree for a partition, published by Theodosius shortly

before his death, appears to have been generally expected and

approved. The incapacity of Arcadius and Honorius, of whom the

former had only attained his 18th and the latter his 11th

year, had not then been discovered. These princes showed more

and more clearly, as time went on, that they inherited no

share of their father's abilities, their weakness being such

as to render their sovereignty little more than nominal. … It

was never intended that the two jurisdictions should be

independent of each other, but rather that the Emperors should

be colleagues and coadjutors, the defenders of one

commonwealth. …

{2728}

At the time of the decree, belief in the unity and immortality

of the 'Sancta Respublica Romana' was universal. … Enactments

were invariably made in the names of both Emperors; and, so

often as a vacancy of either throne occurred, the title of the

Caesar elect remained incomplete until his elevation had been

approved and confirmed by the occupant of the other. …

Theodosius left the Roman world in peace, and provided with a

disciplined army sufficient, if rightly directed, for its

defence; but his choice of the men to whom he confided the

guidance of his sons was unfortunate. Rufinus, to whom the

guardianship of Arcadius was entrusted, by birth a Gascon,

owed his advancement to his eloquence as an advocate, and his

plausible duplicity had so far imposed on the confiding nature

of Theodosius as to obtain for him the prefecture of the East.

Stilicho, the guardian of Honorius, was by descent a Vandal,

and is styled by St. Jerome a semi-barbarian. … His military

abilities, combined with a prepossessing exterior, induced

Theodosius to confer upon him the chief command of the

imperial forces, and the hand of his niece, Serena."

R. H. Wrightson,

The Sancta Respublica Romana,

chapter 1.

"Stilicho … was popular with the army, and for the present the

great bulk of the forces of the Empire was at his disposal;

for the regiments united to suppress Eugenius had not yet been

sent back to their various stations. Thus a struggle was

imminent between the ambitious minister who had the ear of

Arcadius, and the strong general who held the command and

enjoyed the favour of the army. … It was the cherished project

of Rufinus to unite Arcadius with his only daughter. … But he

imprudently made a journey to Antioch, in order to execute

vengeance personally on the count of the East, who had

offended him; and during his absence from Byzantium an

adversary stole a march on him. This adversary was the eunuch

Eutropius, the lord chamberlain. … Determining that the future

Empress should be bound to himself and not to Rufinus, he

chose Eudoxia, a girl of singular beauty, the daughter of a

distinguished Frank, but herself of Roman education. …

Eutropius showed a picture of the Frank maiden to the Emperor,

and engaged his affections for her; the nuptials were arranged

by the time Rufinus returned to Constantinople, and were

speedily celebrated (27th April 395). This was a blow to

Rufinus, but he was still the most powerful man in the East.

The event which at length brought him into contact with

Stilicho was the rising of the Visigoths, who had been settled

by Theodosius in Moesia and Thrace. … Under the leadership of

Alaric they raised the ensign of revolt, and spread desolation

in the fields and homesteads of Macedonia, Moesia, and Thrace,

even advancing close to the walls of Constantinople. …

See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

It was impossible to take the field against the Goths, because

there were no forces available, as the eastern armies were

still with Stilicho in the West. Arcadius therefore was

obliged to summon Stilicho to send or bring them back

immediately, to protect his throne. This summons gave that

general the desired opportunity to interfere in the politics

of Constantinople; and having, with energetic celerity,

arranged matters on the Gallic frontier, he marched overland

through Illyricum, and confronted Alaric in Thessaly, whither

the Goth had traced his devastating path from the Propontis. …

It seems that before Stilicho arrived, Alaric had experienced

a defeat at the hands of garrison soldiers in Thessaly; at all

events he shut himself up in a fortified camp and declined to

engage with the Roman general. In the meantime Rufinus induced

Arcadius to send a peremptory order to Stilicho to despatch

the eastern troops to Constantinople and depart himself whence

he had come; the Emperor resented, or pretended to resent, the

presence of his cousin as an officious interference. Stilicho

yielded so readily that his willingness seems almost

suspicious. … He consigned the eastern soldiers to the command

of a Gothic captain, Gainas, and himself departed to Salona,

allowing Alaric to proceed on his wasting way into the lands

of Hellas." When Gainas and his army arrived at the gates of

Constantinople, the Emperor came out to meet them, with

Rufinus by his side. The troops suddenly closed round the

latter and murdered him. "We can hardly suppose that the

lynching of Rufinus was the fatal inspiration of a moment, but

whether it was proposed or approved of by Stilicho, or was a

plan hatched among the soldiers on their way to

Constantinople, is uncertain."

J. B. Bury,

History of the Later Roman Empire,

book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

ROME: A. D. 396-398.

Commission of Alaric under the Eastern Empire.

Suppression of the revolt of Gildo in Africa.

Commanding position of Stilicho.

"For the next five or six years the chief power over the

feeble soul of Arcadius was divided between three persons, his

fair Frankish Empress Eudoxia, Eutropius, the haggard old

eunuch who had placed her on the throne, and Gainas the Goth,

commander of the Eastern army. Again, in the year 306, did

Stilicho, now commanding only the Western forces, volunteer to

deliver Greece from the Visigoths. The outset of the campaign

was successful. The greater part of Peloponnesus was cleared

of the invader, who was shut up in the rugged mountain country

on the confines of Elis and Arcadia. The Roman army was

expecting soon to behold him forced by famine to an

ignominious surrender, when they discovered that he had

pierced the lines of circumvallation at an unguarded point,

and marched with all his plunder northwards to Epirus. What

was the cause of this unlooked-for issue of the struggle? …

The most probable explanation … is that Fabian caution

co-operated with the instinct of the Condottiere against

pushing his foe too hard. There was always danger for Rome in

driving Alaric to desperation: there was danger privately for

Stilicho if the dead Alaric should render him no longer

indispensable. Whatever might be the cause, by the end of 396

Alaric was back again in his Illyrian eyrie, and thenceforward

whatever threats might be directed towards the East the actual

weight of his arms was felt only by the West. Partly, at

least, this is to be accounted for by the almost sublime

cowardice of the ministers of Arcadius, who rewarded his

Grecian raids by clothing him with the sacred character of an

officer of the Empire in their portion of Illyricum.

See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

{2729}

The precise title under which he exercised jurisdiction is not

stated. … During an interval of quiescence, which lasted

apparently about four years, the Visigothic King was using the

forms of Roman law, the machinery of Roman taxation, the almost

unbounded authority of a Roman provincial governor, to prepare

the weapon which was one day to pierce the heart of Rome

herself. The Imperial City, during the first portion of this

interval, was suffering the pang's of famine. … Since the

foundation of Constantinople … Egypt had ceased to nourish the

elder Rome. … Rome was thus reduced to an almost exclusive

dependence on the harvests of Africa proper (that province of

which Carthage was the capital), of Numidia, and of

Mauretania. … But this supply … in the year 397 was entirely

stopped by the orders of Gildo, who had made himself virtual

master of these three provinces." The elder Theodosius had

suppressed in 374 a revolt in Mauretania headed by one Firmus.

"The son of a great sheep-farmer, Nabal, he [Firmus] had left

behind him several brothers, one of whom, Gildo, had in the

year 386 gathered up again some portion of his brother's

broken power. We find him, seven years later (in 393), holding

the rank of Count of Africa in the Roman official hierarchy. …

He turned to his own account the perennial jealousy existing

between the ministers of the Eastern and Western Courts,

renounced his allegiance to Rome, and preferred to transfer it

to Constantinople. What brought matters to a crisis was his

refusal to allow the grain crops of 397 to be conveyed to

Rome. … The Roman Senate declared war in the early winter

months of 398 against Gildo. Stilicho, who, of course,

undertook the fitting out of the expedition, found a suitable

instrument for Rome's chastisement in one who had had cruel

wrongs of his own to avenge upon Gildo. This was yet another

son of Nabal, Mascezel." Mascezel, at the head of nearly

40,000 men, accomplished the overthrow of his brother, who

slew himself, or was slain, when he fell into Roman hands.

"Thus the provinces of Africa were for the time won back again

for the Empire of the West, and Rome had her corn again. … The

glory and power of Stilicho were now nearly at their highest

point. Shortly before the expedition against Gildo he had

given his daughter Maria in marriage to Honorius, and the

father-in-law of the Emperor might rightly be deemed to hold

power with a securer grasp than his mere chief minister."

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and her Invaders,

book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

ROME: A. D. 400-403.

First Gothic invasion of Italy under Alaric.

Stilicho's repulse of the invaders.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 400-403.

ROME: A. D. 400-518.

The Eastern Empire.

Expulsion of Gothic soldiery from Constantinople.

Conflict of John Chrysostom and the Empress Eudoxia.

Reigns of Theodosius II., Pulcheria, Marcianus,

Leo I., Zeno, and Anastasius.

Persistent vitality of the Byzantine government.

"While Alaric's eyes were turned on Italy, but before he had

actually come into conflict with Stilicho, the Court of

Constantinople had been the seat of grave troubles. Gainas,

the Gothic 'Magister militum' of the East, and his creature,

the eunuch Eutropius, had fallen out, and the man of war had

no difficulty in disposing of the wretched harem-bred Grand

Chamberlain. … The Magister militum now brought his army over

to Constantinople, and quartered it there to overawe the

emperor. It appeared quite likely that ere long the Germans

would sack the city; but the fate that befell Rome ten years

later was not destined for Constantinople. A mere chance brawl

put the domination of Gainas to a sudden end [July, A. D.

400]. … The whole population turned out with extemporized arms

and attacked the German soldiery. … Isolated bodies of the

Germans were cut off one by one, and at last their barracks

were surrounded and set on fire. The rioters had the upper

hand; 7,000 soldiers fell, and the remnant thought themselves

lucky to escape. Gainas at once declared open war on the

empire, but … he was beaten in the field and forced to fly

across the Danube, where he was caught and beheaded by Uldes,

king of the Huns. … The departure of Alaric and the death of

Gainas freed the Eastern Romans from the double danger that

[had] impended over them. … The weak Arcadius was enabled to

spend the remaining seven years of his life in comparative

peace and quiet. His court was only troubled by an open war

between his spouse, the Empress Ælia Eudoxia, and John

Chrysostom, the Patriarch of Constantinople. John was a man of

saintly life and apostolic fervour, but rash and inconsiderate

alike in speech and action. … The patriarch's enemies were

secretly supported by the empress, who had taken offence at

the outspoken way in which John habitually denounced the

luxury and insolence of her court. She favoured the intrigues

of Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, against his brother

prelate, backed the Asiatic clergy in their complaints about

John's oppression of them, and at last induced the Emperor to

allow the saintly patriarch to be deposed by a

hastily-summoned council, the 'Synod of the Oak,' held outside

the city. The populace rose at once to defend their pastor;

riots broke out, Theodosius was chased back to Egypt, and the

Emperor, terrified by an earthquake which seemed to manifest

the wrath of heaven, restored John to his place. Next year,

however, the war between the empress and the patriarch broke

out again. … The Emperor, at his wife's demand, summoned

another council, which condemned Chrysostom, and on Easter

Day, A. D. 404, seized the patriarch in his cathedral by armed

force, and banished him to Asia. That night a fire, probably

kindled by the angry adherents of Chrysostom, broke out in St.

Sophia, which was burnt to the ground. From thence it spread

to the neighbouring buildings, and finally to the

Senate-house, which was consumed with all the treasures of

ancient Greek art of which Constantine had made it the

repository. Meanwhile the exiled John was banished to a dreary

mountain fastness in Cappadocia, and afterwards condemned to a

still more remote prison at Pityus on the Euxine. He died on

his way thither. … The feeble and inert Arcadius died in A. D.

408, at the early age of thirty-one; his imperious consort had

preceded him to the grave, and the empire of the East was left

to Theodosius II., a child of seven years, their only son. …

The little emperor was duly crowned, and the administration of

the East undertaken in his name by the able Anthemius, who

held the office of Praetorian Praefect. History relates

nothing but good of this minister; he made a wise commercial

treaty with the king of Persia; he repelled with ease a

Hunnish invasion of Moesia; he built a flotilla on the Danube,

where Roman war-ships had not been seen since the death of

Valens, forty years before; he reorganized the corn supply of

Constantinople; and did much to get back into order and

cultivation the desolated north-western lands of the Balkan

Peninsula. …

{2730}

The empire was still more indebted to him for bringing up the

young Theodosius as an honest and god-fearing man. The palace

under Anthemius' rule was the school of the virtues; the lives

of the emperor and his three sisters, Pulcheria, Arcadia, and

Marina, were the model and the marvel of their subjects.

Theodosius inherited the piety and honesty of his grandfather

and namesake, but was a youth of slender capacity, though he

took some interest in literature, and was renowned for his

beautiful penmanship. His eldest sister, Pulcheria, was the

ruling spirit of the family, and possessed unlimited influence

over him, though she was but two years his senior. When

Anthemius died in A. D. 414, she took the title of Augusta,

and assumed the regency of the East. Pulcheria was an

extraordinary woman: on gathering up the reins of power she

took a vow of chastity, and lived as a crowned nun for

thirty-six years; her fear had been that, if she married, her

husband might cherish ambitious schemes against her brother's

crown; she therefore kept single herself and persuaded her

sisters to make a similar vow. Austere, indefatigable, and

unselfish, she proved equal to ruling the realms of the East

with success, though no woman had ever made the attempt

before. When Theodosius came of age he refused to remove his

sister from power, and treated her as his colleague and equal.

By her advice he married in A. D. 421, the year that he came

of age, the beautiful and accomplished Athenaïs, daughter of

the philosopher Leontius. … Theodosius' long reign passed by

in comparative quiet. Its only serious troubles were a short

war with the Persians, and a longer one with Attila, the great

king of the Huns, whose empire now stretched over all the

lands north of the Black Sea and Danube, where the Goths had

once dwelt. In this struggle the Roman armies were almost

invariably unfortunate. The Huns ravaged the country as far as

Adrianople and Philippopolis, and had to be bought off by the

annual payment of 700 lbs. of gold [£31,000]. … The

reconstruction of the Roman military forces was reserved for

the successors of Theodosius II. He himself was killed by a

fall from his horse in 450 A. D., leaving an only daughter,

who was married to her cousin Valentinian III., Emperor of the

West. Theodosius, with great wisdom, had designated as his

successor, not his young son-in-law, a cruel and profligate

prince, but his sister Pulcheria, who at the same time ended

her vow of celibacy and married Marcianus, a veteran soldier

and a prominent member of the Senate. The marriage was but

formal, for both were now well advanced in years: as a

political expedient it was all that could be desired. The

empire had peace and prosperity under their rule, and freed

itself from the ignominious tribute to the Huns. Before Attila

died in 452, he had met and been checked by the succours which

Marcianus sent to the distressed Romans of the West. When

Marcianus and Pulcheria passed away, the empire came into the

hands of a series of three men of ability. They were all bred

as high civil officials, not as generals; all ascended the

throne at a ripe age; not one of them won his crown by arms,

all were peaceably designated either by their predecessors, or

by the Senate and army. These princes were Leo I. (457-474),

Zeno (474-491), Anastasius (491-(18). Their chief merit was

that they guided the Roman Empire in the East safely through

the stormy times which saw its extinction in the West. While,

beyond the Adriatic, province after province was being lopped

off and formed into a new Germanic kingdom, the emperors who

reigned at Constantinople kept a tight grip on the Balkan

Peninsula and on Asia, and succeeded in maintaining their

realm absolutely intact. Both East and West were equally

exposed to the barbarian in the fifth century, and the

difference of their fate came from the character of their

rulers, not from the diversity of their political conditions."

C. W. C. Oman,

Story of the Byzantine Empire,

chapters 4-5.

"In spite of the dissimilarity of their personal conduct, the

general policy of their government [i. e. of the six emperors

between Arcadius and Justinian] is characterised by strong

features of resemblance. … The Western Empire crumbled into

ruins, while the Eastern was saved, in consequence of these

emperors having organised the system of administration which

has been most unjustly calumniated, under the name of

Byzantine. The highest officers, and the proudest military

commanders, were rendered completely dependent on ministerial

departments and were no longer able to conspire or rebel with

impunity. The sovereign was no longer exposed to personal

danger, nor the treasury to open peculation. But,

unfortunately, the central executive power could not protect

the people from fraud with the same ease as it guarded the

treasury; and the emperors never perceived the necessity of

intrusting the people with the power of defending themselves

from the financial oppression of the subaltern

administration."

G. Finlay,

Greece under the Romans,

chapter 2, section 11.

ROME: A. D. 404-408.

The Western Empire: The last gladiatorial show.

Retreat of Honorius and the imperial court to Ravenna.

Invasion of Radagaisus.

Alliance with Alaric the Goth.

Fall and death of Stilicho.

"After the retreat of the barbarians, Honorius was directed to

accept the dutiful invitation of the senate, and to celebrate

in the imperial city the auspicious era of the Gothic victory

and of his sixth consulship. The suburbs and the streets, from

the Milvian bridge to the Palatine mount, were filled by the

Roman people, who, in the space of a hundred years, had only

thrice been honoured with the presence of their sovereigns

[whose residence had been at Constantinople, at Treves, or at

Milan]. … The emperor resided several months in the capital. …

The people were repeatedly gratified by the attention and

courtesy of Honorius in the public games. … In these games of

Honorius, the inhuman combats of gladiators polluted for the

last time the amphitheatre of Rome. … The recent danger to

which the person of the emperor had been exposed in the

defenceless palace of Milan urged him to seek a retreat in

some inaccessible fortress of Italy, where he might securely

remain, while the open country was covered by a deluge of

barbarians; … and in the 20th year of his age the Emperor of

the West, anxious only for his personal safety, retired to the

perpetual confinement of the walls and morasses of Ravenna.

{2731}

The example of Honorius was imitated by his feeble successors,

the Gothic kings, and afterwards the exarchs, who occupied the

throne and palace of the emperors; and till the middle of the

8th century Ravenna was considered as the seat of government

and the capital of Italy. The fears of Honorius were not

without foundation, nor were his precautions without effect.

While Italy rejoiced in her deliverance from the Goths, a

furious tempest was excited among the nations of Germany, who

yielded to the irresistible impulse that appears to have been

gradually communicated from the eastern extremity of the

continent of Asia [by the invasion of the Huns, which Gibbon

considers to have been the impelling cause of the great

avalanche of barbarians from the north that swept down upon

Italy under Radagaisus in 406. …

See RADAGAISUS.

Many cities of Italy were pillaged or destroyed; and the siege

of Florence by Radagaisus is one of the earliest events in the

history of that celebrated republic, whose firmness checked

and delayed the unskilful fury of the barbarians." Stilicho

came to the relief of the distressed city, "and the famished

host of Radagaisus was in its turn besieged." The barbarians,

surrounded by well guarded entrenchments, were forced to

surrender, after many had perished from want of food. The

chief was beheaded; his surviving followers were sold as

slaves. Meantime, Alaric, the Gothic king, had been taken into

the pay of the Empire. "Renouncing the service of the Emperor

of the East, Alaric concluded with the Court of Ravenna a

treaty of peace and alliance, by which he was declared

master-general of the Roman armies throughout the præfecture

of Illyricum; as it was claimed, according to the true and

ancient limits, by the minister of Honorius." This arrangement

with Alaric caused great dissatisfaction in the army and among

the people, and was a potent cause of the fall and death of

Stilicho, which occurred A. D. 408. He was arrested and

summarily executed, at Ravenna, on the mandate of his

ungrateful and worthless young master, whose trembling throne

he had upheld for thirteen years.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 30 (volume 3).

ROME: A. D. 406-500.

The breaking of the Rhine barrier.

The great Teutonic invasion and occupation

of the Western Empire.

"Up to the year 406 the Rhine was maintained as the frontier

of the Roman Empire against the numerous barbarian races and

tribes that swarmed uneasily in central Europe. From the

Flavian Emperors until the time of Probus (282), the great

military line from Coblenz to Kehlheim on the Danube had been

really defended, though often overstepped and always a strain

on the Romans, and thus a tract of territory (including Baden

and Würtemberg) on the east shore of the Upper Rhine, the

titheland as it was called, belonged to the Empire. But in the

fourth century it was as much as could be done to keep off the

Alemanni and Franks who were threatening the provinces of

Gaul. The victories of Julian and Valentinian produced only

temporary effects. On the last day of December 406 a vast

company of Vandals, Suevians, and Alans crossed the Rhine. The

frontier was not really defended; a handful of Franks who

professed to guard it for the Romans were easily swept aside,

and the invaders desolated Gaul at pleasure for the three

following years. Such is the bare fact which the chroniclers

tell us, but this migration seems to have been preceded by

considerable movements on a large scale along the whole Rhine

frontier, and these movements may have agitated the

inhabitants of Britain and excited apprehensions there of

approaching danger. Three tyrants had been recently elected by

the legions in rapid succession; the first two, Marcus and

Gratian, were slain, but the third Augustus, who bore the

auspicious name of Constantine, was destined to play a

considerable part for a year or two on the stage of the

western world.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

It seems almost certain that these two movements, the passage

of the Germans across the Rhine and the rise of the tyrants in

Britain, were not without causal connection; and it also seems

certain that both events were connected with the general

Stilicho. The tyrants were elevated in the course of the year

406, and it was at the end of the same year that the Vandals

crossed the Rhine. Now the revolt of the legions in Britain

was evidently aimed against Stilicho. … There is direct

contemporary evidence … that it was by Stilicho's invitation

that the barbarians invaded Gaul; he thought that when they

had done the work for which he designed them he would find no

difficulty in crushing them or otherwise disposing of them. We

can hardly avoid supposing that the work which he wished them

to perform was to oppose the tyrant of Britain—Constantine, or

Gratian, or Marcus, whoever was tyrant then; for it is quite

certain that, like Maximus, he would pass into Gaul, where

numerous Gallo-Roman adherents would flock to his standards.

Stilicho died before Constantine was crushed, and the

barbarians whom he had so lightly summoned were still in the

land, harrying Gaul, destined soon to harry and occupy Spain

and seize Africa. From a Roman point of view Stilicho had much

to answer for in the dismemberment of the Empire; from a

Teutonic point of view, he contributed largely to preparing

the way for the foundation of the German kingdoms."

J. B. Bury,

A History of the Later Roman Empire,

book 2, chapter 6 (volume 1).

"If modern history must have a definite beginning, the most

convenient beginning for it is the great Teutonic invasion of

Gaul in the year 407. Yet the nations of modern Europe do not

spring from the nations which then crossed the Rhine, or from

any intermixture between them and the Romans into whose land

they made their way. The nations which then crossed the Rhine

were the Vandals, Suevians, and Alans. … None of these nations

made any real settlements in Gaul; Gaul was to them simply the

high road to Spain. There they did settle, though the Vandals

soon forsook their settlement, and the Alans were soon rooted

out of theirs. The Suevian kept his ground for a far longer

time; we may, if we please, look on him as the Teutonic

forefather of Leon, while we look on the Goth as the Teutonic

forefather of Castile. Here we have touched one of the great

national names of history; the Goth, like the Frank, plays

quite another part in Western Europe from the Alan, the

Suevian, and the Vandal. … Now both Franks and Goths had

passed into the Empire long before the invasion of 407. One

branch of the Franks … was actually settled on Roman lands,

and, as Roman subjects, did their best to withstand the great

invasion.

{2732}

What then makes that invasion so marked an epoch? … The answer

is that the invasion of 407 not only brought in new elements,

but put the existing elements into new relations to one

another. Franks and Goths put on a new character and begin a

new life. The Burgundians pass into Gaul, not as a road to

Spain, but as a land in which to find many homes. They press

down to the south-eastern corner of the land, while the Frank

no longer keeps himself in his north-eastern corner, while in

the south-west the Goth is settled as for a while the liegeman

of Cæsar, and in the north-west a continental Britain springs

into being. Here in truth are some of the chiefest elements of

the modern world, and though none of them are among the

nations that crossed the Rhine in 407, yet the new position

taken by all of them is the direct consequence of that

crossing. In this way, in Gaul and Spain at least, the joint

Vandal, Alan, and Suevian invasion is the beginning of the

formation of the modern nations, though the invading nations

themselves form no element in the later life of Gaul and only

a secondary element in the later life of Spain. The later life

of these lands, and that of Italy also, has sprung of the

settlement of Teutonic nations in a Roman land, and of the

mutual influences which Roman and Teuton have had on one

another. Roman and Teuton lived side by side, and out of their

living side by side has gradually sprung up a third thing

different from either, a thing which we cannot call either

Roman or Teutonic, or more truly a thing which we may call

Roman and Teutonic and some other things as well, according to

the side of it which we look at. This third thing is the

Romance element in modern Europe, the Romance nations and

their Romance tongues."

E. A. Freeman,

The Chief Periods of European History,

pages 87-90.

"The true Germanic people who occupied Gaul were the

Burgundians, the Visigoths, and the Franks. Many other people,

many other single bands of Vandals, Alani, Suevi, Saxons, &c.,

wandered over its territory; but of these, some only passed

over it, and the others were rapidly absorbed by it; these are

partial incursions which are without any historical

importance. The Burgundians, the Visigoths, and the Franks,

alone deserve to be counted among our ancestors. The

Burgundians definitively established themselves in Gaul

between the years 406 and 413; they occupied the country

between the Jura, the Saone, and the Duranee; Lyons was the

centre of their dominion. The Visigoths, between the years 412

and 450, spread themselves over the provinces bounded by the

Rhone, and even over the left bank of the Rhone to the south

of the Durance, the Loire, and the Pyrenees: their king

resided at Toulouse. The Franks, between the years 481 and

500, advanced in the north of Gaul, and established themselves

between the Rhine, the Scheldt, and the Loire, without

including Brittany and the western portions of Normandy;

Clovis had Soissons and Paris for his capitals. Thus, at the

end of the fifth century, was accomplished the definitive

occupation of the territory of Gaul by the three great German

tribes. The condition of Gaul was not exactly the same in its

various parts, and under the dominion of these three nations.

There were remarkable differences between them. The Franks

were far more foreign, German, and barbarous, than the

Burgundians and the Goths. Before their entrance into Gaul,

these last had had ancient relations with the Romans; they had

lived in the eastern empire, in Italy; they were familiar with

the Roman manners and population. We may say almost as much

for the Burgundians. Moreover, the two nations had long been

Christians. The Franks, on the contrary, arrived from Germany

in the condition of pagans and enemies. Those portions of Gaul

which they occupied became deeply sensible of this difference,

which is described with truth and vivacity in the seventh of

the 'Lectures upon the History of France,' of M. Augustin

Thierry. I am inclined, however, to believe that it was less

important than has been commonly supposed. If I do not err,

the Roman provinces differed more among themselves than did

the nations which had conquered them. You have already seen

how much more civilized was southern than northern Gaul, how

much more thickly covered with population, towns, monuments,

and roads. Had the Visigoths arrived in as barbarous a

condition as that of the Franks, their barbarism would yet

have been far less visible and less powerful in Gallia

Narbonensis and in Aquitania; Roman civilization would much

sooner have absorbed and altered them. This, I believe, is

what happened; and the different effects which accompanied the

three conquests resulted rather from the differences of the

conquered than from that of the conquerors."

F. Guizot,

History of Civilization,

volume 2, lecture 8.

"The invasion of the barbarians was not like the torrent which

overwhelms, but rather like a slow, persistent force which

undermines, disintegrates, and crumbles. The Germans were not

strangers to the Roman Empire when they began their conquests.

… It is well known that many of the Roman Emperors were

barbarians who had been successful soldiers in the Imperial

army; that military colonies were established on the frontiers

composed of men of various races under the control of Roman

discipline; that the Goths, before they revolted against the

authority of the Emperor, were his chosen troops; that the

great Alaric was a Roman general; that the shores of the

Danube and the Rhine, which marked the limits of the Empire,

were lined with cities which were at the same time Roman

colonies and peopled with men of the Teutonic races. When the

barbarians did actually occupy the territory their movement

seems at first to have been characterized by a strange mixture

of force with a sentiment of awe and reverence for the Roman

name. In Italy and in Gaul they appropriated to themselves

two-thirds of the lands, but they sought to govern their

conquests by means of the Roman law and administration, a

machine which proved in their hands, by the way, a rather

clumsy means of government. They robbed the provincials of all

the movable property they possessed, but the suffering they

inflicted is said not to have been as great as that caused by

the exactions of the Roman taxgatherer. The number of armed

invaders has doubtless been exaggerated. The whole force of

the Burgundian tribe, whose territory, in the southeast of

modern France, extended to the Rhone at Avignon, did not, it

is said, exceed sixty thousand in all, while the armed bands

of Clovis, who changed the destinies not only of Gaul but of

Europe, were not greater than one-tenth of that number.

{2733}

The great change in their life was, as I have said, that they

ceased to be wanderers; they became, in a measure at least,

fixed to the soil; and in contrast with the Romans, they

preferred to live in the country and not in the towns. In this

they followed their Teutonic habits, little knowing what a

mighty change this new distribution of population was to cause

in the social condition of Europe. They retained, too, their

old military organization, and, after attempts more or less

successful to use the Roman administration for the ordinary

purposes of government, they abandoned it, and ruled the

countries they conquered by simple military force, under their

Dukes and Counts, the Romans generally being allowed in their

private relations to govern themselves by the forms of the

Roman law."

C. J. Stillé,

Studies in Mediæval History,

chapter 2.

"The coming in of the Germans brought face to face the four

chief elements of our civilization: the Greek with its art and

science, much of it for the time forgotten; the Roman with its

political institutions and legal ideas, and furnishing the

empire as the common ground upon which all stood; the

Christian with its religious and moral ideas; and the German

with other political and legal ideas, and with a reinforcement

of fresh blood and life. By the end of the sixth century these

all existed side by side in the nominal Roman empire. It was

the work of the remaining centuries of the middle ages to

unite them into a single organic whole—the groundwork of

modern civilization. But the introduction of the last element,

the Germans, was a conquest—a conquest rendered possible by

the inability of the old civilization any longer to defend

itself against their attack. It is one of the miracles of

history that such a conquest should have occurred, the violent

occupation of the empire by the invasion of an inferior race,

with so little destruction of civilization, with so complete

an absorption, in the end, of the conqueror by the conquered.

It must be possible to point out some reasons why the conquest

of the ancient world by the Germans was so little what was to

be expected. In a single word, the reason is to be found in

the impression which the world they had conquered made upon

the Germans. They conquered it, and they treated it as a

conquered world. They destroyed and plundered what they

pleased, and it was not a little. They took possession of the

land and they set up their own tribal governments in place of

the Roman. And yet they recognized, in a way, even the worst

of them, their inferiority to the people they had overcome.

They found upon every side of them evidences of a command over

nature such as they had never acquired: cities, buildings,

roads, bridges, and ships; wealth and art, skill in mechanics

and skill in government, the like of which they had never

known; ideas firmly held that the Roman system of things was

divinely ordained and eternal; a church strongly organized and

with an imposing ceremonial, officered by venerable and

saintly men, and speaking with an overpowering positiveness

and an awful authority that did not yield before the strongest

barbarian king. The impression which these things made upon

the mind of the German must have been profound. In no other

way can the result be accounted for. Their conquest was a

physical conquest, and as a physical conquest it was complete,

but it scarcely went farther. In government and law there was

little change for the Roman; in religion and language, none at

all. Other things, schools and commercial arrangements for

instance, the Germans would have been glad to maintain at the

Roman level if they had known how. Half unconsciously they

adopted the belief in the divinely founded and eternal empire,

and in a vague way recognized its continuance after they had

overthrown it."

G. B. Adams,

Civilization During the Middle Ages,

chapter 5.

See, also,

GAUL: A. D. 406-409, 5-8TH CENTURIES,

and 5-10TH CENTURIES.

ROME: A. D. 408-410.

The three sieges and

the sacking of the Imperial city by Alaric.

Death of the Gothic chieftain.

Having rid himself of the great minister and general whose

brain and arm were the only hope of his dissolving empire,

Honorius proceeded to purge his army and the state of

barbarians and heretics. He "removed all who professed

religious opinions different from his own, from every public

office; … and, to complete the purification of his army,

ordered a general massacre of all the women and children of

the barbarians, whom the soldiers in his service had delivered

up as hostages. In one day and hour these innocent victims

were given up to slaughter and their property to pillage.

These hostages had been left in all the Italian cities by the

barbarian confederates, as a guarantee for their fidelity to

Rome; when they learned that the whole had perished, in the

midst of peace, in contempt of all oaths, one furious and

terrific cry of vengeance arose, and 30,000 soldiers, who had

been the faithful servants of the empire, at once passed over

to the camp of Alaric [then in Illyria], and urged him to lead

them on to Rome. Alaric, in language the moderation of which

Honorius and his ministers ascribed to fear, demanded

reparation for the insults offered him, and strict observance

of the treaties concluded with him. The only answer he

obtained was couched in terms of fresh insult, and contained

an order to evacuate all the provinces of the empire." On this

provocation, Alaric crossed the Alps, in October, A. D. 408,

meeting no resistance till he reached Ravenna. He threatened

that city, at first, but the contemptible Emperor of the West

was safe in his fen-fastness, and the Goth marched on to Rome.

He "arrived before Rome [in the autumn of A. D. 408] 619 years

after that city had been threatened by Hannibal. During that

long interval her citizens had never looked down from her

walls upon the banner of an enemy [a foreign invader] waving

in their plains. … Alaric did not attempt to take Rome by

assault: he blockaded the gates, stopped the navigation of the

Tiber, and soon famine took possession of a city which was

eighteen miles in circumference and contained above a million

of inhabitants. … At length, the Romans had recourse to the

clemency of Alaric; and, by means of a ransom of five thousand

pounds of gold and a great quantity of precious effects, the

army was induced to retire into Tuscany." The standard of

Alaric was now joined by 40,000 barbarian slaves, who escaped

from their Italian masters, and by a large reinforcement of

Goths from the Danube, led by the brother-in-law of Alaric,

Ataulphus, or Athaulphus (Adolphus, in its modern form) by

name. The Visigothic king offered peace to the empire if it

would relinquish to him a kingdom in Noricum, Dalmatia and

Venetia, with a yearly payment of gold; in the end his demands

fell until they extended to Noricum, only.

{2734}

But the fatuous court at Ravenna refused all terms, and Alaric

marched back to Rome. Once more, however, he spared the

venerable capital, and sought to attain his ends by requiring

the senate to renounce allegiance to Honorius and to choose a

new emperor. He was obeyed and Priscus Attalus, the præfect of

the city, was formally invested with the purple. This new

Augustus made Alaric and Ataulphus his chief military

officers, and there was peace for a little time. But Attalus,

unhappily, took his elevation with seriousness and did not

recognize the commands that were hidden in the advice which he

got from his Gothic patron. Alaric found him to be a fool and

stripped his purple robe from his shoulders within less than a

year. Then, failing once more to negotiate terms of peace with

the worthless emperor shut up in Ravenna, he laid siege to

Rome for the third time—and the last. "On the 24th of April,

410, the year 1163 from the foundation of the august city, the

Salarian gate was opened to him in the night, and the capital

of the world, the queen of nations, was abandoned to the fury

of the Goths. Yet this fury was not without some tinge of

pity; Alaric granted a peculiar protection to the churches,

which were preserved from all insult, together with their

sacred treasures, and all those who had sought refuge within

their walls. While he abandoned the property of the Romans to

pillage, he took their lives under his protection; and it is

affirmed that only a single senator perished by the sword of

the barbarians. The number of plebeians who were sacrificed

appears not to have been thought a matter of sufficient

importance even to be mentioned. At the entrance of the Goths,

a small part of the city was given up to the flames; but

Alaric soon took precautions for the preservation of the rest

of the edifices. Above all, he had the generosity to withdraw

his army from Rome on the sixth day, and to march it into

Campania, loaded, however, with an immense booty. Eleven

centuries later, the army of the Constable de Bourbon showed

less veneration." Alaric survived the sack of Rome but a few

months, dying suddenly in the midst of preparations that he

made for invading Sicily. He was buried in the bed of the

little river Bisentium, which flows past the town of Cozenza,

the stream being diverted for the purpose and then turned back

to its course.

J. C. L. de Sismondi,

Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 31.

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 1, chapter 7.

ROME: A. D. 409-414.

Invasion of Spain by the Vandals, Sueves and Alans.

See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

ROME: A. D. 410.

Abandonment of Britain.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 410.

ROME: A. D. 410-419.

Treaty with the Visigoths.

Their settlement in Aquitaine.

Founding of their kingdom of Toulouse.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.

ROME: A. D. 410-420.

The barbarian attack on Gaul joined by the Franks.

See FRANKS: A. D. 410-420.

ROME: A. D. 412-453.

Mixed Roman and barbarian administration in Gaul.

See GAUL: A. D. 412-453.

ROME: A. D. 423-450.

Death of Honorius.

Reign of Valentinian III. and his mother Placidia.

Legal separation of the Eastern and Western Empires.

The disastrous reign of Honorius, emperor of the West, was

ended by his death in 423. The nearest heir to the throne was

his infant nephew, Valentinian, son of his sister Placidia.

The latter, after being a captive in the hands of the Goths

and after sharing the Visigothic throne for some months, as

wife of king Ataulphus, had been restored to her brother on

her Gothic husband's death. Honorius forced her, then, to

marry his favorite, the successful general, Constantius, whom

he raised to the rank of Augustus and associated with himself

on the throne of the West. But Constantius soon died, leaving

his widow with two children—a daughter and a son. Presently,

on some quarrel with Honorius, Placidia withdrew from Ravenna

and took refuge at Constantinople, where her nephew Theodosius

occupied the Eastern throne. She and her children were there

when Honorius died, and in their absence the Western throne

was usurped by a rebel named John, or Joannes, the Notary, who

reigned nearly two years. With the aid of forces from the

Eastern Empire he was unseated and beheaded and the child

Valentinian was invested with the imperial purple, A. D. 425.

For the succeeding twenty-five years his mother, Placidia,

reigned in his name. As compensation to the court at

Constantinople for the material aid received from it, the rich

province of Dalmatia and the troubled provinces of Pannonia

and Noricum, were now severed from the West and ceded to the

Empire of the East. At the same time, the unity of the Roman

government was formally and finally dissolved. "By a positive

declaration, the validity of all future laws was limited to

the dominions of their peculiar author; unless he should think

proper to communicate them, subscribed with his own hand, for

the approbation of his independent colleague."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 33.

ALSO IN:

J. B. Bury,

History of the Later Roman Empire,

chapters 6-8.

ROME: A. D. 428-439.

Conquests of the Vandals in Spain and Africa.

See VANDALS: A. D. 428; and 429-439.

ROME: A. D. 441-446.

Destructive invasion of the Eastern Empire by the Huns.

Cession of territory and payment of tribute to Attila.

See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.

ROME: A. D. 446.

The last appeal from Britain.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 446.

ROME: A. D. 451.

Great invasion of Gaul by the Huns.

Their defeat at Chalons.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

ROME: A. D. 452.

Attila's invasion of Italy.

The frightful devastation of his hordes.

Origin of Venice.

See HUNS: A. D. 452;

and VENICE: A. D. 452.

ROME: A. D. 455.

Pillage of the city by the Vandals.

"The sufferings and the ignominy of the Roman empire were

increased by a new calamity which happened in the year of

Valentinian's death [murdered by an usurper, Petronius Maximus

A. D. 455]. Eudoxia, the widow of that emperor, who had

afterwards become [through compulsion] the wife of Maximus,

avenged the murder of her first husband by plotting against

her second; reckless how far she involved her country in the

ruin. She invited to Rome Genseric, king of the Vandals, who,

not content with having conquered and devastated Africa, made

every effort to give a new direction to the rapacity of his

subjects, by accustoming them to maritime warfare, or, more

properly speaking, piracy.

{2735}

His armed bands, who, issuing from the shores of the Baltic,

had marched over the half of Europe, conquering wherever they

went, embarked in vessels which they procured at Carthage, and

spread desolation over the coasts of Sicily and Italy. On the

12th of June, 455, they landed at Ostia. Maximus was killed in

a seditious tumult excited by his wife. Defence was

impossible; and, from the 15th to the 29th of June, the

ancient capital of the world was pillaged by the Vandals with

a degree of rapacity and cruelty to which Alaric and the Goths

had made no approach. The ships of the pirates were moored

along the quays of the Tiber, and were loaded with a booty

which it would have been impossible for the soldiers to carry

off by land."

J. C. L. de Sismondi,

Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 8 (volume 1).

"On the whole, it is clear from the accounts of all the

chroniclers that Gaiseric's [or Genseric's] pillage of Rome,

though insulting and impoverishing to the last degree, was in

no sense destructive to the Queen of cities. Whatever he may

have done in Africa, in Rome he waged no war on architecture,

being far too well employed in storing away gold and silver

and precious stones, and all manner of costly merchandise in

those insatiable hulks which were riding at anchor by Ostia.

Therefore, when you stand in the Forum of Rome or look upon

the grass-grown hill which was once the glorious Palatine,

blame if you like the Ostrogoth, the Byzantine, the Lombard,

above all, the Norman, and the Roman baron of the Middle Ages,

for the heart-breaking ruin that you see there, but leave the

Vandal uncensured, for, notwithstanding the stigma conveyed in

the word 'vandalism,' he is not guilty here."

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).

ROME: A. D. 455-476.

Barbarian masters and imperial puppets.

From Count Ricimer to Odoacer.

The ending of the line of Roman Emperors in the West,

called commonly the Fall of the Western Empire.

"After the death of Valentinian III., the unworthy grandson of

the great Theodosius [March 16, A. D. 455], the first thought

of the barbarian chiefs was, not to destroy or usurp the

Imperial name, but to secure to themselves the nomination of

the emperor. Avitus, chosen in Gaul under the influence of the

West Gothic King of Toulouse, Theoderic II., was accepted for

a time as the western emperor, by the Roman Senate and by the

Court of Constantinople. But another barbarian, Ricimer the

Sueve, ambitious, successful, and popular, had succeeded to

the command of the 'federated' foreign bands which formed the

strength of the imperial army in Italy. Ricimer would not be a

king, but he adopted as a settled policy the expedient, or the

insulting jest, of Alaric. … He deposed Avitus, and probably

murdered him. Under his direction, the Senate chose Majorian.

Majorian was too able, too public-spirited, perhaps too

independent, for the barbarian Patrician; Majorian, at a

moment of ill-fortune was deposed and got rid of." After

Majorian, one Severus (A. D. 461-467), and after Severus a

Greek, Anthemius (A. D. 467-472), nominated at Constantinople,

wore the purple at the command of Count Ricimer. When, after

five years of sovereignty, Anthemius quarreled with his

barbarian master, the latter chose a new emperor—the senator

Olybrius—and conducted him with an army to the gates of Rome,

in which the imperial court had once more settled itself.

Anthemius, supported by the majority of the senate and people,

resisted, and Rome sustained a siege of three months. It was

taken by storm, on the 11th of July, A. D. 472, and suffered

every outrage at the hands of the merciless victors. Anthemius

was slain and his enemy, Ricimer, died a few weeks later.

Olybrius followed the latter to the grave in October.

Ricimer's place was filled by his nephew, a refugee Burgundian

king, Gundobad, who chose for emperor an unfortunate officer

of the imperial guard, named Glycerius. Glycerius allowed

himself to be deposed the next year by Julius Nepos and

accepted a bishopric in place of the throne; but later

circumstances gave the emperor-bishop an opportunity to

assassinate his supplanter and he did not hesitate to do so.

By this time, the real power had passed to another barbarian

"patrician" and general, Orestes, former secretary of Attila,

and Orestes proclaimed his own son emperor. To this son "by a

strange chance, as if in mockery of his fortune, had been

given the names of the first king and the first emperor of

Rome, Romulus Augustus, soon turned in derision into the

diminutive 'Augustulus.' But Orestes failed to play the part

of Ricimer. A younger and more daring barbarian adventurer,

Odoacer the Herule, or Rugian, bid higher for the allegiance

of the army. Orestes was slain, and the young emperor was left

to the mercy of Odoacer. In singular and significant contrast

to the common usage when a pretender fell, Romulus Augustulus

was spared. He was made to abdicate in legal form; and the

Roman Senate, at the dictation of Odoacer, officially

signified to the Eastern emperor, Zeno, their resolution that

the separate Western Empire should cease, and their

recognition of the one emperor at Constantinople, who should

be supreme over West and East. Amid the ruin of the empire and

the state, the dethroned emperor passed his days, in such

luxurious ease as the times allowed, at the Villa of Lucullus

at Misenum; and Odoacer, taking the Teutonic title of king,

sent to the emperor at Constantinople the imperial crown and

robe which were to be worn no more at Rome or Ravenna for more

than three hundred years. Thus in the year 476 ended the Roman

empire, or rather, the line of Roman emperors, in the West."

R. W. Church,

Beginning of the Middle Ages,

chapter 1.

"When, at Odoacer's bidding, Romulus Augustulus, the boy whom

a whim of fate had chosen to be the last native Cæsar of Rome,

had formally announced his resignation to the senate, a

deputation from that body proceeded to the Eastern court to

lay the insignia of royalty at the feet of the Eastern Emperor

Zeno. The West, they declared, no longer required an Emperor

of its own; one monarch sufficed for the world; Odoacer was

qualified by his wisdom and courage to be the protector of

their state, and upon him Zeno was entreated to confer the

title of patrician and the administration of the Italian

provinces. The Emperor granted what he could not refuse, and

Odoacer, taking the title of King ['not king of Italy, as is

often said'—foot-note], continued the consular office,

respected the civil and ecclesiastical institutions of his

subjects, and ruled for fourteen years as the nominal vicar of

the Eastern Emperor.

{2736}

There was thus legally no extinction of the Western Empire at

all, but only a reunion of East and West. In form, and to some

extent also in the belief of men, things now reverted to their

state during the first two centuries of the Empire, save that

Byzantium instead of Rome was the centre of the civil

government. The joint tenancy which had been conceived by

Diocletian, carried further by Constantine, renewed under

Valentinian I. and again at the death of Theodosius, had come

to an end; once more did a single Emperor sway the sceptre of

the world, and head an undivided Catholic Church."

J. Bryce,

The Holy Roman Empire,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 3, chapters 4-8.

J. B. Bury,

History of the Later Roman Empire,

preface and book 3, chapter 5 (volume 1).

ROME: A. D. 476.

Causes of the decay of the Empire

and the significance of its fall in the West.

"Thus in the year 476 ended the Roman empire, or rather, the

line of Roman emperors, in the West. Thus it had become clear

that the foundations of human life and society, which had

seemed under the first emperors eternal, had given way. The

Roman empire was not the 'last word' in the history of the

world; but either the world was in danger of falling into

chaos, or else new forms of life were yet to appear, new ideas

of government and national existence were to struggle with the

old for the mastery. The world was not falling into chaos.

Europe, which seemed to have lost its guidance and its hope of

civilization in losing the empire, was on the threshold of a

history far grander than that of Rome, and was about to start

in a career of civilization to which that of Rome was rude and

unprogressive. In the great break-up of the empire in the

West, some parts of its system lasted, others disappeared.

What lasted was the idea of municipal government, the

Christian Church, the obstinate evil of slavery. What

disappeared was the central power, the imperial and universal

Roman citizenship, the exclusive rule of the Roman law, the

old Roman paganism, the Roman administration, the Roman

schools of literature. Part of these revived; the idea of

central power under Charles the Great, and Otto his great

successor; the appreciation of law, though not exclusively

Roman law; the schools of learning. And under these conditions

the new nations—some of mixed races, as in France, Spain, and

Italy; others simple and homogeneous, as in Germany, England,

and the Scandinavian peninsula —begin their apprenticeship of

civilization."

R. W. Church,

The Beginning of the Middle Ages,

chapter 1.

"The simple facts of the fall of the Empire are these. The

Imperial system had been established … to protect the

frontier. This it did for two centuries with eminent success.

But in the reign of Marcus Aurelius … there occurred an

invasion of the Marcomanni, which was not repulsed without

great difficulty, and which excited a deep alarm and

foreboding throughout the Empire. In the third century the

hostile powers on every frontier began to appear more

formidable. The German tribes, in whose discord Tacitus saw

the safety of the Empire, present themselves now no longer in

separate feebleness, but in powerful confederations. We hear

no more the insignificant names of Chatti and Chauci; the

history of the third century is full of Alemanni, Franks, and

Goths. On the eastern frontier, the long decayed power of the

Parthians now gives place to a revived and vigorous Persian

Empire. The forces of the Empire are more and more taxed to

defend it from these powerful enemies. … It is evident that

the Roman world would not have steadily receded through

centuries before the barbaric, had it not been decidedly

inferior in force. To explain, then, the fall of the Empire,

it is necessary to explain the inferiority in force of the

Romans to the barbarians. This inferiority of the Romans, it

is to be remembered, was a new thing. At an earlier time they

had been manifestly superior. When the region of barbarism was

much larger; when it included warlike and aggressive nations

now lost to it, such as the Gauls; and when, on the other

hand, the Romans drew their armies from a much smaller area,

and organized them much less elaborately, the balance had

inclined decidedly the other way. In those times the Roman

world, in spite of occasional reverses, had on the whole

steadily encroached on the barbaric. … Either, therefore, a

vast increase of power must have taken place in the barbaric

world, or a vast internal decay in the Roman. Now the barbaric

world had actually received two considerable accessions of

force. It had gained considerably, through what influences we

can only conjecture, in the power and habit of co-operation.

As I have said before, in the third century we meet with large

confederations of Germans, whereas before we read only of

isolated tribes. Together with this capacity of confederation

we can easily believe that the Germans had acquired new

intelligence, civilization, and military skill. Moreover, it

is practically to be considered as a great increase of

aggressive force, that in the middle of the fourth century

they were threatened in their original settlements by the

Huns. The impulse of desperation which drove them against the

Roman frontier was felt by the Romans as a new force acquired

by the enemy. But we shall soon see that other and more

considerable momenta must have been required to turn the

scale. … We are forced, … to the conclusion that the Roman

Empire, in the midst of its greatness and civilization, must

have been in a stationary and unprogressive, if not a decaying

condition. Now what can have been the cause of this

unproductiveness or decay? It has been common to suppose a

moral degeneration in the Romans, caused by luxury and

excessive good fortune. To support this it is easy to quote

the satirists and cynics of the imperial time, and to refer to

such accounts as Ammianus gives of the mingled effeminacy and

brutality of the aristocracy of the capital in the fourth

century. But the history of the wars between Rome and the

barbaric world does not show us the proofs we might expect of

this decay of spirit. We do not find the Romans ceasing to be

victorious in the field, and beginning to show themselves

inferior in valor to their enemies. The luxury of the capital

could not affect the army. … Nor can it be said that luxury

corrupted the generals, and through them the army. On the

contrary, the Empire produced a remarkable series of capable

generals. … Whatever the remote and ultimate cause may have

been, the immediate cause to which the fall of the Empire can

be traced is a physical, not a moral, decay.

{2737}

In valor, discipline, and science, the Roman armies remained

what they had always been, and the peasant emperors of

Illyricum were worthy successors of Cincinnatus and Caius

Marius. But the problem was how to replenish those armies. Men

were wanting; the Empire perished for want of men. The proof

of this is in the fact that the contest with barbarism was

carried on by the help of barbarian soldiers. … It must have

been because the Empire could not furnish soldiers for its own

defence, that it was driven to the strange expedient of

turning its enemies and plunderers into its defenders. … Nor

was it only in the army that the Empire was compelled to

borrow men from barbarism. To cultivate the fields whole

tribes were borrowed. From the time of Marcus Aurelius, it was

a practice to grant lands within the Empire, sometimes to

prisoners of war, sometimes to tribes applying for admission.

… The want of any principle of increase in the Roman

population is attested at a much earlier time. In the second

century before Christ, Polybius bears witness to it; and the

returns of the census from the Second Punic War to the time of

Augustus show no steady increase in the number of citizens

that cannot be accounted for by the extension of citizenship

to new classes. … Precisely as we think of marriage, the Roman

of Imperial times thought of celibacy,—that is, as the most

comfortable but the most expensive condition of life. Marriage

with us is a pleasure for which a man must be content to pay;

with the Romans it was an excellent pecuniary investment, but

an intolerably disagreeable one. Here lay, at least in the

judgment of Augustus, the root of the evil. To inquire into

the causes of this aversion to marriage in this place would

lead me too far. We must be content to assume that, owing

partly to this cause and partly to the prudential check of

infanticide, the Roman population seems to have been in

ordinary times almost stationary. The same phenomenon had

shown itself in Greece before its conquest by the Romans.

There the population had even greatly declined; and the shrewd

Polybius explains that it was not owing to war or plague, but

mainly to a general repugnance to marriage, and reluctance to

rear large families, caused by an extravagantly high standard

of comfort. … Perhaps enough has now been said to explain that

great enigma, which so much bewilders the reader of Gibbon;

namely, the sharp contrast between the age of the Autonines

and the age which followed it. A century of unparalleled

tranquillity and virtuous government is followed immediately

by a period of hopeless ruin and dissolution. A century of

rest is followed, not by renewed vigor, but by incurable

exhaustion. Some principle of decay must clearly have been at

work, but what principle? We answer: it was a period of

sterility or barrenness in human beings; the human harvest was

bad. And among the causes of this barrenness we find, in the

more barbarous nations, the enfeeblement produced by the

too-abrupt introduction of civilization, and universally the

absence of industrial habits, and the disposition to

listlessness which belongs to the military character."

J. R. Seeley,

Roman Imperialism,

pages 47-61.

"At no period within the sphere of historic records was the

commonwealth of Rome anything but an oligarchy of warriors and

slave-owners, who indemnified themselves for the restraint

imposed on them by their equals in the forum by aggression

abroad and tyranny in their households. The causes of its

decline seem to have little connexion with the form of

government established in the first and second centuries. They

were in full operation before the fall of the Republic, though

their baneful effects were disguised and perhaps retarded by

outward successes, by extended conquests, and increasing

supplies of tribute or plunder. The general decline of

population throughout the ancient world may be dated even from

the second century before our era. The last age of the

Republic was perhaps the period of the most rapid exhaustion

of the human race; but its dissolution was arrested under

Augustus, when the population recovered for a time in some

quarters of the empire, and remained at least stationary in

others. The curse of slavery could not but make itself felt

again, and demanded the destined catastrophe. Whatever evil we

ascribe to the despotism of the Cæsars, we must remark that it

was Slavery that rendered political freedom and constitutional

government impossible. Slavery fostered in Rome, as previously

at Athens, the spirit of selfishness and sensuality, of

lawlessness and insolence, which cannot consist with political

equality, with political justice, with political moderation.

The tyranny of the emperors was … only the tyranny of every

noble extended and intensified. The empire became no more than

an ergastulum or barracoon [slave prison] on a vast scale,

commensurate with the dominions of the greatest of Roman

slaveholders. … We have noticed already the pestilence which

befell Italy and many of the provinces in the reign of

Aurelius. There is reason to believe that this scourge was no

common disorder, that it was of a type new at least in the

West, and that, as a new morbific agent, its ravages were more

lasting, as well as more severe, than those of an ordinary

sickness. … At another time, when the stamina of ancient life

were healthier and stronger, such a visitation might possibly

have come and gone, and, however fatal at the moment, have

left no lasting traces; but periods seem to occur in national

existence when there is no constitutional power of rallying

under casual disorders. The sickness which in the youth of the

commonwealth would have dispelled its morbid humours and

fortified its system, may have proved fatal to its advancing

years, and precipitated a hale old age into palsied

decrepitude. The vital powers of the empire possessed no

elasticity; every blow now told upon it with increasing force;

the blows it slowly or impatiently returned were given by the

hands of hired barbarians, not by the strength of its own

right arm. Not sickness alone, but famines, earthquakes, and

conflagrations, fell in rapid succession upon the capital and

the provinces. Such casualties may have occurred at other

periods not less frequently or disastrously; but these were

observed, while the others passed unnoticed, because the

courage of the nation was now broken no less than its physical

vigour, and, distressed and terrified, it beheld in every

natural disorder the stroke of fate, the token of its destined

dissolution. Nor indeed was the alarm unfounded. These

transient faintings and sicknesses were too truly the symptoms

of approaching collapse. The long line of northern frontier,

from Odessus to the island of the Batavi, was skirted by a

fringe of fire, and through the lurid glare loomed the

wrathful faces of myriads, Germans, Scythians, and Sarmatians,

all armed for the onslaught in sympathy or concert."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans under the Empire,

chapter 18 (volume 7).

{2738}

"Under the humane pretext of gratifying the world with a

flattering title, an Antoninus, in one of his edicts, called

by the name of Roman citizens the tributaries of the Roman

empire, those men whom a proconsul might legally torture, flog

with rods, or crush with labour and taxes. Thus the power of

that formerly inviolable title, before which the most

shameless tyranny stopped short, was contradicted; thus

perished that ancient safety-cry which made the executioners

fall back; I am a Roman citizen. From that period Rome no

longer existed; there was a court and provinces: we do not

understand by that word what it now signifies in the vulgar

languages, but what it signified primitively in the Roman

language, a country conquered by arms; we mean to say, that

the primitive distinction between conquering Rome and those it

had conquered, then became established between the men in the

palace and those out of the palace; that Rome itself lived

only for one family, and a handful of courtiers, as formerly

the nations it had conquered had only lived by it. It was then

that the name of subjugated, subjecti, which our language has

corrupted into that of subjects, was transported from the

conquered inhabitants of the East or Gaul, to the victorious

inhabitants of Italy, attached in future to the yoke of a

small number of men, as these had been attached to their yoke;

the property of those men, as well as the others, had been

their property, worthy, in a word, of the degrading title of

subjects, subjecti, which must be taken literally. Such was

the order of things which had been gradually forming since the

time of Augustus; each emperor gloried in hastening the moment

of its perfection; Constantine gave it the finishing stroke.

He effaced the name of Rome from the Roman standards, and put

in its place the symbol of the religion which the empire had

just embraced. He degraded the revered name of the civil

magistrature below the domestic offices of his house. An

inspector of the wardrobe took precedence of the consuls. The

aspect of Rome importuned him; he thought he saw the image of

liberty still engraved on its old walls; fear drove him

thence; he fled to the coasts of Byzantia, and there built

Constantinople, placing the sea as a barrier between the new

city of the Cæsars and the ancient city of the Brutus. If Rome

had been the home of independence, Constantinople was the home

of slavery; from thence issued the dogmas of passive obedience

to the Church and throne; there was but one right—that of the

empire; but one duty—that of obedience. The general name of

citizen, which was equivalent, in language, to men living

under the same law, was replaced by epithets graduated

according to the credit of the powerful or the cowardice of

the weak. The qualifications of Eminence, Royal Highness, and

Reverence, were bestowed on what was lowest and most

despicable in the world. The empire, like a private domain,

was transmitted to children, wives, and sons-in-law; it was

given, bequeathed, substituted; the universe was exhausting

itself for the establishment of the family; taxes increased

immoderately; Constantinople alone was exempted; that

privilege of Roman liberty was the price of its infamy. The

rest of the cities and nations were treated like beasts of

burden, which are used without scruple, flogged when they are

restive, and killed when there is cause to fear them. Witness

the population of Antioch, condemned to death by the pious

Theodosius; and that of Thessalonica, entirely massacred by

him for a tax refused, and an unfortunate creature secured

from the justice of his provosts. Meanwhile savage and free

nations armed against the enslaved world, as if to chastise it

for its baseness. Italy, oppressed by the empire, soon found

pitiless revengers in its heart. Rome was menaced by the

Goths. The people, weary of the imperial yoke, did not defend

themselves. The men of the country, still imbued with the old

Roman manners and religion, those men, the only ones whose

arms were still robust and souls capable of pride, rejoiced to

see among them free men and gods resembling the ancient gods

of Italy. Stilico, the general to whom the empire entrusted

its defence, appeared at the foot of the Alps; he called to

arms, and no one arose; he promised liberty to the slaves, he

lavished the treasures of the fisc; and out of the immense

extent of the empire, he only assembled 40,000 men, the fifth

part of the warriors that Hannibal had encountered at the

gates of free Rome."

A. Thierry,

Narratives of the Merovingian Era

and Historical Essays, essay 13.

"It was not the division into two empires, nor merely the

power of external enemies, that destroyed the domination of

Rome. Republican Rome had ended in monarchy by the decadence

of her institutions and customs, by the very effect of her

victories and conquests, by the necessity of giving to this

immense dominion a dominus. But after she had begun to submit

to the reality of a monarchy, she retained the worship of

republican forms. The Empire was for a long time a piece of

hypocrisy; for it did not dare to give to its rulers the first

condition of stability, a law of succession. The death of

every emperor was followed by troubles, and the choice of a

master of the world was often left to chance. At length the

monarchy had to be organized, but thenceforth it was absolute,

without restraint or opposition. Its proposed aim was to

exploit the world, an aim which in practice was carried to an

extreme. Hence it exhausted the orbis romanus."

E. Lavisse,

General View of the Political History of Europe,

chapter 1.

ROME: A. D. 486.

The last Roman sovereignty in Gaul.

See GAUL: A. D. 457-486.

ROME: A. D. 488.

Theodoric the king of the Ostrogoths authorized and

commissioned by the Emperor Zeno to conquer a kingdom in Italy.

See GOTHS (OSTROGOTHS): A. D. 473-488.

ROME: A. D. 488-526.

The Ostrogothic kingdom of Theodoric.

It was in the autumn of the year 488 that Theodoric,

commissioned by the Eastern Emperor, Zeno, to wrest Italy from

Odoacer (or Odovacar), broke up his camp or settlement on the

Danube, in the neighborhood of Sistova, and moved towards the

west. The movement was a national migration—of wives and

children as well as of warriors—and the total number is

estimated at not less than 200,000. Following the course of

the Danube, the Gothic host met with no opposition until it

came to Singidunum, near the junction of the Save. There, on

the banks of a stream called the Ulca, they fought a great

battle with the Gepidæ, who held possession of Pannonia, and

who disputed their advance.

{2739}

Victorious in this encounter, Theodoric pushed on, along the

course of the Save; but the movement of his cumbrous train was

so slow and the hardships of the march so great, that nearly a

year passed before he had surmounted the passes of the Julian

Alps and entered Italy. He found Odoacer waiting to give him

battle on the Isonzo; but the forces of the latter were not

courageous enough or not faithful enough for their duty, and

the invading Goths forced the passage of the stream on the

28th of August, 489. Odoacer retreated to Verona, followed by

Theodoric, and there, on the 30th of September, a great and

terrible battle was fought, from which not many of the Rugian

and Herulian troops of Odoacer escaped. Odoacer, himself, with

some followers, got clear of the rout and made their way to

the safe stronghold of Ravenna. For a time, Odoacer's cause

seemed abandoned by all who had supported him; but it was a

treacherous show of submission to the victor. Theodoric, ere

long, found reactions at work which recruited the forces of

his opponent and diminished his own. He was driven to retreat

to Ticinum (Pavia) for the winter. But having solicited and

received aid from the Visigoths of southern Gaul, he regained,

in the summer of 490 (August 11) in a battle on the Adda, not

far from Milan, all the ground that he had lost, and more.

Odoacer was now driven again into Ravenna, and shut up within

its walls by a blockade which was endured until February in

the third year afterwards (493), when famine compelled a

surrender. Theodoric promised life to his rival and respect to

his royal dignity; but he no sooner had the old self-crowned

king Odoacer in his power than he slew him with his own hand.

Notwithstanding this savagery in the inauguration of it, the

reign of the Ostrogothic king in Italy appears to have been,

on the whole, wise and just, with more approximation to the

chivalric half-civilization of later mediæval times than

appears in the government of any of his Gothic or German

neighbors. "Although Theoderic did not care to run the risk of

offending both his Goths and the Court of Constantinople by

calling himself Cæsar or Emperor, yet those titles would have

exactly expressed the character of his rule—so far at least as

his Roman subjects were concerned. When the Emperor Anastasius

in 497 acknowledged him as ruler of Italy, he sent him the

purple cloak and the diadem of the Western emperors; and the

act showed that Anastasius quite understood the difference

between Theodoric's government and that of Odovacar. In fact,

though not in name, the Western empire had been restored with

much the same institutions it had under the best of the

Cæsars." The reign of Theodoric, dating it, as he did, from

his first victory on Italian soil, was thirty-seven years in

duration. When he died, August 30, A. D. 526, he left to his

grandson, Athalaric, a kingdom which extended, beyond Italy,

over Rhætia, Noricum, Pannonia and Illyricum (the modern

Austrian empire south and west of the Danube), together with

Provence in southern Gaul and a district north of it embracing

much of modern Dauphiné. His government extended, likewise,

over the Visigothic kingdom, as guardian of its young king,

his grandson. But this great kingdom of the heroic Ostrogoth

was not destined to endure. One who lived the common measure

of life might have seen the beginning of it and the end. It

vanished in one quarter of a century after he who founded it

was laid away in his great tomb at Ravenna, leaving nothing to

later history which can be counted as a survival of it,—not

even a known remnant of the Ostrogothic race.

H. Bradley,

Story of the Goths,

chapters 16-20.

"Theodoric professed a great reverence for the Roman

civilization. He had asked for and obtained from the Emperor

Anastasius the imperial insignia that Odovakar had

disdainfully sent back to Constantinople, and he gave up the

dress of the barbarians for the Roman purple. Although he

lived at Ravenna he was accustomed to consult the Roman

senate, to whom he wrote: 'We desire, conscript fathers, that

the genius of liberty may look with favor upon your assembly.'

He established a consul of the West, three prætorian prefects,

and three dioceses,—that of northern Italy, that of Rome, and

that of Gaul. He retained the municipal government, but

appointed the decurions himself. He reduced the severity of

the taxes, and his palace was always open to those who wished

to complain of the iniquities of the judges. … Thus a

barbarian gave back to Italy the prosperity which she had lost

under the emperors. The public buildings, aqueducts, theatres,

and baths were repaired, and palaces and churches were built.

The uncultivated lands were cleared and companies were formed

to drain the Pontine marshes and the marshes of Spoleto. The

iron mines of Dalmatia and a gold mine in Bruttii were worked.

The coasts were protected from pirates by numerous flotillas.

The population increased greatly. Theodoric, though he did not

know how to write, gathered around him the best literary merit

of the time,—Boethius, the bishop Ennodius, and Cassiodorus.

The latter, whom he made his minister, has left us twelve

books of letters. Theodoric seems in many ways like a first

sketch of Charlemagne. Though himself an Arian, he respected

the rights of the Catholics from the first. … When, however,

the Emperor Justin I. persecuted the Arians in the East, he

threatened to retaliate, and as a great commotion was observed

among his Italian subjects, he believed that a conspiracy was

being formed against himself. … The prefect Symmachus and his

son-in-law, Boethius, were implicated. Theodoric confined them

in the tower of Pavia, and it was there that Boethius wrote

his great work, The Consolations of Philosophy. They were both

executed in 525. Theodoric, however, finally recognized their

innocence, and felt such great regret that his reason is said

to have been unbalanced and that remorse hastened his end."

V. Duruy,

History of the Middle Ages,

book 1, chapter 3.

"The personal greatness of Theodoric overshadowed Emperor and

Empire; from his palace at Ravenna, by one title or another,

by direct dominion, as guardian, as elder kinsman, as

representative of the Roman power, as head by natural

selection of the whole Teutonic world, he ruled over all the

western lands save one; and even to the conquering Frank he

could say, Thus far shalt thou come and no further. In true

majesty such a position was more than Imperial; moreover there

was nothing in the rule of Theodoric which touched the Roman

life of Italy. … As far as we can see, it was the very

greatness of Theodoric which kept his power from being

lasting.

{2740}

Like so many others of the very greatest of men, he set on

foot a system which he himself could work, but which none but

himself could work. He sought to set up a kingdom of Goths and

Romans, under which the two nations should live side by side,

distinct but friendly, each keeping its own law and doing its

own work. And for one life-time the thing was done. Theodoric

could keep the whole fabric of Roman life untouched, with the

Goth standing by as an armed protector. He could as he said,

leave to the Roman consul the honours of government and take

for the Gothic king only the toils. Smaller men neither could

nor would do this. … It was the necessary result of his

position that he gave Italy one generation of peace and

prosperity such as has no fellow for ages on either side of

it, but that, when he was gone, a fabric which had no

foundation but his personal qualities broke down with a

crash."

E. A. Freeman,

Chief Periods of European History,

lecture 3.

ALSO IN:

E. A. Freeman,

The Goths at Ravenna

(Historical Essays, volume 3, chapter 4).

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 4, chapters 6-13 (volume 3).

Cassiodorus,

Letters,

translated and edited by T. Hodgkin.

H. F. Stewart,

Boethius,

chapter 2.

ROME: A. D. 527-565.

The reign of Justinian.

"In the year after the great Theoderic died (526), the most

famous in the time of Eastern emperors, since Constantine,

began his long and eventful reign (527-567). Justinian was

born a Slavonian peasant, near what was then Sardica, and is

now Sofia; his original Slave name, Uprawda, was latinized

into Justinian, when he became an officer in the imperial

guard. Since the death of the second Theodosius (450), the

Eastern emperors had been, as they were continually to be, men

not of Roman or Greek, but of barbarian or half barbarian

origin, whom the imperial city and service attracted,

naturalized, and clothed with civilized names and Roman

character. Justinian's reign, so great and so unhappy, was

marked by magnificent works, the administrative organization

of the empire, the great buildings at Constantinople, the last

and grandest codification of Roman law.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

But it was also marked by domestic shame, by sanguinary

factions, by all the vices and crimes of a rapacious and

ungrateful despotism.

See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

Yet it seemed for a while like the revival of the power and

fortune of Rome. Justinian rose to the highest ideas of

imperial ambition; and he was served by two great masters of

war, foreigners in origin like himself, Belisarius the

Thracian, and Narses the Armenian, who were able to turn to

full account the resources, still enormous, of the empire, its

immense riches, its technical and mechanical skill, its

supplies of troops, its military traditions, its command of

the sea. Africa was wrested from the Vandals;

See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534;

Italy from the successors of Theoderic [see below]; much of

Spain from the West Goths."

R. W. Church,

The Beginning of the Middle Ages,

chapter 6.

"In spite of the brilliant events which have given the reign

of Justinian a prominent place in the annals of mankind, it is

presented to us in a series of isolated and incongruous facts.

Its chief interest is derived from the biographical memorials

of Belisarius, Theodora, and Justinian; and its most

instructive lesson has been drawn from the influence which its

legislation has exercised on foreign nations. The unerring

instinct of mankind has however fixed on this period as one of

the greatest eras in man's annals. The actors may have been

men of ordinary merit, but the events of which they were the

agents effected the mightiest revolutions in society. The

frame of the ancient world was broken to pieces, and men long

looked back with wonder and admiration at the fragments which

remained, to prove the existence of a nobler race than their

own. The Eastern Empire, though too powerful to fear any

external enemy, was withering away from the rapidity with

which the State devoured the resources of the people. … The

life of Belisarius, either in its reality or its romantic

form, has typified his age. In his early youth, the world was

populous and wealthy, the empire rich and powerful. He

conquered extensive realms and mighty nations and led kings

captive to the footstool of Justinian, the lawgiver of

civilisation. Old age arrived; Belisarius sank into the grave

suspected and impoverished by his feeble and ungrateful

master; and the world, from the banks of the Euphrates to

those of the Tagus, presented the awful spectacle of famine

and plague, of ruined cities, and of nations on the brink of

extermination. The impression on the hearts of men was

profound."

G. Finlay,

Greece under the Romans,

chapter 3, section 1.

See PLAGUE: A. D. 542-594.

ALSO IN:

Lord Mahon,

Life of Belisarius.

ROME: A. D. 528-556.

The Persian Wars and the Lazic War of Justinian.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627;

also, LAZICA.

ROME: A. D. 535-553.

Fall of the Gothic kingdom of Theodoric.

Recovery of Italy by the Emperor Justinian.

The long Gothic siege of Rome.

The siege, capture and pillage by Totila.

The forty days of lifeless desolation in the great city.

On the death of the great Theodoric, the Ostrogothic crown

passed, not to his daughter, Amalasuntha, but to her son,

Athalaric, a child of eight or ten years. The boy-king died at

the age of sixteen, and Amalasuntha assumed the regal power

and title, calling one of her cousins, named Theodatus, or

Theodahad, to the throne, to share it with her. She had

powerful enemies in the Gothic court and the ungrateful

Theodatus was soon in conspiracy with them. Amalasuntha and

her partisans were overcome, and the unhappy queen, after a

short imprisonment on a little island in the lake of Bolsena,

was put to death. These dissensions in the Gothic kingdom gave

encouragement to the Eastern emperor, the ambitious Justinian,

to undertake the reconquest of Italy. His great general,

Belisarius, had just vanquished the Vandals and restored

Carthaginian Africa to the imperial domain.

See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.

With far smaller forces than that achievement demanded,

Belisarius was now sent against the Goths. He landed, first,

in Sicily (A. D. 535), and the whole island was surrendered to

him, almost without a blow. The following spring (having

crossed to Carthage meantime and quelled a formidable revolt),

he passed the straits from Messina and landed his small army

in Italy. Marching northwards, he encountered his first

opposition at Neapolis—modern Naples—where he was detained

for twenty days by the stout resistance of the city.

{2741}

It was surprised, at length, by a storming party which crept

through one of the aqueducts of the town, and it suffered

fearfully from the barbarians of the Roman army before

Belisarius could recover control of his savage troops. Pausing

for a few months to organize his easy conquest of southern

Italy, he received, before he marched to Rome, the practical

surrender of the capital. On the 9th of December, 536, he

entered the city and the Gothic garrison marched out. The

Goths, meantime, had deposed the cowardly Theodatus and raised

to the throne their most trusty warrior, Witigis. They

employed the winter of 537 in gathering all their available

forces at Ravenna, and in the spring they returned to Rome,

150,000 strong, to expel the Byzantine invader. Belisarius had

busily improved the intervening months, and the long-neglected

fortifications of the city were wonderfully restored and

improved. At the beginning of March, the Goths were thundering

at the gates of Rome; and then began the long siege, which

endured for a year and nine days, and which ended in the

discomfiture of the huge army of the besiegers. Their retreat

was a flight and great numbers were slain by the pursuing

Romans. "The numbers and prowess of the Goths were rendered

useless by the utter incapacity of their commander. Ignorant

how to assault, ignorant how to blockade, he allowed even the

sword of Hunger to be wrested from him and used against his

army by Belisarius. He suffered the flower of the Gothic

nation to perish, not so much by the weapons of the Romans as

by the deadly dews of the Campagna." After the retreat of the

Goths from Rome, the conquest of Italy would have been quickly

completed, no doubt, if the jealousy of Justinian had not

hampered Belisarius, by sending the eunuch Narses—who proved

to be a remarkable soldier, in the end—to divide the command

with him. As it was, the surrender to Belisarius of the Gothic

capital, Ravenna, by the Gothic king, Witigis, in the spring

of 540, seemed to make the conquest an accomplished fact. The

unconquered Gothic warriors then held but two important

cities—Verona and Pavia. Milan they had retaken after losing

it, and had practically destroyed, massacring the inhabitants.

See MILAN: A. D. 539.

But now they chose a new king, Ildibad, who reigned

promisingly for a year and was slain; then another, who wore

the crown but five months; and, lastly, they found a true

royal chief in the knightly young warrior Baduila, or Totila,

by whose energy and valor the Gothic cause was revived.

Belisarius had been recalled by his jealous master, and the

quarrels of eleven generals who divided his authority gave

every opportunity to the youthful king. Defeating the Roman

armies in two battles, at Faenza and in the valley of Mugello,

near Florence, he crossed the Apennines, passed by Rome,

besieged and took Naples and Cumæ and overran all the southern

provinces of Italy, in 542 and 543, finding everywhere much

friendliness among the people, whom the tax-gatherers of

Justinian had alienated by their merciless rapacity. In 544,

Belisarius, restored to favor and command only because of the

desperate need of his services, came back to Italy to recover

what his successors had lost; but he came almost alone.

Without adequate troops, he could only watch, from Ravenna,

and circumscribe a little, the successes of his enterprising

antagonist. The latter, having strengthened his position well,

in central as well as in southern Italy, applied himself to

the capture of Rome. In May, 546, the Gothic lines were drawn

around the city and a blockade established which soon produced

famine and despair. An attempt by Belisarius to break the

leaguer came to naught, and Rome was betrayed to Totila on the

17th of December following. He stayed the swords of his

followers when they began to slay, but gave them full license

to plunder. When the great city had been stripped and most of

its inhabitants had fled, he resolved to destroy it utterly;

but he was dissuaded from that most barbarous design by a

letter of remonstrance from Belisarius. Contenting himself,

then, with throwing down a great part of the walls, he

withdrew his whole army—having no troops to spare for an

adequate garrison—and took with him every single surviving

inhabitant (so the historians of the time declare), so that

Rome, for the space of six weeks or more (January and

February, 547), was a totally deserted and silent city. At the

end of that time, Belisarius threw his army inside of the

broken walls, and repaired them with such celerity that Totila

was baffled when he hastened back to expel the intruders.

Three times the Goths attacked and were repulsed; the best of

their warriors were slain; the prestige of their leader was

lost. But, once more, jealousies and enmities at

Constantinople recalled Belisarius and the Goths recovered

ground. In 549 they again invested Rome and it was betrayed to

them, as before, by a part of the garrison. Totila now made

the great city—great even in its ruins—his capital, and

exerted himself to restore its former glories. His arms for a

time were everywhere successful. Sicily was invaded and

stripped of its portable wealth. Sardinia and Corsica were

occupied; the shores of Greece were threatened. But in 552 the

tide of fortune was turned once more in favor of

Justinian,—this time by his second great general, the eunuch

Narses. In one decisive battle fought that year, in July, at a

point on the Flaminian Way where it crosses the Apennines, the

army of the Goths was broken and their king was slain. The

remnant which survived crowned another king, Teias; but, he,

too, perished, the following March, in a battle fought at the

foot of Mount Vesuvius, and the Ostrogothic kingdom was at an

end. Rome was already recovered—the fifth change of masters it

had undergone during the war—and one by one, all the strong

places in the hands of the Goths were given up. The

restoration of Italy to the Empire was complete.

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 4, chapter 16;

book 5, chapters 1-24.

"Of all ages in history the sixth is the one in which the

doctrine that the Roman Empire came to an end at some time in

the fifth sounds most grotesque. Again the Roman armies march

to victory, to more than victory, to conquest, to conquests

more precious than the conquests of Cæsar or of Trajan, to

conquests which gave back Rome herself to her own Augustus. We

may again be met with the argument that we have ourselves used

so often; that the Empire had to win back its lost provinces

does indeed prove that it had lost them; but no one seeks to

prove that the provinces had not been lost; what the world is

loth to understand is that there was still life enough in the

Roman power to win them back again.

{2742}

I say the Roman power; what if I said the Roman commonwealth?

It may startle some to hear that in the sixth century, nay in

the seventh, the most common name for the Empire of Rome is

still 'respublica.' No epithet is needed; there is no Deed to

say that the 'respublica' spoken of is 'respublica Romano.' It

is the Republic which wins back Italy, Africa, and Southern

Spain from their Teutonic masters. … The point of the

employment of the word lies in this, that it marks the

unbroken being of the Roman state; in the eyes of the men of

the sixth century the power which won back the African

province in their own day was the same power which had first

won it well-nigh seven hundred years before. The consul

Belisarius was the true successor of the consul Scipio."

E. A. Freeman,

The Chief Periods of European History,

lecture 4.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapters 41 and 43.

J. B. Bury,

History of the Later Roman Empire,

book 4, chapters 5-7 (volume 1).

R. H. Wrightson,

The Sancta Respublica Romana,

chapters 5-7.

Lord Mahon,

Life of Belisarius.

ROME: A. D. 541.

Extinction of the office of Consul.

See CONSUL, ROMAN.

ROME: A. D. 554-800.

The Exarchate of Ravenna.

On the final overthrow and annihilation of the Gothic monarchy

in Italy by the decisive victories of the eunuch Narses, its

throne at Ravenna was occupied by a line of vice-royal rulers,

named exarchs, who represented the Eastern Roman emperor,

being appointed by him and exercising authority in his name.

"Their jurisdiction was soon reduced to the limits of a narrow

province; but Narses himself, the first and most powerful of

the exarchs, administered above fifteen years the entire

kingdom of Italy. … A duke was stationed for the defence and

military command of each of the principal cities; and the eye

of Narses pervaded the ample prospect from Calabria to the

Alps. The remains of the Gothic nation evacuated the country

or mingled with the people. … The civil state of Italy, after

the agitation of a long tempest, was fixed by a pragmatic

sanction, which the emperor promulgated at the request of the

pope. Justinian introduced his own jurisprudence into the

schools and tribunals of the West. … Under the exarchs of

Ravenna, Rome was degraded to the second rank. Yet the

senators were gratified by the permission of visiting their

estates in Italy, and of approaching without obstacle the

throne of Constantinople: the regulation of weights and

measures was delegated to the pope and senate; and the

salaries of lawyers and physicians, of orators and

grammarians, were destined to preserve or rekindle the light

of science in the ancient capital. … During a period of 200

years Italy was unequally divided between the kingdom of the

Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. … Eighteen successive

exarchs were invested, in the decline of the empire, with the

full remains of civil, of military and even of ecclesiastical

power. Their immediate jurisdiction, which was afterwards

consecrated as the patrimony of St. Peter, extended over the

modern Romagna, the marshes or valleys of Ferrara and

Commachio, five maritime cities from Rimini to Ancona, and a

second inland Pentapolis, between the Adriatic coast and the

hills of the Apennine. Three subordinate provinces—of Rome, of

Venice, and of Naples—which were divided by hostile lands from

the palace of Ravenna, acknowledged, both in peace and war,

the supremacy of the exarch. The duchy of Rome appears to have

included the Tuscan, Sabine, and Latin conquests of the first

400 years of the city, and the limits may be distinctly traced

along the coast, from Civita Vecchio, to Terracina, and with

the course of the Tiber from Ameria and Narni to the port of

Ostia. The numerous islands from Grado to Chiozza composed the

infant dominion of Venice; but the more accessible towns on

the continent were overthrown by the Lombards, who beheld with

impotent fury a new capital rising from the waves. The power

of the dukes of Naples was circumscribed by the bay and the

adjacent isles, by the hostile territory of Capua, and by the

Roman colony of Amalphi. … The three islands of Sardinia,

Corsica, and Sicily still adhered to the empire. … Rome was

oppressed by the iron sceptre of the exarchs, and a Greek,

perhaps a eunuch, insulted with impunity the ruins of the

Capitol. But Naples soon acquired the privilege of electing

her own dukes; the independence of Amalphi was the fruit of

commerce; and the voluntary attachment of Venice was finally

ennobled by an equal alliance with the Eastern empire."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapters 43 and 45.

{2742a}

{2742b}

EUROPE AT THE DEATH OF THE EMPEROR JUSTINIAN 565 A. D.

EAST ROMAN EMPIRE

RACE DIVISIONS

CELTIC PEOPLES.

SLAVIC PEOPLES.

LITHUANIAN PEOPLES.

URAL ALTAIC PEOPLES.

SCANDINAVIANS.

ANGLES, SAXONS, JUTES ETC.

THE GERMANIC STATES AND PEOPLES ALL APPEAR

IN DIFFERENT SHADES OF PINK.

ROME: A. D. 565-628.

Decline of the Eastern Empire.

Thickening calamities.

Reigns of Justinus II., Tiberius Constantinus, Maurice,

and Phocas.

Brief brightening of events by Heraclius.

His campaigns against the Persians.

"The thirty years which followed the death of Justinian are

covered by three reigns, those of Justinus II. (565-578),

Tiberius Constantinus (578-582), and Maurice (582-602). These

three emperors were men of much the same character as the

predecessors of Justinian; each of them was an experienced

official of mature age, who was selected by the reigning

emperor as his most worthy successor. … Yet under them the

empire was steadily going down hill: the exhausting effects of

the reign of Justinian were making themselves felt more and

more, and at the end of the reign of Maurice a time of chaos

and disaster was impending, which came to a head under his

successor. … The misfortunes of the Avaric and Slavonic war

[see AVARS] were the cause of the fall of the Emperor Maurice.

… Maurice sealed his fate when, in 602, he issued orders for

the discontented army of the Danube to winter north of the

river, in the waste marshes of the Slavs. The troops refused

to obey the order, and chased away their generals. Then

electing as their captain an obscure centurion, named Phocas,

they marched on Constantinople. Maurice armed the city

factions, the 'Blues' and 'Greens,' and strove to defend

himself. But when he saw that no one would fight for him, he

fled across the Bosphorus with his wife and children, to seck

refuge in the Asiatic provinces, where he was less unpopular

than in Europe. Soon he was pursued by orders of Phocas, whom

the army had now saluted as emperor, and caught at Chalcedon.

The cruel usurper had him executed, along with all his five

sons, the youngest a child of only three years of age. … For

the first time since Constantinople had become the seat of

empire the throne had been won by armed rebellion and the

murder of the legitimate ruler. …

{2743}

Phocas was a mere brutal soldier—cruel, ignorant, suspicious,

and reckless, and in his incapable hands the empire began to

fall to pieces with alarming rapidity. He opened his reign

with a series of cruel executions of his predecessor's

friends, and from that moment his deeds of bloodshed never

ceased. … The moment that Phocas had mounted the throne,

Chosroës of Persia declared war on him, using the hypocritical

pretext that he wished to revenge Maurice, for whom he

professed a warm personal friendship. This war was far

different from the indecisive contests in the reigns of

Justinian and Justin II. In two successive years the Persians

burst into North Syria and ravaged it as far as the sea; but

in the third they turned north and swept over the hitherto

untouched provinces of Asia Minor. In 608 their main army

penetrated across Cappadocia and Galatia right up to the gates

of Chalcedon. The inhabitants of Constantinople could see the

blazing villages across the water on the Asiatic shore. … Plot

after plot was formed in the capital against Phocas, but he

succeeded in putting them all down, and slew the conspirators

with fearful tortures. For eight years his reign continued. …

Africa was the only portion of the Roman Empire which in the

reign of Phocas was suffering neither from civil strife nor

foreign invasion. It was well governed by the aged exarch

Heraclius, who was so well liked in the province that the

emperor had not dared to depose him. Urged by desperate

entreaties from all parties in Constantinople to strike a blow

against the tyrant, and deliver the empire from the yoke of a

monster, Heraclius at last consented." He sent his son—who

bore the same name, Heraclius—with a fleet, to Constantinople.

Phocas was at once abandoned by his troops and was given up to

Heraclius, whose sailors slew him. "Next day the patriarch and

the senate hailed Heraclius [the younger] as emperor, and he

was duly crowned in St. Sophia on October 5, A. D. 610. … Save

Africa and Egypt and the district immediately around the

capital, all the provinces were overrun by the Persian, the

Avar and the Slav. The treasury was empty, and the army had

almost disappeared, owing to repeated and bloody defeats in

Asia Minor. Heraclius seems at first to have almost despaired.

… For the first twelve years of his reign he remained at

Constantinople, endeavouring to reorganize the empire, and to

defend at any rate the frontiers of Thrace and Asia Minor. The

more distant provinces he hardly seems to have hoped to save,

and the chronicle of his early years is filled with the

catalogue of the losses of the empire. … In 614 the Persian

army appeared before the holy city of Jerusalem, took it after

a short resistance and occupied it with a garrison. But the

populace rose and slaughtered the Persian troops, when

Shahrbarz had departed with his main army. This brought him

back in wrath: he stormed the city and put 90,000 Christians

to the sword, only sparing the Jewish inhabitants. Zacharias,

Patriarch of Jerusalem, was carried into captivity, and with

him went what all Christians then regarded as the most

precious thing in the world—the wood of the 'True Cross'. …

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.

The horror and rage roused by the loss of the 'True Cross' and

the blasphemies of King Chosroës brought about the first real

outburst of national feeling that we meet in the history of

the Eastern Empire. … Heraclius made no less than six

campaigns (A. D. 622-627) in his gallant and successful

attempt to save the half-ruined empire. He won great and

well-deserved fame, and his name would be reckoned among the

foremost of the world's warrior-kings if it had not been for

the misfortunes which afterwards fell on him in his old age.

His first campaign cleared Asia Minor of the Persian hosts,

not by a direct attack, but by skilful strategy. … In his next

campaigns Heraclius endeavoured to liberate the rest of the

Roman Empire by a similar plan: he resolved to assail Chosroës

at home, and force him to recall the armies he kept in Syria

and Egypt to defend his own Persian provinces. In 623-4 the

Emperor advanced across the Armenian mountains and threw

himself into Media. … Chosroës … fought two desperate battles

to cover Ctesiphon. His generals were defeated in both, but

the Roman army suffered severely. Winter was at hand, and

Heraclius fell back on Armenia. In his next campaign he

recovered Roman Mesopotamia. … But 626 was the decisive year

of the war. The obstinate Chosroës determined on one final

effort to crush Heraclius, by concerting a joint plan of

operations with the Chagan of the Avars. While the main

Persian army watched the emperor in Armenia, a great body

under Shahrbarz slipped south of him into Asia Minor and

marched on the Bosphorus. At the same moment the Chagan of the

Avars, with the whole force of his tribe and of his Slavonic

dependents, burst over the Balkans and beset Constantinople on

the European side. The two barbarian hosts could see each

other across the water, and even contrived to exchange

messages, but the Roman fleet, sailing incessantly up and down

the strait, kept them from joining forces. … In the end of

July 80,000 Avars and Slavs, with all sorts of siege

implements, delivered simultaneous assaults along the land

front of the city, but they were beaten back with great

slaughter." They suffered even more on trying to encounter the

Roman galleys with rafts. "Then the Chagan gave up the siege

in disgust and retired across the Danube." Meantime Heraclius

was wasting Media and Mesopotamia, and next year he ended the

war by a decisive victory near Nineveh, as the result of which

he took the palace of Dastagerd, "and divided among his troops

such a plunder as had never been seen since Alexander the

Great captured Susa. … In March, 628, a glorious peace ended

the 26 years of the Persian war. Heraclius returned to

Constantinople in the summer of the same year with his spoils,

his victorious army, and his great trophy, the 'Holy Wood.' …

The quiet for which he yearned was to be denied him, and the

end of his reign was to be almost as disastrous as the

commencement. The great Saracen invasion was at hand, and it

was at the very moment of Heraclius' triumph that Mahomet sent

out his famous circular letter to the kings of the earth,

inviting them to embrace Islam."

C. W. C. Oman,

The Story of the Byzantine Empire,

chapters 9-10.

ALSO IN:

J. B. Bury,

History of the Later Roman Empire,

book 4, part 2, and book 5, chapters 1-3 (volume 2).

See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ROME: A. D. 568-573.

Invasion of the Lombards.

Their conquest of northern Italy.

Their kingdom.

See LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573; and 573-754.

{2744}

ROME: A. D. 590-640.

Increasing influence and importance of the Bishop of Rome.

Circumstances under which his temporal authority grew.

"The fall of the shadowy Empire of the West, and the union of

the Imperial power in the person of the ruler of

Constantinople, brought a fresh accession of dignity and

importance to the Bishop of Rome. The distant Emperor could

exercise no real power over the West. The Ostrogothic kingdom

in Italy scarcely lasted beyond the lifetime of its great

founder Theodoric. The wars of Justinian only served to show

how scanty were the benefits of the Imperial rule. The

invasion of the Lombards united all dwellers in Italy in an

endeavour to escape the lot of servitude and save their land

from barbarism. In this crisis it was found that the Imperial

system had crumbled away, and that the Church alone possessed

a strong organisation. In the decay of the old municipal

aristocracy the people of the towns gathered round their

bishops, whose sacred character inspired some respect in the

barbarians, and whose active charity lightened the calamities

of their flocks. In such a state of things Pope Gregory the

Great raised the Papacy [A. D. 590] to a position of decisive

eminence, and marked out the course of its future policy. The

piety of emperors and nobles had conferred lands on the Roman

Church, not only in Italy, but in Sicily, Corsica, Gaul, and

even in Asia and Africa, until the Bishop of Rome had become

the largest landholder in Italy. To defend his Italian lands

against the incursions of the Lombards was a course suggested

to Gregory by self-interest; to use the resources which came

to him from abroad as a means of relieving the distress of the

suffering people in Rome and Southern Italy was a natural

prompting of his charity. In contrast to this, the distant

Emperor was too feeble to send any effective help against the

Lombards, while the fiscal oppression of his representatives

added to the miseries of the starving people. The practical

wisdom, administrative capacity, and Christian zeal of Gregory

I. led the people of Rome and the neighbouring regions to look

upon the Pope as their head in temporal as well as in

spiritual matters. The Papacy became a national centre to the

Italians, and the attitude of the Popes towards the Emperor

showed a spirit of independence which rapidly passed into

antagonism and revolt. Gregory I. was not daunted by the

difficulties nor absorbed by the cares of his position at

home. When he saw Christianity threatened in Italy by the

heathen Lombards, he boldly pursued a system of religious

colonisation. While dangers were rife at Rome, a band of Roman

missionaries carried Christianity to the distant English, and

in England first was founded a Church which owed its existence

to the zeal of the Roman bishop. Success beyond all that he

could have hoped for attended Gregory's pious enterprise. The

English Church spread and flourished, a dutiful daughter of

her mother-church of Rome. England sent forth missionaries in

her turn, and before the preaching of Willibrod and Winifred

heathenism died away in Friesland, Franconia, and Thuringia.

Under the new name of Boniface, given him by Pope Gregory II.,

Winifred, as Archbishop of Mainz, organised a German Church,

subject to the successor of S. Peter. The course of events in

the East also tended to increase the importance of the See of

Rome. The Mohammedan conquests destroyed the Patriarchates of

Antioch and Jerusalem, which alone could boast of an

apostolical foundation. Constantinople alone remained as a

rival to Rome; but under the shadow of the Imperial despotism

it was impossible for the Patriarch of Constantinople to lay

claim to spiritual independence. The settlement of Islam in

its eastern provinces involved the Empire in a desperate

struggle for its existence. Henceforth its object no longer

was to reassert its supremacy over the West, but to hold its

ground against watchful foes in the East. Italy could hope for

no help from the Emperor, and the Pope saw that a breach with

the Empire would give greater independence to his own

position, and enable him to seek new allies elsewhere."

M. Creighton,

History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,

introduction, chapter 1 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

T. W. Allies,

The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations,

chapter 5.

See, also,

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 553-800;

and PAPACY: A. D. 461-604, and after.

ROME: A. D. 632-709.

The Eastern Empire.

Its first conflicts with Islam.

Loss of Syria, Egypt, and Africa.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639, to 647-709.

ROME: A. D. 641-717.

The Eastern Empire.

The period between the death of Heraclius and the advent of

Leo III. (the Isaurian) is covered, in the Eastern Empire, by

the following reigns:

Constantine III. and Heracleonas (641);

Constans II. (641-668);

Constantine IV. (668-685);

Justinian II. (685-711);

Leontius and Absimarus (usurpers, who interrupted the reign

of Justinian II. from 695 to 698 and from 698 to 704);

Philippicus (711-713);

Anastasius II. (713-716);

Theodosius III. (716-717).

ROME: A. D. 717-800.

The Eastern Roman Empire: should it take

the name of the Byzantine Empire?—and when?

"The precise date at which the eastern Roman empire ceased to

exist has been variously fixed. Gibbon remarks, 'that Tiberius

[A. D. 578-582] by the Arabs, and Maurice [A. D. 582-602] by

the Italians, are distinguished as the first of the Greek

Cæsars, as the founders of a new dynasty and empire.' But if

manners, language, and religion are to decide concerning the

commencement of the Byzantine empire, the preceding pages have

shown that its origin must be carried back to an earlier

period; while, if the administrative peculiarities in the form

of government be taken as the ground of decision, the Roman

empire may be considered as indefinitely prolonged with the

existence of the title of Roman emperor, which the sovereigns

of Constantinople continued to retain as long as

Constantinople was ruled by Christian princes. … The period …

at which the Roman empire of the East terminated is decided by

the events which confined the authority of the imperial

government to those provinces where the Greeks formed the

majority of the population; and it is marked by the adoption

of Greek as the language of the government, by the prevalence

of Greek civilisation, and by the identification of the

nationality of the people, and the policy of the emperors with

the Greek church. For, when the Saracen conquests had severed

from the empire all those provinces which possessed a native

population distinct from the Greeks, by language, literature,

and religion, the central government of Constantinople was

gradually compelled to fall back on the interests and passions

of the remaining inhabitants, who were chiefly Greeks. …

{2745}

Yet, as it was by no means identified with the interests and

feelings of the native inhabitants of Hellas, it ought

correctly to be termed Byzantine, and the empire is,

consequently, justly called the Byzantine empire. … Even the

final loss of Egypt, Syria, and Africa only reveals the

transformation of the Roman empire, when the consequences of

the change begin to produce visible effects on the internal

government. The Roman empire seems, therefore, really to have

terminated with the anarchy which followed the murder of

Justinian II. [A. D. 711], the last sovereign of the family of

Heraclius; and Leo III., or the Isaurian [A. D. 717-741], who

identified the imperial administration with ecclesiastical

forms and questions, must be ranked as the first of the

Byzantine monarchs, though neither the emperor, the clergy,

nor the people perceived at the time the moral change in their

position, which makes the establishment of this new era

historically correct. Under the sway of the Heraclian family

[A. D. 610-711], the extent of the empire was circumscribed

nearly within the bounds which it continued to occupy during

many subsequent centuries. … The geographical extent of the

empire at the time of its transition from the Roman to the

Byzantine empire affords evidence of the influence which the

territorial changes produced by the Saracen conquests

exercised in conferring political importance on the Greek

race. The frontier towards the Saracens of Syria commenced at

Mopsuestia in Cilicia, the last fortress of the Arab power. It

ran along the chains of Mounts Amanus and Taurus to the

mountainous district to the north of Edessa and Nisibis,

called, after the time of Justinian, the Fourth Armenia, of

which Martyropolis was the capital. It then followed nearly

the ancient limits of the empire until it reached the Black

Sea, a short distance to the east of Trebizond. … In Europe,

Mount Hæmus [the Balkans] formed the barrier against the

Bulgarians, while the mountainous ranges which bound Macedonia

to the north-west, and encircle the territory of Dyrrachium,

were regarded as the limits of the free Sclavonian states. …

Istria, Venice, and the cities on the Dalmatian coast, still

acknowledged the supremacy of the empire. … In the centre of

Italy, the exarchate of Ravenna still held Rome in subjection,

but the people of Italy were entirely alienated. … The cities

of Gaëta, Naples, Amalfi, and Sorento, the district of

Otranto, and the peninsula to the south of the ancient

Sybaris, now called Calabria, were the only parts [of southern

Italy] which remained under the Byzantine government. Sicily,

though it had begun to suffer from the incursions of the

Saracens, was still populous and wealthy."

G. Finlay,

Greece under the Romans,

chapter 5, sections 1 and 7.

Dissenting from the view presented above, Professor Freeman

says: "There is no kind of visible break, such as is suggested

by the change of name, between the Empire before Leo and the

Empire after him. The Emperor of the Romans reigned over the

land of Romania after him as well as before him. … Down to the

fall of Constantinople in the East, down to the abdication of

Francis II. in the West, there was no change of title; the

Emperor of the Romans remained Emperor of the Romans, however

shifting might be the extent of his dominions. But from 800 to

1453 there were commonly two, sometimes more, claimants of the

title. The two Empires must be distinguished in some way; and,

from 800 to 1204, 'Eastern' and 'Western' seem the simplest

forms of distinction. But for 'Eastern' it is just as easy,

and sometimes more expressive, to say 'Byzantine'; only it is

well not to begin the use of either name as long as the Empire

keeps even its nominal unity. With the coronation of Charles

the Great [800] that nominal unity comes to an end. The Old

Rome passes away from even the nominal dominion of the prince

who reigns in the New."

E. A. Freeman,

Historical Essays, series 3,

page 244.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

ROME: A. D. 728-733.

Beginnings of Papal Sovereignty.

The Iconoclastic controversy.

Rupture with the Byzantine Emperor.

Practical independence assumed by the Pope.

See PAPACY: A. D. 728-774;

and ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

ROME: A. D. 751.

Fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna.

See PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

ROME: A. D. 754-774.

Struggle of the Popes against the Lombards.

Their deliverance by Pippin and Charlemagne.

Fall of the Lombard kingdom.

See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774;

also, PAPACY: A. D. 728-774, and 755-774.

ROME: A. D. 800.

Coronation of Charlemagne.

The Empire revived.

See FRANKS: A. D. 768-814;

and GERMANY: A. D. 800.

ROME: A. D. 843-951.

The breaking up of Charlemagne's Empire

and founding of the Holy Roman Empire.

See ITALY: A. D. 843-951;

FRANKS: A. D. 814-962;

and GERMANY: A. D. 814-843, to 936-973.

ROME: A. D. 846-849.

Attack by the Saracens.

"A fleet of Saracens from the African coast presumed to enter

the mouth of the Tiber, and to approach a city which even yet,

in her fallen state, was revered as the metropolis of the

Christian world. The gates and ramparts were guarded by a

trembling people; but the tombs and temples of St. Peter and

St. Paul were left exposed in the suburbs of the Vatican and

of the Ostian Way. Their invisible sanctity had protected them

against the Goths, the Vandals, and the Lombards; but the

Arabs disdained both the Gospel and the legend; and their

rapacious spirit was approved and animated by the precepts of

the Koran. The Christian idols were stripped of their costly

offerings. … In their course along the Appian Way, they

pillaged Fundi and besieged Gaeta." The diversion produced by

the siege of Gaeta gave Rome a fortunate respite. In the

interval, a vacancy occurred on the papal throne, and Pope Leo

IV. by unanimous election, was raised to the place. His energy

as a temporal prince saved the great city. He repaired its

walls, constructed new towers and barred the Tiber by an iron

chain. He formed an alliance with the cities of Gaeta, Naples,

and Amalfi, still vassals of the Greek empire, and brought

their galleys to his aid. When, therefore, in 849, the

Saracens from Africa returned to the attack, they met with a

terrible repulse. An opportune storm assisted the Christians

in the destruction of their fleet, and most of the small

number who escaped death remained captives in the hands of the

Romans and their allies.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 52.

{2746}

ROME: A. D. 903-964.

The reign of the courtesans and their brood.

Interference of Otho the Great.

His revival of the Empire.

"During these changes [in the breaking up of the empire of

Charlemagne], Rome became a sort of theocratic democracy,

governed by women and priests; a state of things which, in the

barbarism of the middle ages, was only possible at Rome.

Theodora, a woman of patrician descent, equally celebrated for

her beauty and her daring, obtained great power in Rome, which

she prolonged by the charms of her two daughters. The city of

Saint Peter was ruled by this trio of courtesans. The mother,

Theodora, by her familiar commerce with several of the Roman

barons, had obtained possession of the castle of Saint Angelo,

at the entrance of Rome, on one of the principal bridges over

the Tiber; and she had made it an abode of pleasure and a

fortress, whence she corrupted and oppressed the Church. Her

daughters, Marozia and Theodora, disposed of the pontificate

by their own arts, or through their lovers, and occasionally

bestowed it on the lovers themselves. Sergius III., after a

contested election and seven years' exile, was recalled to the

see of Rome by the interest of Marozia, by whom he had had a

son, who afterwards became Pope. The younger Theodora was no

less ambitious and influential than her sister. She loved a

young clerk of the Roman Church, for whom she had first

obtained the bishopric of Bologna, and then the archbishopric

of Ravenna. Finding it irksome to be separated from him by a

distance of 200 miles, she procured his nomination to the

papacy, in order to have him near her; and he was elected Pope

in 912, under the title of John X. … After a pontificate of

fourteen years, John was displaced by the same means to which

he owed his elevation." Marozia, who had married Guy, Duke of

Tuscany, conspired with her husband against the Pope and he

was put out of the way. That accomplished, "Marozia allowed

the election of two Popes successively, whose pontificate was

obscure and short; and then she raised to the papal see a

natural son of hers, it is said, by Pope Sergius III., her

former lover. This young man took the name of John XI., and

Marozia, his mother, having soon after lost her husband, Guy,

was sought in marriage by Hugh, King of Italy, and his brother

by the mother's side. But it would appear that the people of

Rome were growing weary of the tyranny of this shameless and

cruel woman." King Hugh was driven from Rome by a revolt, in

which another son of Marozia, named Alberic, took the lead.

"Alberic, the leader of this popular rising, was proclaimed

consul by the Romans, who still clung to the traditions of the

republic; he threw his mother, Marozia, into prison, and set a

guard over his brother, Pope John; and thus, invested with the

popular power, he prepared to defend the independence of Rome

against the pretensions of Hugh and the forces of Lombardy.

Alberic, master of Rome under the title of patrice and

senator, exercised, during twenty-three years, all the rights

of sovereignty. The money was coined with his image, with two

sceptres across; he made war and peace, appointed magistrates

and disposed of the election and of the power of the Popes,

who, in that interval, filled the See of Rome, John XI., Leo

VII., Stephen IX., Martin III., and Agapetus II. The name of

this subject and imprisoned papacy was none the less revered

beyond the limits of Rome. … Alberic died lord of Rome, and

had bequeathed his power to his son Octavian; who, two years

afterwards, on the death of Agapetus II., caused himself,

young as he was, to be named Pope by those who already

acknowledged him as patrice."

A. F. Villemain,

Life of Gregory VII.,

introduction, period 6.

"He [Octavian] was elected Pope on the 23d of March, A. D.

956. His promotion was a disgraceful calamity. He brought to

the chair of St. Peter only the vices and dissolute morals of

a young debauchee; and though Luitprand must have exaggerated

the disorders of this Pope, yet there remains enough of truth

in the account to have brought down the scandal of the

pontificate through succeeding ages, like a loud blasphemy,

which makes angels weep and hell exult. Octavian assumed the

name of John XII. This first example of a change of name on

ascending the pontifical chair has since passed into a custom

with all the Sovereign Pontiffs."

Abbé J. E. Darras,

General History of the Catholic Church,

period 4, chapter 7.

Finding it hard to defend his independence against the king of

Italy, Pope John XII. made the mistake, fatal to himself, of

soliciting help from the German king Otho the Great. Otho

came, made himself master of Italy, revived the empire of

Charlemagne, was crowned with the imperial crown of Rome, by

the Pope, and then purged the Roman See by causing the bestial

young pope who crowned him to be deposed.

See ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY;

and GERMANY; A. D. 936-973.

John was subsequently reinstated by the Romans, but died soon

after, A. D. 964.

H. H. Milman,

History of Latin Christianity,

book 5, chapter 12.

The state of things at Rome described in the above has been

fitly styled by some writers "a pornocracy."

ROME: A. D. 962-1057.

Futile attempts of the German Emperors to reform the Papacy.

Chronic disorganization of the city.

"It had not been within the power of the Emperor Otto I. to

establish a permanent reformation in Rome. … The previous

scandalous scenes were renewed, and a slight amelioration of

things under the Popes Gregory V. and Silvester II., whom Otto

III. placed on the papal throne [A. D. 997-1003], was but

transitory. … For the third time it became necessary for an

emperor, in this instance Henry III., to constitute himself

the preserver and purifier of the papacy, first at Sutri and

afterwards at Rome. At that period the papal chair was

occupied within twelve years by five German popes [Clement II.

to Victor II.—A. D. 1046-1057], since amongst the Roman clergy

no fitting candidate could be found. These popes, with one

exception, died almost immediately, poisoned by the unhealthy

atmosphere of Rome; one only, Leo IX., under Hildebrand's

guidance, left any lasting trace of his pontificate, and laid

the foundation of that Gregorian system which resulted in

papal supremacy. … Rome was assuming more and more the

character of a sacerdotal city; the old wealthy patrician

families had either disappeared or migrated to Constantinople;

and as the seat of government was either at Constantinople or

Ravenna, there was no class of state officials in Rome. But

the clergy had become rich upon the revenues of the vast

possessions of St. Peter. … Without manufactures, trade, or

industry of their own, the people of Rome were induced to rely

upon exactions levied upon the foreigner, and upon profits

derived from ecclesiastical institutions. … Hence the

unvarying sameness in the political history of Rome from the

5th to the 15th century."

J. I. von Döllinger,

Studies in European History,

chapter. 3.

See PAPACY: A. D. 887-1046.

{2746a}

NINTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

A.D.

801.  Conquest of Barcelona from the Moors by the Franks.

805.  Charlemagne's subjugation of the Avars.

Creation of the Austrian march.

806.  Division of the Empire by Charlemagne

between his sons formally planned.

809.  Death of the Caliph Haroun al Raschid.

812.  Civil war between the sons of the Caliph Haroun al Raschid;

siege of Bagdad.

814.  Death of Charlemagne, and accession of Louis the Pious,

his only surviving son.

816.  Death of Pope Leo III.;

election of Stephen IV.

817.  Partition of the Empire of the Franks by Louis the Pious.

826.  Grant of a county between the Rhine and Moselle

to Harold of Jutland, by the Emperor.

821.  Beginning of Moslem conquest of Sicily.

830.  First rebellion of the sons of the Emperor Louis the Pious.

833.  Second rebellion of the Emperor's sons;

the "Field of Lies";

deposition of the Emperor Louis the Pious.

Death of the Caliph Mamun, son of Haroun al Raschid.

834.  Restoration of Louis the Pious.

835.  Invasion of the Netherlands and sacking of Utrecht

by the Northmen.

836.  Burning of Antwerp and ravaging of Flanders by the Northmen.

Death of Ecgberht, the first king of all the English.

837.  First expedition of the Northmen up the Rhine.

838.  Asia Minor invaded by the Caliph Motassem;

the Amorian War.

840.  Third rebellion of the sons of the Frankish Emperor

Louis the Pious; his death; civil war.

841.  Expedition of the Northmen up the Seine;

their capture of Rouen.

842.  The Oath of Strasburg.

843.  Conquest by the Mahometans of Messina in Sicily.

Partition Treaty of Verdun between the sons of the

Emperor Louis the Pious; formation of the realms of

Louis the German and Charles the Bald,

which grew into the kingdoms of Germany and France.

845.  First attack of the Northmen on Paris;

their destruction of Hamburg.

846.  Rome attacked by the Moslems.

847.  Siege and capture of Bordeaux by the Northmen.

849.  Birth of Alfred the Great (d. 901).

852.  Revolt against the Moslems in Armenia.

854.  Ravages of the Northmen on the Loire checked at Orleans.

855.  Death of Lothaire, Emperor of the Franks, and civil war

between his sons.

First footing of the Danes established in England.

851.  Deposition of Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople,

and elevation of Photius.

860.  Discovery of Iceland by the Northmen. [Uncertain date.]

861.  Formation of the Duchy of France;

origin of the House of Capet.

Paris surprised by the Northmen.

863.  Papal decree against the Eastern Patriarch, Photius.

Creation of the County of Flanders by Charles the Bald.

864.  Mission of Cyril and Methodius to the Slavonians.

865.  First Varangian or Russian attack on Constantinople.

866.  Beginning of the permanent conquests of the Danes in England.

871.  Moslem fortress of Bari, in southern Italy,

surrendered to the Franks and Greeks.

Accession of Alfred the Great to the throne of Wessex.

815.  Death of Louis II., Emperor of the Franks and king of Italy;

imperial coronation of Charles the Bald.

876.  The Seine entered by the Northmen under Rollo.

817.  Death of the Emperor, Charles the Bald,

and accession of Louis the Stammerer.

Founding of the kingdom of Provence by Count Boso.

878.  Capture by the Moslems of Syracuse in Sicily.

880.  Ravages of the Northmen in Germany;

battles of the Ardennes and Ebbsdorf.

Defeat of the Danes by the English King Alfred at Ethandun;

Peace of Wedmore. [Uncertain date.]

881.  Accession of Charles the Fat, king of Germany and Italy.

884.  Temporary reunion of the Empire of the Franks

under Charles the Fat.

885.  Siege of Paris by the Northmen under Rollo.

881.  Deposition of the Emperor, Charles the Fat.

888.  Death of Charles the Fat and final disruption of the

Empire of the Franks;

founding of the kingdom of Transjurane Burgundy.

The crown of France in dispute between Eudes, Count of

Paris, and the Caroling heir, Charles the Simple.

889.  Second siege of Paris by Rollo.

890.  Third siege of Paris and siege of Bayeux by Rollo.

891.  Defeat of the Danes at Louvain by King Arnulf.

894.  Arnulf of Germany made Emperor.

890.  Rome taken by the Emperor Arnulf.

898.  Death of Eudes, leaving Charles the Simple sole

king of France.

899.  Death of the Emperor Arnulf;

accession of Louis the Child to the German throne.

900.  Italy ravaged in the north by the Hungarians.

{2746b}

TENTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

A.D.

901.  Death of the English king, Alfred the Great, and accession

of his son, Edward the Elder.

Founding of the Samanide dynasty in Khorassan.

904.  Sergius III. made Pope;

beginning of the rule of the courtesans at Rome.

909.  Founding of the Fatimite caliphate in Africa.

910.  Founding of the monastery of Clugny in France.

911.  Death of the Emperor Louis the Child, extinguishing

the Carolingian dynasty in Germany, and election of

Conrad the Franconian.

Defeat of the Northmen at Chartres in France;

cession of Normandy to Rollo.

912.  Baptism of the Norman Duke Rollo.

914.  Elevation of John X. to the papal throne by the courtesan,

Theodora. [Uncertain date.]

916.  Imperial coronation in Italy of Berengar.

919.  Election of the Saxon Duke, Henry the Fowler,

to the kingship of Germany.

Establishment of the Danish kingdom of Dublin.

923.  The crown of France disputed with Charles the Simple

by Rudolph, of Burgundy.

924.  Devastation of Germany by the Hungarians;

truce agreed upon for nine years.

Lapse of the imperial title on the death of Berengar.

Commendation of Scotland to the West Saxon King.

925.  Death of the English king, Edward the Elder,

and accession of his son Ethelstan.

928.  Overthrow and imprisonment of Pope John X.

by the courtesan Marozia. [Uncertain date.]

929.  Death of Charles the Simple in France.

931.  John XI., son of the courtesan Marozia,

made Pope. [Uncertain date.]

932.  Domination of Rome by the Pope's brother, Alberic.

936.  Election of Otho, called the Great,

to the throne of Germany.

Death of Rudolph of Burgundy and restoration of

the Carolingians to the French throne.

937.  Ethelstan's defeat of Danes, Britons and Scots

at the battle of Brunnaburgh.

Invasion of France by the Hungarians.

940.  Death of the English king, Ethelstan,

and accession of his brother Edmund.

946.  Death of the English king, Edmund,

and accession of his brother Edred.

951.  First expedition of Otho the Great into Italy;

founding of the Holy Roman Empire (afterwards so called).

954.  Death of Alberic, tyrant of Rome, his son, Octavian,

succeeding him.

Death of the Carolingian king of France, Louis IV.,

called "d'Outremer";

accession of Lothaire.

955.  Germany invaded by the Hungarians;

their decisive defeat on the Lech.

Death of the English king, Edred,

and accession of his nephew, Edwig.

956.  Assumption of the Papal throne by Octavian, as John XII.

957.  Revolt against the English king Edwig;

division of the kingdom with his brother Edgar.

[Uncertain date.]

959.  Death of Edwig and accession of Edgar;

Abbot Dunstan made Archbishop of Canterbury.

961.  The crown of Italy taken by Otho the Great, of Germany.

962.  Imperial coronation of Otho the Great at Rome;

revival of the Western Empire.

963.  Expulsion and deposition of Pope John XII.;

election of Leo VIII.

964.  Expulsion of Pope Leo VIII.;

return and death of John XII.;

siege and capture of Rome by the Emperor.

965.  Death of Pope Leo VIII.;

election, expulsion, and forcible restoration of John XIII.

967.  Conquest of Egypt by the Fatimite caliph. [Uncertain date.]

969.  Murder of the Eastern Emperor Nicephorus Phocas

by John Zimisces, his successor.

972.  Marriage of Otho, the Western Emperor's son,

to the Byzantine princess, Theophano.

Death of Pope John XIII., and election of Pope Benedict VI.

973.  Death of the Emperor Otho the Great;

accession of Otho II.

974.  Murder of Pope Benedict VI.

975.  Election of Pope Benedict VII.

Death of the English king Edgar;

accession of his son Edward the Martyr.

979.  Death of Edward the Martyr;

accession of Ethelred the Unready. [Uncertain date.]

983.  Death of the Emperor Otho II.;

accession of Otho III. to the German throne, under the

regency of his mother, Theophano.

First visit of Erik the Red to Greenland.

984.  Election of Pope John XIV.

985.  Murder of Pope John XIV.;

election of Pope John XV.

986.  Death of Lothaire, king of France;

accession of his son Louis V.

987.  Death of Louis V., the last of the Carolingian kings;

election of Hugh Capet.

988.  Death of Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury.

Cherson acquired by the Romans.

991.  Invasion of England by Vikings from Norway;

battle of Maldon.

996.  Death of Hugh Capet, king of France;

accession of his son, Robert II.

Death of Pope John XV.;

election of Gregory V.

Imperial coronation of Otho III.

997.  Insurrection of peasants in Normandy.

Rebellion of Crescentius in Rome;

expulsion of the Pope.

998.  Overthrow of Crescentius at Rome.

Excommunication of King Robert of France.

999.  Gerbert raised by the Emperor to the Papal chair,

as Sylvester II.

1000. Expectations of the end of the world.

Pilgrimages of the Emperor Otho.

Royal title conferred on Duke Stephen of Hungary,

by the Pope.

Christianity formally adopted in Iceland.

{2747}

ROME: A. D. 1077-1102.

Donation of the Countess Matilda to the Holy See.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.

Surrender to Henry IV.

Terrible Norman visitation.

Four years after his humiliation of himself before the pope at

Canossa (see CANOSSA), Henry IV. ("King of the Romans" and

claiming the imperial coronation, which the pope refused him),

entered Italy with an army to enforce his demands. He had

recovered his authority in Germany; the rival set up against

him was slain; northern Italy was strong in his support. For

three successive years Henry marched his army to the walls of

Rome and made attempts to enter, by force, or intrigue, or by

stress of blockade, and every year, when the heats of summer

came, he found himself compelled to withdraw. At last, the

Romans, who had stood firm by Gregory VII., tired of the

siege, or the gold which purchased their fidelity (some say)

gave out, and they opened their gates. Pope Gregory took

refuge in his impregnable Castle of St. Angelo, and Henry,

bringing with him the anti-pope whom his partisans had set up,

was crowned by the latter in the Church of St. Peter. But the

coveted imperial crown was little more than settled upon his

head when news came of the rapid approach of Robert Guiscard,

the Norman conqueror of southern Italy, with a large army, to

defend the legitimate pope. Henry withdrew from Rome in haste

and three days afterwards Robert Guiscard's army was under its

walls. The Romans feared to admit these terrible champions of

their pope; but the vigilance and valor of the Normans

surprised a gate, and the great city was in their power. They

made haste to conduct Gregory to his Lateran Palace and to

receive his blessing; then they "spread through the city,

treating it with an the cruelty of a captured town, pillaging,

violating, murdering, wherever they met with opposition. The

Romans had been surprised, not subdued. For two days and

nights they brooded over their vengeance; on the third day

they broke out in general insurrection. … The Romans fought at

advantage, from their possession of the houses and their

knowledge of the ground. They were gaining the superiority;

the Normans saw their peril. The remorseless Guiscard gave the

word to fire the houses. … The distracted inhabitants dashed

wildly into the streets, no longer endeavouring to defend

themselves, but to save their families. They were hewn down by

hundreds. … Nuns were defiled, matrons forced, the rings cut

from their living fingers. Gregory exerted himself, not

without success, in saving the principal churches. It is

probable, however, that neither Goth nor Vandal, neither Greek

nor German, brought such desolation on the city as this

capture by the Normans. From this period dates the desertion

of the older part of the city, and its gradual extension over

the site of the modern city, the Campus Martius. … Many

thousand Romans were sold publicly as slaves; many carried

into the remotest parts of Calabria." When Guiscard withdrew

his destroying army from the ruins of Rome, Gregory went with

him and never returned. He died not long after at Salerno.

H. H. Milman,

History of Latin Christianity,

book 7, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

A. F. Villemain,

Life of Gregory VII.,

book 9.

See, also,

GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122,

and PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122.

ROME: A. D. 1122-1250.

Conflict of the Popes with the Hohenstaufen Emperors.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250;

and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.

ROME: A. D. 1145-1155.

The Republic of Arnold of Brescia.

Arnold of Brescia—so-called from his native city in

Lombardy—was a disciple of Abelard, and not so much a

religious as a political reformer. "On all the high mysterious

doctrines of the Church, the orthodoxy of Arnold was

unimpeachable; his personal life was that of the sternest

monk; he had the most earnest sympathy with the popular

religion. … He would reduce the clergy to their primitive and

apostolic poverty; confiscate all their wealth, escheat all

their temporal power. … His Utopia was a great Christian

republic, exactly the reverse of that of Gregory VII." In

1145, Arnold was at Rome, where his doctrines had gone before

him, and where the citizens had already risen in rebellion

against the rule of the pope. "His eloquence brought over the

larger part of the nobles to the popular side; even some of

the clergy were infected by his doctrines. The re~public,

under his influence, affected to resume the constitution of

elder Rome. … The Capitol was rebuilt and fortified; even the

church of St. Peter was sacrilegiously turned into a castle.

The Patrician took possession of the Vatican, imposed taxes,

and exacted tribute by violence from the pilgrims. Rome began

again to speak of her sovereignty of the world." The republic

maintained itself until 1155, when a bolder pope —the

Englishman, Adrian or Hadrian IV.—had mounted the chair of St.

Peter, and confronted Arnold with unflinching hostility. The

death of one of his Cardinals, killed in a street tumult, gave

the pope an opportunity to place the whole city under an

interdict. "Religion triumphed over liberty. The clergy and

the people compelled the senate to yield. Hadrian would admit

of no lower terms than the abrogation of the republican

institutions; the banishment of Arnold and his adherents. The

republic was at an end, Arnold an exile; the Pope again master

in Rome." A few months later, Arnold of Brescia, a prisoner in

the hands of Frederick Barbarossa, then coming to Rome for the

imperial crown, was given up to the Pope and was executed in

some summary way, the particulars of which are in considerable

dispute.

H. H. Milman,

History of Latin Christianity,

book 8. chapters 6-7.

ALSO IN:

J. Miley,

History of the Papal States,

book 6.

ROME: A. D. 1155.

Tumult at the coronation of Frederick Barbarossa.

See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

ROME: A. D. 1167.

The taking of the city by Frederick Barbarossa.

See ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.

ROME: A. D. 1198-1216.

The establishing of Papal Sovereignty

in the States of the Church.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.

ROME: A. D. 1215.

The beginning in Italy of the strife of

the Guelphs and Ghibellines.

See ITALY: A. D. 1215.

{2748}

ROME: 13-14th Centuries.

The turbulence of the Roman nobles.

The strife of the Colonna and the Ursini.

"In the beginning of the 11th century Italy was exposed to the

feudal tyranny, alike oppressive to the sovereign and the

people. The rights of human nature were vindicated by her

numerous republics, who soon extended their liberty and

dominion from the city to the adjacent country. The sword of

the nobles was broken; their slaves were enfranchised; their

castles were demolished; they assumed the habits of society

and obedience. … But the feeble and disorderly government of

Rome was unequal to the task of curbing her rebellious sons,

who scorned the authority of the magistrate within and without

the walls. It was no longer a civil contention between the

nobles and plebeians for the government of the state. The

barons asserted in arms their personal independence; their

palaces and castles were fortified against a siege; and their

private quarrels were maintained by the numbers of their

vassals and retainers. In origin and affection they were

aliens to their country; and a genuine Roman, could such have

been produced, might have renounced these haughty strangers,

who disdained the appellation of citizens, and proudly styled

themselves the princes of Rome. After a dark series of

revolutions, all records of pedigree were lost; the

distinction of surnames was abolished; the blood of the

nations was mingled in a thousand channels; and the Goths and

Lombards, the Greeks and Franks, the Germans and Normans, had

obtained the fairest possessions by royal bounty or the

prerogative of valour. … It is not my design to enumerate the

Roman families which have failed at different periods, or

those which are continued in different degrees of splendour to

the present time. The old consular line of the Frangipani

discover their name in the generous act of breaking or

dividing bread in a time of famine; and such benevolence is

more truly glorious than to have enclosed, with their allies

the Corsi, a spacious quarter of the city in the chains of

their fortifications. The Savelli, as it should seem a Sabine

race, have maintained their original dignity; the obsolete

surname of the Capizucchi is inscribed on the coins of the

first senators; the Conti preserve the honour, without the

estate, of the counts of Signia; and the Annibaldi must have

been very ignorant, or very modest, if they had not descended

from the Carthaginian hero. But among, perhaps above, the

peers and princes of the city, I distinguish the rival houses

of Colonna and Ursini [or Orsini]. … About the end of the

thirteenth century the most powerful branch [of the Colonna]

was composed of an uncle and six brothers, all conspicuous in

arms or in the honours of the Church. Of these Peter was

elected senator of Rome, introduced to the Capitol in a

triumphant car, and hailed in some vain acclamations with the

title of Cæsar; while John and Stephen were declared Marquis

of Ancona and Count of Romagna by Nicholas IV., a patron so

partial to their family that he has been delineated in

satirical portraits, imprisoned, as it were, in a hollow

pillar. After his decease their haughty behaviour provoked the

displeasure of the most implacable of mankind. The two

cardinals, the uncle and the nephew, denied the election of

Boniface VIII.; and the Colonna were oppressed for a moment by

his temporal and spiritual arms. He proclaimed a crusade

against his personal enemies; their estates were confiscated;

their fortresses on either side of the Tiber were besieged by

the troops of St. Peter and those of the rival nobles; and

after the ruin of Palestrina, or Præneste, their principal

seat, the ground was marked with a ploughshare, the emblem of

perpetual desolation. …

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348].

Some estimate may be formed of their wealth by their losses,

of their losses by the damages of 100,000 gold florins which

were granted them against the accomplices and heirs of the

deceased pope. All the spiritual censures and

disqualifications were abolished by his prudent successors;

and the fortune of the house was more firmly established by

this transient hurricane. … But the first of the family in

fame and merit was the elder Stephen, whom Petrarch loved and

esteemed as a hero superior to his own times and not unworthy

of ancient Rome. … Till the ruin of his declining age, the

ancestors, the character, and the children of Stephen Colonna

exalted his dignity in the Roman republic and at the Court of

Avignon. The Ursini migrated from Spoleto; the sons of Ursus,

as they are styled in the twelfth century, from some eminent

person who is only known as the father of their race. But they

were soon distinguished among the nobles of Rome by the number

and bravery of their kinsmen, the strength of their towers,

the honours of the senate and sacred college, and the

elevation of two popes, Celestin III. and Nicholas III., of

their name and lineage. … The Colonna embraced the name of

Ghibellines and the party of the empire; the Ursini espoused

the title of Guelphs and the cause of the Church. The eagle

and the keys were displayed in their adverse banners; and the

two factions of Italy most furiously raged when the origin and

nature of the dispute were long since forgotten. After the

retreat of the popes to Avignon they disputed in arms the

vacant republic; and the mischiefs of discord were perpetuated

by the wretched compromise of electing each year two rival

senators. By their private hostilities the city and country

were desolated."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 69.

"Had things been left to take their natural course, one of

these families, the Colonna, for instance, or the Orsini,

would probably have ended by overcoming its rivals, and have

established, as was the case in the republics of Romagna and

Tuscany, a 'signoria,' or local tyranny, like those which had

once prevailed in the cities of Greece. But the presence of

the sacerdotal power, as it had hindered the growth of

feudalism, so also it stood in the way of such a development

as this, and in so far aggravated the confusion of the city."

J. Bryce,

The Holy Roman Empire,

chapter 16.

ROME: A. D. 1300.

The Jubilee.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

ROME: A. D. 1305-1377.

Withdrawal of the Papal court from Rome

and settlement at Avignon.

The "Babylonish Captivity."

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348, to 1352-1378.

ROME: A. D. 1312.

Resistance to the entry and coronation of Henry VII.

See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

ROME: A. D. 1328.

Imperial coronation of Louis IV. of Bavaria.

See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

{2749}

ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

The revolution of Rienzi, the last Tribune.

"The Holy City had no government. She was no longer the

Imperial Rome, nor the Pontifical Rome. The Teutonic Cæsars

had abandoned her. The Popes had also fled from the sacred

hill of the Vatican to the slimy Gallic city, Avignon. … The

real masters of the city were the princes or barons, who dwelt

in their fortified castles in the environs, or their strong

palaces within. The principal among them were masters of

different parts of the city. The celebrated old family of the

Colonnas reigned, it may be said, over the north of the city,

towards the Quirinal. … The new family of the Orsini extended

their sway along the Tiber from the Campo-di-Fiore, to the

Church of St. Peter, comprising the castle of St. Angelo. The

Savelli, less powerful, possessed a part of the Aventine, with

the theatre of Marcellus, and the Conti, the huge tower which

bears their name, on Cæsar's Forum. Other members of the

nobility, in the country, were possessors of small fortified

cities, or castles. … Rome, subjected to such a domination,

had become almost deserted. The population of the seven-hilled

city had come down to about 30,000 souls. When the barons were

at peace with each other, which, however, was a rare

occurrence, they combined to exercise their tyranny over the

citizens and the serfs, to rob and plunder the farmers,

travellers, and pilgrims. Petrarch wrote to the Pope at this

period, that Rome had become the abode of demons, the

receptacle of all crimes, a hell for the living. … Rienzi was

then 28 years old. … His function of notary (assessore) to the

Roman tribunals, would seem to infer that he was considered a

peaceful, rational citizen. It appears, however, that he

brought in the exercise of his official duties, the excited

imagination and generosity of heart which characterized his

nature. He gloried in being surnamed the Consul of orphans, of

widows, and of the poor. His love for the humble soon became

blended with an intense hatred for the great: one of his

brothers was killed accidentally by a Roman baron, without his

being able to obtain any satisfaction. … Rienzi had always

been noted for his literary and poetical taste; he was

considered as deeply versed in the knowledge of antiquity, and

as the most skilful in deciphering and explaining the numerous

inscriptions with which Rome abounded. … The least remains of

antiquity became for him a theme of declamatory addresses to

the people, on the present state of Rome, on the iniquities

that surrounded him. Followed by groups that augmented daily,

and which listened to him with breathless interest, he led

them from ruin to ruin, to the Forum, to the tombs of the

Christian martyrs, thus associating every glory, and made the

hearts of the people throb by his mystical eloquence. … No

remedy being brought to the popular grievances, an

insurrection broke out. The senator was expelled; thirteen

good men (buoni uomini) were installed in the Capitol and

invested with dictatorial powers. It was a Guelfic movement;

Rienzi was mixed with it; but without any preeminent

participation. This new government resolved to send an embassy

to the Pope, at Avignon, and Rienzi formed part of it. Such

was the first real public act in the life of Cola di Rienzi.

The embassy was joined by Petrarch. … The Pope would not hear

of leaving his new splendid palace, and the gentle population

of Avignon, for the heap of ruins and the human turbulence of

Rome." But "Cardinal Aymeric was named to represent the Pope

at Rome, as Legate, and a Colonna and an Orsini invested with

the senatorial dignity, in order to restore order in the

Eternal City, in the name of the Pontiff. Rienzi indulged in

the most extravagant exultation. He wrote a highly

enthusiastic address to the Roman people. But his illusion was

not of long duration. The new Legate only attended to the

filling of the Papal Treasury. The nobility, protected by the

new senators, continued their course of tyranny. Rienzi

protested warmly against such a course of iniquities, in the

council. One day he spoke with a still greater vehemence of

indignation, when one of the members of the council struck him

in the face, others hissed out at him sneeringly, calling him

the Consul of orphans and widows. From that day he never

appeared at any of its meetings; his hatred had swollen, and

must explode. … He went straight to the people (popolo

minuto), and prepared a revolution. To render his exhortations

to the people more impressive, he made use of large

allegorical pictures, hastily drawn, and which form a curious

testimony of his mystical imagination, as well as of his

forensic eloquence. … Finally, he convoked the people at the

Capitol for the 20th of May, 1347, the day of Pentecost,

namely, under the invocation of the Holy Ghost. Rienzi had

heard, with fervour, thirty masses during the preceding night.

On that day he came out at 12 o'clock armed, with his head

uncovered, followed by 25 partisans; three unfurled standards

were carried before him, bearing allegorical pictures. This

time his address was very brief—merely stating, that from his

love for the Pope and the salvation of the people, he was

ready to encounter any danger. He then read the laws which

were to insure the happiness of Rome. They were, properly

speaking, a summary of reforms, destined to relieve the people

from their sufferings, and intended to realize, what he

proclaimed, must become the good state [or Good Estate], il

buono stato. … By this outline of a new constitution, the

people were invested, with the property and government of the

city as well as of its environs; the Pontifical See, bereft of

the power it had exercised during several centuries; and the

nobility deprived of what they considered as their property,

to assist the public poverty. The revolution could not be more

complete; and it is needless to add, that Rienzi was

clamorously applauded, and immediately invested with full

powers to realize and organize the buono stato, of which he

had given the programme. He declined the title of Rector, and

preferred the more popular name of Tribune. Nothing was fixed

as to the duration of this extraordinary popular magistracy.

The new government was installed at the Capitol, the Senators

expelled, and the whole revolution executed with such

rapidity, that the new Tribune might well be strengthened in

his belief that he was acting under the protection of the Holy

Ghost. He was careful, nevertheless, not to estrange the

Pontifical authority, and requested that the apostolical vicar

should be offered to be adjoined to him, which the prelate

accepted, however uncertain and perilous the honour appeared

to be.

{2750}

During the popular enthusiasm, old Stephen Colonna, with the

more formidable of the barons, who had been away, returned to

Rome in haste; he expressed publicly his scorn, and when the

order came from Rienzi for him to quit the city, he replied

that he would soon come and throw that madman out of one of

the windows of the Capitol. Rienzi ordered the bells to be

rung, the people instantly assembled in arms, and that

proudest of the barons was obliged to fly to Palestrina. The

next day it was proclaimed that all the nobles were to come,

to swear fealty to the Roman people, and afterwards withdraw

to their castles, and protect the public roads. John, the son

of old Colonna, was the first who presented himself at the

Capitol, but it was with the intention of braving and

insulting the Tribune. When he beheld the popular masses in

close array, he felt awed, and took the oath to protect the

people—protect the roads—succour the widows and orphans, and

obey the summons of the Tribune. The Orsini, Savelli, Gaetani,

and many others, came after him and followed his example.

Rienzi, now sole master, without opponents, gave a free course

to the allurements of authority. … The tolls, taxes, and

imposts which pressed upon the people were abolished by

Rienzi, in the first instance, and afterwards, the taxes on

the bridges, wine, and bread; but he endeavoured to compensate

such an enormous deficit by augmenting the tax on salt, which

was not yet unpopular, besides an impost on funded property.

He was thus making hasty, serious, even dangerous engagements

with the people, which it might not be in his power to keep. …

For the present, calmness and security were reigning in the

city. … The Tribune received the congratulations of all the

ambassadors; the changes he had effected appeared miraculous.

… He believed implicitly that he was the founder of a new era.

The homage profusely lavished upon him by all the Italian

Republics, and even by despotic sovereigns confirmed him in

his conviction. … One nobleman alone, the Prefect of Vico,

secretly supported by the agent of the Pontifical patrimony,

refused to submit and to surrender the three or four little

cities in his jurisdiction. Rienzi led rapidly against him an

army of 8,000 men, and attacked the rebellious Prefect so

suddenly and skilfully, that the latter surrendered

unconditionally. This success inflamed the head and

imagination of Rienzi, and with it commenced the mystical

extravagances and follies which could not fail to cause his

ruin."

Prof. De Vericour,

Rienzi, the last of the Tribunes

Dublin University Magazine, 1860.

Eclectic Magazine,

September, 1860.

"Rienzi's head was turned by his success. He assumed the pomp

of a sovereign. He distributed titles, surrounded himself with

ceremonies, and multiplied feasts and processions. … He

desired to be ennobled, and to have the title of Knight, as

well as Tribune. To celebrate his installation as Knight, a

splendid series of ceremonies was arranged," at the end of

which he "made an address, in which he cited the Pope, and

Lewis of Bavaria, and Charles of Bohemia, to give reasons for

any claims they had on Rome; and pointing his sword to three

points of the compass, he exclaimed, 'This is mine, and this

is mine, and this is mine.' … Folly had quite got the better

of him now, and his vanity was leading him swiftly to ruin. …

Shortly afterwards he issued a proclamation that he had

discovered a conspiracy against the people and himself, and

declared that he would cut off the heads of all those

concerned in it. The conspirators were seized and brought

forward, and among them were seen the chief of the princely

families of Rome. Solemn preparations were made for their

execution, when Rienzi, suddenly and without reason, not only

pardoned them all, but conferred upon them some of the most

important charges and offices of the state. No sooner were

these nobles and princes free out of Rome than they began

seriously to conspire to overthrow Rienzi and his government.

They assembled their soldiers, and, after devastating the

country, threatened to march upon Rome itself. The Tribune,

who was no soldier, attempted to intimidate his enemies by

threats; but finding that the people grew clamorous for

action, he at last took up arms, and made a show of advancing

against them. But after a few days, during which he did

nothing except to destroy still more of the Campagna, he

returned to Rome, clothed himself in the Imperial robes,. and

received a legate from the Pope. … His power soon began to

crumble away under him; and when, shortly afterwards, he

endeavoured to prevail upon the people to rise and drive out

the Count of Minorbino, who had set his authority at defiance,

he found that his day was past. … He then ordered the trumpets

of silver to sound, and, clothed in all his pomp, he marched

through Rome, accompanied by his small band of soldiers, and

on the 15th October, 1347, intrenched himself in the Castle

St. Angelo. Still the influence of his name and his power was

so great, that it was not till three days after that the

nobles ventured to return to Rome, and then they found that

Cola's power had vanished. It faded away like a carnival

pageant, as that gay procession entered the Castle St. Angelo.

There he remained until the beginning of March, and then fled,

and found his way to Civita Vecchia, where he stayed with a

nephew of his for a short time. But his nephew having been

arrested, he again returned to Rome secretly, and was

concealed in Castle St. Angelo by one of the Orsini who was

friendly to him and his party. … Cola soon after fled to

Naples, fearing lest he should be betrayed into the hands of

the Cardinals. Rome now fell into a state of anarchy and

confusion even worse than when he assumed the reins of power.

Revolutions occurred. Brigandage was renewed. … In 1353 Rienzi

returned with Cardinal Albornos, the legate of the Pope. He

was received with enthusiasm, and again installed in power.

But he was embarrassed in all his actions by the Cardinal, who

sought only to make use of him, while he himself exercised all

the power. The title of Senator of Rome was conferred on him,

and the people forgave him. … But Rienzi had lost the secret

of his power in losing his enthusiasm. … At last, in October

1353, a sedition broke out, and the mob rushed to the Capitol

with cries of 'Death to the traitor Rienzi!' … He appeared on

the balcony clothed in his armour as Knight, and, with the

standard of the people in his hand, demanded to be heard. But

the populace refused to listen to him. … At last he decided to

fly. Tearing off his robes, he put on the miserable dress of

the porter, rushed down the flaming stairs and through the

burning chambers, … and at last reached the third floor. … At

this very moment his arm was seized, and a voice said, 'Where

are you going?' He saw that all was lost.

{2751}

But, at bay, he did nothing mean. Again there was a flash of

heroic courage, not unworthy of him. He threw off his

disguise, and disdaining all subterfuges, said, 'I am the

Tribune!' He was then led out through the door … to the base

of the basalt lions, where he had made his first great call

upon the people. Standing there, undaunted by its tumultuous

cries, he stood for an hour with folded arms, and looked

around upon the raging crowd. At last, profiting by a lull of

silence, he lifted his voice to address them, when suddenly an

artisan at his side, fearing perhaps the result of his

eloquence, and perhaps prompted by revenge, plunged his pike

in his breast, and he fell. The wild mob rushed upon his

corpse."

W. W. Story,

Castle St. Angelo,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Milman,

History of Latin Christianity,

book 12, chapters 10-11 (volume 5).

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 70.

ROME: A. D. 1367-1369.

Temporary return of Urban V. from Avignon.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.

ROME: A. D. 1377-1379.

Return of the Papal court.

Election of Urban VI. and the Great Schism.

Battles in the city.

Siege and partial destruction of Castle St. Angelo.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.

ROME: A. D. 1405-1414.

Rising in the city and flight of Pope Innocent VII.

Sacking of the Vatican.

Surrender of the city to Ladislas, king of Naples.

Expulsion of the Neapolitans and their return.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

ROME: A. D. 1447-1455.

The pontificate of Nicolas V.

Building of the Vatican Palace and

founding of the Vatican Library.

The Porcaro revolt.

See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

ROME: A. D. 1492-1503.

Under the Borgias.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.

ROME: A. D. 1494.

Charles VIII. and the French army in the city.

See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

ROME: A. D. 1526.

The city taken and the Vatican plundered

by the Colonnas and the Spaniards.

See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

ROME: A. D. 1527.

The capture and the sacking of the city

by the army of Constable Bourbon.

Captivity of the Pope.

See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527; 1527; and 1527-1529.

ROME: A. D. 1537-1563.

Inclinations towards the Reformation.

Catholic reaction.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

ROME: A. D. 1600-1656.

The great families and the Roman population.

"A numerous, powerful, and wealthy aristocracy surrounded the

papal throne; the families already established imposed

restraints ou those that were but newly rising; from the

self-reliance and authoritative boldness of monarchy, the

ecclesiastical sovereignty was passing to the deliberation,

sobriety, and measured calmness of aristocratic government. …

There still flourished those old and long-renowned Roman

races, the Savelli, Conti, Orsini, Colonna, and Gaetani. … The

Colonna and Orsini made it their boast, that for centuries no

peace had been concluded between the princes of Christendom,

in which they had not been included by name. But however

powerful these houses may have been in earlier times, they

certainly owed their importance in those now before us to

their connection with the Curia and the popes. … Under

Innocent X., there existed for a considerable time, as it

were, two great factions, or associations of families. The

Orsini, Cesarini, Borghesi, Aldobrandini, Ludovisi, and

Giustiniani were with the Pamfili; while opposed to them, was

the house of Colonna and the Barberini. … In the middle of the

seventeenth century there were computed to be fifty noble

families in Rome of three hundred years standing, thirty-five

of two hundred, and sixteen of one hundred years. None were

permitted to claim a more ancient descent, or were generally

traced to an obscure, or even a low origin. … But by the side

of the old families there rose up various new ones. All the

cardinals and prelates of the Curia proceeded according to the

pope's example, and each in proportion to his means employed

the surplus of his ecclesiastical revenue for the

aggrandizement of his kindred, the foundation of a new family.

There were others which had attained to eminence by judicial

appointments, and many were indebted for their elevation to

being employed as bankers in the affairs of the Dataria.

Fifteen families of Florence, eleven from Genoa, nine

Portuguese, and four French, are enumerated as having risen to

more or less consideration by these means, according to their

good fortune or talents; some of them, whose reputation no

longer depended on the affairs of the day, became monarchs of

gold; as for example, the Guicciardini and Doni, who connected

themselves, under Urban VIII., with the Giustiniani, Primi,

and Pallavicini. But even, without affairs of this kind,

families of consideration were constantly repairing to Rome,

not only from Urbino, Rieti, and Bologna, but also from Parma

and Florence. … Returns of the Roman population are still

extant, and by a comparison of the different years, we find a

most remarkable result exhibited, as regards the manner in

which that population was formed. Not that its increase was

upon the whole particularly rapid, this we are not authorized

to assert. In the year 1600 the inhabitants were about

110,000; fifty-six years afterwards they were somewhat above

120,000, an advance by no means extraordinary; but another

circumstance here presents itself which deserves attention. At

an earlier period, the population of Rome had been constantly

fluctuating. Under Paul IV. it had decreased from 80,000 to

50,000; in a score or two of years it had again advanced to

more than 100,000. And this resulted from the fact that the

court was then formed principally of unmarried men, who had no

permanent abode there. But, at the time we are considering,

the population became fixed into settled families. This began

to be the case towards the end of the sixteenth century, but

took place more particularly during the first half of the

seventeenth. … After the return of the popes from Avignon, and

on the close of the schism, the city, which had seemed on the

point of sinking into a mere village, extended itself around

the Curia. But it was not until the papal families had risen

to power and riches—until neither internal discords nor

external enemies were any longer to be feared, and the incomes

drawn from the revenues of the church or state secured a life

of enjoyment without the necessity for labour, that a numerous

permanent population arose in the city."

L. Ranke.

History of the Popes,

book 8, section 7 (volume 2).

ROME: A. D. 1797-1798.

French intrigues and occupation of the city.

Formation of the Roman Republic.

Expulsion of the Pope.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (DECEMBER-MAY).

{2752}

ROME: A. D. 1798 (November).

Brief expulsion of the French by the Neapolitans.

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

ROME: A. D. 1799.

Overthrow of the Roman Republic.

Expulsion of the French.

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

ROME: A. D. 1800.

The Papal government re-established by Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

ROME: A. D. 1808-1809.

Napoleon's quarrel with the Pope.

Captivity of Pius VII.

French occupation.

Declared to be a free and imperial city.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

ROME: A. D. 1810.

The title of King of Rome given to Napoleon's son.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

ROME: A. D. 1813.

Papal Concordat with Napoleon.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

ROME: A. D. 1814.

Occupation by Murat for the Allies.

Return of the Pope.

See ITALY: A. D. 1814:

and PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

ROME: A. D. 1815.

Restoration of the works of art taken by Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

ROME: A. D. 1831-1832.

Revolt of the Papal States, suppressed by Austrian troops.

See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

ROME: A. D. 1846-1849.

Liberal reforms of Pope Pius IX.

His breach with the extremists.

Revolution, and flight of the Pope.

Intervention of France.

Garibaldi's defense of the city.

Its capture and occupation by the French.

Overthrow of the Roman Republic.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

ROME: A. D. 1859-1861.

First consequences of the Austro-Italian war.

Absorption of the Papal States in the new kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

ROME: A. D. 1867-1870.

Garibaldi's attempt.

His defeat at Mentana.

Italian troops in the city.

The king of Italy takes possession of his capital.

See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.

ROME: A. D. 1869-1870.

The (Ecumenical Council of the Vatican.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

ROME: A. D. 1870-1871.

End of Papal Sovereignty.

Occupation of the city as the capital of the kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870;

and PAPACY: A. D. 1870.

----------ROME: End--------

ROMERS-WAALE, Naval battle of (1574).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

ROMMANY.

See GYPSIES.

ROMULUS, Legendary founder of Rome.

See ROME: B. C. 753-510.

ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS,

The last Roman Emperor of the old line,

in the West, A. D. 475-476.

RONCAGLIA, The Diets of.

See ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.

RONCESVALLES, The ambuscade of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 778.

ROOD, Holy (or Black Rood) of Scotland.

See HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND.

ROOF OF THE WORLD.

The Pamir high plateau, which is a continuation of the Bolor

range, is called by the natives "Bamiduniya," or the Roof of

the World.

T. E. Gordon,

The Roof of the World,

chapter 9.

ROOSEBECK OR ROSEBECQUE, Battle of (1382).

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.

ROOT AND BRANCH BILL, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (MARCH-MAY).

RORKE'S DRIFT, Defense of (1879).

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.

ROSAS, OR ROSES: A. D. 1645-1652.

Siege and capture by the French.

Recovery by the Spaniards.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646; and 1648-1652.

ROSAS, OR ROSES: A. D. 1808.

Siege and capture by the French.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

ROSBACH, OR ROSSBACH, Battle of.

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

ROSECRANS, General W. S.:

Command in West Virginia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER);

and 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

Command of the Army of the Mississippi.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

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.

Chattanooga campaign.

Displacement.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)

ROSECRANS'S ADVANCE;

and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE)

Command in Missouri.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

ROSES, Wars of the.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

ROSETTA STONE.

"The Rosetta Stone is a fragment of a stela discovered in the

year 1799 by M. Boussard, a French artillery officer, while

digging entrenchments round the town of that name. It contains

a copy of a decree made by the priests of Egypt, assembled at

Memphis, in honour of Ptolemy Epiphanes. This decree is

engraved on the stone in three languages, or rather in three

different writings. The first is the hieroglyphic, the grand

old writing of the monuments; the second is the demotic

character as used by the people; and the third is the Greek.

But the text in Greek character is the translation of the two

former. Up to this time, hieroglyphs had remained an

impenetrable mystery even for science. But a corner of the

veil was about to be lifted: in proceeding from the known to

the unknown, the sense at all events was at length to be

arrived at of that mysterious writing which had so long defied

all the efforts of science. Many erudite scholars tried to

solve the mystery, and Young, among others, very nearly

brought his researches to a satisfactory issue. But it was

Champollion's happy lot to succeed in entirely tearing a way

the veil. Such is the Rosetta Stone, which thus became the

instrument of one of the greatest discoveries which do honour

to the nineteenth century."

A. Mariette-Bey,

Monuments of Upper Egypt (Itinéraire)

page 29.

See, also, HIEROGLYPHICS.

ROSICRUCIANS.

ILLUMINATI.

"About the year 1610, there appeared anonymously a little

book, which excited great sensation throughout Germany. It was

entitled, The Discovery of the Brotherhood of the Honourable

Order of the Rosy Cross, and dedicated to all the scholars and

magnates of Europe. It commenced with an imaginary dialogue

between the Seven Sages of Greece, and other worthies of

antiquity, on the best method of accomplishing a general

reform in those evil times.

{2753}

The suggestion of Seneca is adopted, as most feasible, namely

a secret confederacy of wise philanthropists, who shall labour

everywhere in unison for this desirable end. The book then

announces the actual existence of such an association. One

Christian Rosen Kreuz, whose travels in the East had enriched

him with the highest treasures of occult lore, is said to have

communicated his wisdom, under a vow of secrecy, to eight

disciples, for whom he erected a mysterious dwelling-place

called The Temple of the Holy Ghost. It is stated further,

that this long-hidden edifice had been at last discovered, and

within it the body of Rosen Kreuz, untouched by corruption,

though, since his death, 120 years had passed away. The

surviving disciples of the institute call on the learned and

devout, who desire to co-operate in their projects of reform,

to advertise their names. They themselves indicate neither

name nor place of rendezvous. They describe themselves as true

Protestants. They expressly assert that they contemplate no

political movement in hostility to the reigning powers. Their

sole aim is the diminution of the fearful sum of human

suffering, the spread of education, the advancement of

learning, science, universal enlightenment, and love.

Traditions and manuscripts in their possession have given them

the power of gold-making, with other potent secrets; but by

their wealth they set little store. They have arcana, in

comparison with which the secret of the alchemist is a trifle.

But all is subordinate, with them, to their one high purpose

of benefiting their fellows both in body and soul. … I could

give you conclusive reasons, if it would not tire you to hear

them, for the belief that this far-famed book was written by a

young Lutheran divine named Valentine Andreä. He was one of

the very few who understood the age, and had the heart to try

and mend it. … This Andreä writes the Discovery of the

Rosicrucian Brotherhood, a jeu-d'esprit with a serious

purpose, just as an experiment to see whether something cannot

be done by combined effort to remedy the defect and

abuses—social, educational, and religious, so lamented by all

good men. He thought there were many Andreäs scattered

throughout Europe—how powerful would be their united

systematic action! … Many a laugh, you may be sure, he enjoyed

in his parsonage with his few friends who were in the secret,

when they found their fable everywhere swallowed greedily as

unquestionable fact. On all sides they heard of search

instituted to discover the Temple of the Holy Ghost. Printed

letters appeared continually, addressed to the imaginary

brotherhood, giving generally the initials of the candidate,

where the invisibles might hear of him, stating his motives

and qualifications for entrance into their number, and

sometimes furnishing samples of his cabbalistic acquirements.

Still, no answer. Not a trace of the Temple. Profound darkness

and silence, after the brilliant flash which had awakened so

many hopes. Soon the mirth grew serious. Andreä saw with

concern that shrewd heads of the wrong sort began to scent his

artifice, while quacks reaped a rogue's harvest from it. … A

swarm of impostors pretended to belong to the Fraternity, and

found a readier sale than ever for their nostrums. Andreä

dared not reveal himself. All he could do was to write book

after book to expose the folly of those whom his handiwork had

so befooled, and still to labour on, by pen and speech, in

earnest aid of that reform which his unhappy stratagem had

less helped than hindered. … Confederacies of pretenders

appear to have been organized in various places; but Descartes

says he sought in vain for a Rosicrucian lodge in Germany. The

name Rosicrucian became by degrees a generic term, embracing

every species of occult pretension,—arcana, elixirs, the

philosopher's stone, theurgic ritual, symbols, initiations. In

general usage the term is associated more especially with that

branch of the secret art which has to do with the creatures of

the elements. … And from this deposit of current mystical

tradition sprang, in great measure, the Freemasonry and

Rosicrucianism of the 18th century,—that golden age of secret

societies. Then flourished associations of every imaginable

kind, suited to every taste. … Some lodges belonged to

Protestant societies, others were the implements of the

Jesuits. Some were aristocratic, like the Strict Observance;

others democratic, seeking in vain to escape an Argus-eyed

police. Some—like the Illuminati under Weishaupt Knigge, and

Von Zwackh, numbering (among many knaves) not a few names of

rank, probity, and learning—were the professed enemies of

mysticism and superstition. Others existed only for the

profitable juggle of incantations and fortune-telling. … The

best perished at the hands of the Jesuits, the worst at the

hands of the police."

R. A. Vaughan,

Hours with the Mystics,

book 8, chapter 9 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

F. C. Schlosser,

History of the 18th Century,

volume 4, pages 483-504.

T. Frost,

The Secret Societies of the European Revolution,

volume 1, chapter 1.

A. P. Marras,

Secret Fraternities of the Middle Ages,

chapter 8.

ROSLIN, Battle of.

One of the minor battles fought in the Scottish "war of

independence," with success to the Scots, A. D. 1302.

ROSSBACH,

ROSBACH, Battle of.

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

ROSSBRUNN, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

ROSTOCK:

The founding of the city.

See HANSA TOWNS.

ROSY CROSS, The Honourable Order of the.

See ROSICRUCIANS.

ROTENNU,

RUTENNU,

RETENNU, The.

"The Syrian populations, who, to the north of the Canaanites

[17th century B. C.], occupied the provinces called in the

Bible by the general name of Aram, as far as the river

Euphrates, belonged to the confederation of the Rotennu, or

Retennu, extending beyond the river and embracing all

Mesopotamia ( Naharaina). … The Rotennu had no well-defined

territory, nor even a decided unity of race. They already

possessed powerful cities, such as Nineveh and Babylon, but

there were still many nomadic tribes within the ill-defined

limits of the confederacy. Their name was taken from the city

of Resen, apparently the most ancient, and originally the most

important, city of Assyria. The germ of the Rotennu

confederation was formed by the Semitic Assyro-Chaldæan

people, who were not yet welded into a compact monarchy."

F. Lenormant,

Manual of the Ancient History of the East,

book 3, chapter 3.

ROTHIERE, Battle of La.

See FRANCE A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

{2754}

ROTOMAGUS.

Modern Rouen.

See BELGÆ.

RÖTTELN: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1638).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

ROTTEN BOROUGHS.

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

ROTTWEIL: Siege and capture by the French (1643).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.

----------ROUEN: Start--------

ROUEN:

Origin of the city and name.

See BELGÆ.

ROUEN: A. D. 841.

First destructive visit of the Northmen.

See NORMANS: A. D. 841.

ROUEN: A. D. 845.

Second capture by the Northmen.

See PARIS: A. D.845.

ROUEN: A. D. 876-91 I.

Rollo's settlement.

See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911.

ROUEN: A. D. 1418-1419.

Siege and capture by Henry V. of England.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

ROUEN: A. D. 1431.

The burning of the Maid of Orleans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

ROUEN: A. D. 1449.

Recovery from the English.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

ROUEN: A. D. 1562.

Occupied by the Huguenots and retaken by the Catholics.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

ROUEN: A. D. 1591-1592.

Siege by Henry IV., raised by the Duke of Parma.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

ROUEN: A. D. 1870.

Taken by the Germans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

----------ROUEN: End--------

ROUM,

ICONIUM,

NICÆA, The Sultans of.

See TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1073-1092.

ROUMANI,

ROMÚNI, The.

See DACCA: A. D. 102-106.

ROUMANIA.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-18TH CENTURIES.

ROUMELIA, Eastern.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878,

TREATIES OF SAN STEFANO AND MADRID;

and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1878, to 1878-1886.

ROUND TABLE, Knights of the.

See ARTHUR, KING.

ROUND TOWERS OF IRELAND.

"At various periods between the sixth and twelfth centuries

(some of them still later, but the greater number, perhaps, in

the ninth and tenth centuries), were erected those singular

buildings, the round towers, which have been so enveloped in

mystery by the arguments and conjectures of modern

antiquaries. … The real uses of the Irish round towers, both

as belfries and as ecclesiastical keeps or castles, have been

satisfactorily established by Dr. Petrie, in his important and

erudite work on the ecclesiastical architecture of Ireland. …

These buildings were well contrived to supply the clergy with

a place of safety for themselves, the sacred vessels, and

other objects of value, during the incursions of the Danes,

and other foes; and the upper stories, in which there were

four windows, were perfectly well adapted for the ringing of

the largest bells then used in Ireland."

M. Haverty,

History of Ireland,

page 115.

ALSO IN:

S. Bryant,

Celtic Ireland,

chapter 7.

ROUNDHEADS.

The Parliamentary or popular party in the great English civil

war were called Roundheads because they generally wore their

hair cut short, while the Cavaliers of the king's party held

to the fashion of flowing locks. According to the

Parliamentary clerk Rushworth, the first person who applied

the name was one David Hyde, who threatened a mob of citizens

which surrounded the Houses of Parliament on the 27th of

December, 1641, crying "No Bishops," that he would "cut the

throats of these round-headed dogs."

D. Masson,

Life of John Milton,

volume 2, book 2, chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

Mrs. Hutchinson,

Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson (1642).

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER).

ROUSSEAU, and educational reform.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1762.

ROUSSILLON: A. D. 1639.

Situation of the county.

Invasion by the French.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1037-1640.

ROUSSILLON: A. D. 1642.

French conquest.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

ROUSSILLON: A. D. 1659.

Ceded to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

ROUTIERS The.

See WHITE HOODS OF FRANCE.

ROXOLANI, The.

A people, counted among the Sarmatians, who occupied anciently

the region between the Don and the Dnieper, —afterwards

encroaching on Dacian territory. They were among the

barbarians who troubled the Roman frontier earliest, and were

prominent in the wars which disturbed the reign of Marcus

Aurelius. Later, they disappeared in the flood of Gothic and

Hunnish invasion, partly by absorption, it is supposed, and

partly by extermination.

ROYAL ROAD OF ANCIENT PERSIA, The.

"Herodotus describes the great road of the Persian period from

Ephesos by the Cilician Gates to Susa. It was called the

'Royal Road,' because the service of the Great King passed

along it; and it was, therefore, the direct path of

communication for all government business. … It is an accepted

fact that in several other cases roads of the Persian Empire

were used by the Assyrian kings long before the Persian time,

and, in particular, that the eastern part of the 'Royal Road,'

from Cilicia to Susa, is much older than the beginning of the

Persian power. … Herodotus represents it as known to

Aristagoras, and therefore, existing during the 6th century,

B. C., and the Persians had had no time to organise a great

road like this before 500; they only used the previously

existing road. Moreover, the Lydian kings seem to have paid

some attention to their roads, and perhaps even to have

measured them, as we may gather from Herodotus's account of

the roads in the Lycus valley, and of the boundary pillar

erected by Crœsus at Kydrara."

W. M. Ramsay,

Historical Geography of Asia Minor,

part 1, chapter 2.

ROYAL TOUCH, The.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 12-17TH CENTURIES.

RUBICON, Cæsar's passage of the.

See ROME: B. C. 50-49.

RUCANAS, The.

See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

RUDOLPH,

King of France, A. D. 923-936.

Rudolph I., King of Germany-called Emperor

(the first of the House of Hapsburg), 1273-1291.

Rudolph II., Archduke of Austria and King of Hungary, 1576-1606;

King of Bohemia and Germanic Emperor, 1576-1612.

{2755}

RUGBY SCHOOL.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—ENGLAND.

RUGII, The.

A coast tribe in ancient Germany who seem to have occupied the

extreme north of Pomerania and who probably gave their name to

the Isle of Rugen.

Church and Brodribb,

Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus.

In the fifth century, after the breaking up of the empire of

Attila, the Hun, a people called the Rugii, and supposed to be

the same, were occupying a region embraced in modern Austria.

There were many Rugians among the barbarian auxiliaries in the

Roman army, and some of the annalists place among the number

Odoacer, who gave the extinguishing blow to the empire.

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 3, chapter 8.

RULE OF ST. BENEDICT.

See BENEDICTINE ORDERS.

RUMP, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

RUNJIT SINGH,

RANJIT SINGH,

The conquests of.

See SIKHS.

RUNNYMEDE.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.

RUPERT, OR ROBERT (of the Palatine).

King of Germany, A. D. 1400-1410.

RUPERT'S LAND.

See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

RUSCINO.

The ancient name of modern Roussillon.

RUSSELL, Lord John, Ministries of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1846; 1851-1852; 1865-1868.

RUSSELL, Lord William, Execution of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.

----------RUSSIA: Start--------

RUSSIA: A. D. 862.

Scandinavian Origin of the name and the National Organization.

"'In the year 859,' says Nestor [the oldest Russian

chronicler, a monk of Kiev, who wrote early in the 12th

century] 'came the Varangians from beyond the sea and demanded

tribute from the Chud and from the Slavonians, the Meria, the

Ves, and the Krivichi; but the Khazars took tribute of the

Polians, the Severians and of the Viatichi.' Then he

continues: 'In the year 862 they drove the Varangians over the

sea, and paid them no tribute, and they began to govern

themselves, and there was no justice among them, and clan rose

against clan, and there was internal strife between them, and

they begun to make war upon each other. And they said to each

other: Let us seek for a prince who can reign over us and

judge what is right. And they went over the sea to the

Varangians, to Rus, for so were these Varangians called: they

were called Rus as others are called Svie (Swedes), others

Nurmane (Northmen, Norwegians), others Angliane (English, or

Angles of Sleswick?), others Gote (probably the inhabitants

of the island of Gothland). The Chud, the Slavonians, the

Krivichi, and the Ves said to Rus: Our land is large and rich,

but there is no order in it; come ye and rule and reign over

us. And three brothers were chosen with their whole clan, and

they took with them all the Rus, and they came. And the

eldest, Rurik, settled in Novgorod, and the second, Sineus,

near Bielo-ozero, and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk. And the

Russian land, Novgorod, was called after these Varangians;

they are the Novgorodians of Varangian descent; previously the

Novgorodians were Slavonians. But after the lapse of two years

Sineus and his brother Truvor died and Rurik assumed the

government and divided the towns among his men, to one

Polotsk, to another Rostov, to another Bielo-ozero.' Such is

Nestor's naive description of the foundation of the Russian

state. If it be read without prejudice or sophistical comment,

it cannot be doubted that the word Varangians is used here as

a common term for the inhabitants of Scandinavia, and that Rus

was meant to be the name of a particular Scandinavian tribe;

this tribe, headed by Rurik and his brothers, is said to have

crossed the sea and founded a state whose capital, for a time,

was Novgorod, and this state was the nucleus of the present

Russian empire. Next, Nestor tells us that in the same year

two of Rurik's men, 'who were not of his family,' Askold and

Dir, separated themselves from him with the intention to go to

Constantinople. They went down the Dnieper; but when they

arrived at Kiev, the capital of the Polians, who at that time

were tributary to the Khazars, they preferred to stay there,

and founded in that town an independent principality. Twenty

years after, in 882, this principality was incorporated by

Rurik's successor, Oleg: by a stratagem he made himself master

of the town and killed Askold and Dir, and from this time

Kiev, 'the mother of all Russian towns,' as it was called,

remained the capital of the Russian state and the centre of

the Russian name. … From the time historical critics first

became acquainted with Nestor's account, that is to say from

the beginning of the last century, until about fifteen or

twenty years ago [written in 1877], scarcely anyone ventured

to doubt the accuracy of his statement. Plenty of evidence was

even gradually produced from other sources to corroborate in

the most striking manner the tradition of the Russian

chronicles."

V. Thomsen,

Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia,

lecture 1.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 55.

R. G. Latham,

The Germany of Tacitus; Epilegomena,

section 18.

RUSSIA: A. D. 865.

First attack of the Russians on Constantinople.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 865.

RUSSIA: A. D. 865-900.

Early relations with the Byzantine Empire.

"The first Russian naval expedition against Constantinople in

865 would probably have been followed by a series of

plundering excursions, like those carried on by the Danes and

Normans on the coasts of England and France, had not the

Turkish tribe called the Patzinaks rendered themselves masters

of the lower course of the Dnieper, and become instruments in

the hands of the emperors to arrest the activity of the bold

Varangians. The northern rulers of Kief were the same rude

warriors that infested England and France, but the Russian

people was then in a more advanced state of society than the

mass of the population in Britain and Gaul. The majority of

the Russians were freemen; the majority of the inhabitants of

Britain and Gaul were serfs.

{2756}

The commerce of the Russians was already so extensive as to

influence the conduct of their government, and to modify the

military ardour of their Varangian masters. … After the defeat

in 865, the Russians induced their rulers to send envoys to

Constantinople to renew commercial intercourse, and invite

Christian missionaries to visit their country; and no

inconsiderable portion of the people embraced Christianity,

though the Christian religion continued long after better

known to the Russian merchants than to the Varangian warriors.

The commercial relations of the Russians with Cherson and

Constantinople were now carried on directly, and numbers of

Russian traders took up their residence in these cities. The

first commercial treaty between the Russians of Kief and the

Byzantine empire was concluded in the reign of Basil I. The

intercourse increased from that time."

G. Finlay,

History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,

book 2, chapter 2, section 1.

RUSSIA: A. D. 907-1043.

Wars, commerce and church connection with the Byzantines.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043.

RUSSIA: 10TH Century.

The introduction of Christianity.

See CHRISTIANITY: 10TH CENTURY.

RUSSIA: A. D. 980-1054.

Family divisions and their consequence.

"Under Wladimir I. (980-1015), and under Jaroslaf I.

(1019-1054), the power of the grand-duchy of Kiew was

respectable. But Jaroslaf having divided it between his sons

conduced to enfeeble it. In the 12th century, the supremacy

passed from the grand-duchy of Kiew to the grand-duchy of

Wladimir, without extricating Russia from division and

impotence. The law of primogeniture not existing in Russia,

where it was not introduced into the Czarean family until the

14th century, the principalities were incessantly divided."

S. Menzies,

History of Europe,

chapter. 36.

RUSSIA: A. D. 988.

Acquisition of Cherson.

See CHERSON: A. D. 988.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1054-1237.

The early Russian territory and its divisions.

"It must not be forgotten that the oldest Russia was formed

mainly of lands which afterwards passed under the rule of

Poland and Lithuania. … The Dnieper, from which Russia was

afterwards cut off, was the great central river of the elder

Russia; of the Don and the Volga she held only the upper

course. The northern frontier barely passed the great lakes of

Ladoga and Onega, and the Gulf of Finland itself. It seems not

to have reached what was to be the Gulf of Riga, but some of

the Russian princes held a certain supremacy over the Finnish

and Lettish tribes of that region. In the course of the 11th

century, the Russian state, like that of Poland, was divided

among princes of the reigning family, acknowledging the

superiority of the great prince of Kief. In the next century

the chief power passed from Kief to the northern Vladimir on

the Kiasma. Thus the former Finnish land of Susdal on the

upper tributaries of the Volga became the cradle of the second

Russian power. Novgorod the Great, meanwhile, under elective

princes, claimed, like its neighbour Pskof, to rank among

commonwealths. Its dominion was spread far over the Finnish

tribes to the north and east; the White Sea, and, far more

precious, the Finnish Gulf, had now a Russian seaboard. It was

out of Vladimir and Novgorod that the Russia of the future was

to grow. Meanwhile a crowd of principalities, Polotsk,

Smolensk, the Severian Novgorod, Tchernigof, and others, arose

on the Duna and Dnieper. Far to the east arose the

commonwealth of Viatka, and on the frontiers of Poland and

Hungary arose the principality of Halicz or Galicia, which

afterwards grew for a while into a powerful kingdom. Meanwhile

in the lands on the Euxine the old enemies, Patzinaks and

Chazars, gave way to the Cumans, known in Russian history as

Polovtzi and Parthi. They spread themselves from the Ural

river to the borders of Servia and Danubian Bulgaria, cutting

off Russia from the Caspian. In the next century Russians and

Cumans—momentary allies—fell before the advance of the

Mongols, commonly known in European history as Tartars. Known

only as ravagers in the lands more to the west, over Russia

they become overlords for 250 years. All that escaped

absorption by the Lithuanian became tributary to the Mongol.

Still the relation was only a tributary one; Russia was never

incorporated in the Mongol dominion, as Servia and Bulgaria

were incorporated in the Ottoman dominion. But Kief was

overthrown; Vladimir became dependent; Novgorod remained the

true representative of free Russia in the Baltic lands."

E. A. Freeman,

Historical Geography of Europe,

chapter 11, section 2.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1235.

Formation of the grand-duchy of Lithuania,

embracing a large area of Russian territory.

See LITHUANIA: A. D. 1235.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1239.

Mongol conquest.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

Prosperity and greatness of Novgorod as a commercial republic.

Two centuries of Tartar domination.

Growing power of Lithuania and Poland.

Rise of the Duchy of Moscow,

the nucleus of the future Russian Empire.

"Alone among the cities the ancient Novgorod has boasted its

exemption from plunder [at the hands of the Tartars]. The

great city, though fallen since the days of Rurik from being

the capital of an Empire, had risen to the dignity of a

Republic. It had found wealth in trade; and at successive

epochs had introduced the riches of Constantinople to the

North, the merchandise of the great Hanse Towns to the South.

It had profited by the example, and had emulated the

prosperity, of the rich cities of Germany. It had striven also

to attain their freedom; and, though still continuing to

acknowledge a vague allegiance to the Russian Princes, it had

been able, by its wealth and its remoteness from control, to

win or to assume privileges, until it had resembled Bremen or

Lubeck in the sovereignty of its assemblies, and had surpassed

those cities by the assumption of a style declaratory of its

independence. It boasted further of a prince, St. Alexander

Nevsky, to whom a glorious victory over the Swedes had already

given a name, and whose virtues were hereafter to enrol him

among the Saints; and it had a defence in the marshes and

forests which surrounded it and which had already once

deterred the invaders. But even the great city could not

continue to defy the Tartar horde, and its submission is at

once the last and most conclusive proof of the supremacy of

their power. Thenceforth the nation felt the bitterness of

servitude. The Tartars did not occupy the country they had

conquered; they retired to establish their settlements upon

the Volga, where they became known as the Golden Horde: but

they exacted the tribute and the homage of the Russian

Princes. …

{2757}

Five centuries have been unable to obliterate the traces which

this period has imprinted upon the national character. The

Tartars oppressed and extorted tribute from the Russian

princes; the princes in their turn became the oppressors and

extortioners of their people. Deceit and lying, the refuge of

the weak, became habitual. Increasing crime and increasing

punishments combined to brutalise the people. The vice of

drunkenness was universal. Trade indeed was not extinguished;

and religion prospered so abundantly that of all the many

monasteries of Russia there are but few that do not owe their

origin to this time. … Meanwhile the provinces of the West

were falling into the hands of other enemies. The Tartar wave

had swept as far as Poland, but it had then recoiled, and had

left the countries westward of the Dnieper to their fate. All

links of the connection that had bound these regions to the

Princes of Vladimir, were now broken. Vitepsk, Polotsk,

Smolensk, and even provinces still nearer Moscow, were

gradually absorbed by the growing power of Lithuania, which,

starting from narrow limits between the Dwina and the Niemen,

was destined to overshadow Russia.

See LITHUANIA: A. D. 1235.

The provinces of the South for a time maintained a certain

unity and independence under the name of the Duchy of Halicz

or Kief; but these also, through claims of inheritance or

feudal right, became eventually merged in the dominions of

their neighbours. Poland obtained Black Russia, which has

never since returned to its earlier masters. Lithuania

acquired Volhynia and Red Russia, and thus extended her wide

empire from the Baltic as far as the Red Sea. Then came the

union of these powers by the acceptance in 1383 of the Grand

Duke Jagellon as King of Poland; and all hopes for the Russian

princes of recovering their possessions seemed lost. The

ancient empire of Yaroslaf was thus ended; and its history is

parted from that of mediæval Russia by the dark curtain of two

centuries in which the Russian people were a race but not a

nation. The obscure descendants of Rurik still occupied his

throne, and ruled with some appearance of hereditary

succession. They even chose this period of their weakness to

solace their vanity by the adoption of the style of Sovereigns

of All the Russias. But they were the mere vassals of the

Golden Horde. … It was not until the reign of Dimitry IV.,

that any sign was shown of reviving independence. Time, by

weakening the Tartars, had then brought freedom nearer to the

Russians. The Horde, which had been united under Bati, when it

had first precipitated itself upon Europe, had become divided

by the ambition of rebellious Khans, who had aspired to

establish their independent power; and the Russians had at

length a prince who was able to profit by the weakness of his

enemies. Dimitry, who reigned from 1362 to 1389, is celebrated

as having checked the divisions which civil strife and

appanages had inflicted upon his country, and as having also

gloriously repulsed the Lithuanians from the walls of Moscow,

now rising to be his capital. But his greatest deed, and that

by which he lives in the remembrance of every Russian, is his

victory upon the Don, which gave to him thenceforth the name

of Donskoi. The Tartars, indignant at his prominence, had

united with the Lithuanians. For the first time the Russians

turned against their tyrants, and found upon the field of

Khoulikof [1383] that their freedom was still possible. They

did not achieve indeed for many years what they now began to

hope. Their strength was crippled by renewed attacks of

Tartars from the south and of Lithuanians from the west; and

they could not dare to brave the revengeful enmity of the

Horde. For a hundred years they still paid tribute, and the

successors of Dimitry still renewed their homage at the camp

upon the Volga. But progress gradually was made. The Grand

Prince Vassili Dimitrievitch [1389-1425] was able to extend

his rule over a territory that occupied the space of six or

seven of the modern governments round Moscow; and though the

country, under Vassili Vassilievitch [1425-1462], became

enfeebled by a renewal of civil strife, the increasing

weakness of the Tartar power continued to prepare the way for

the final independence that was accomplished by the close of

the 15th century. The reign of Ivan III. became the opening of

a new epoch in Russian history. He restored his people, long

sunk out of the gaze of Europe, to a place among its nations,

and recalled them in some degree from the barbarism of the

East to the intercourse and civilization of the West. The

Russia of old time was now no more; but the Grand Prince, or

Duke of Moscow, as he was called, was still the heir of Rurik

and of Yaroslaf, and in the growth of his Duchy their Empire

reappeared. … Without the fame of a warrior, but with the

wisdom of a statesman, with a strong hand and by the help of a

long reign, he built up out of the fragments that surrounded

Him an Empire that exceeded vastly that of his immediate

predecessor. … The fall of the republic of Novgorod [1478] and

the final extinction of the Golden Horde, are the events which

are most prominent. Riches had been the bane of the great

city. They had fostered insolence, but they had given a

distaste for war. The citizens had often rebelled; they had

accepted the protection of Lithuania, and had later meditated,

and even for a time accomplished, a union with Poland. But

they had had no strength to defend the liberty to which they

had aspired. … When Ivan advanced, determined, as he said, to

reign at Novgorod as he reigned at Moscow, they were unable to

repel or to endure a siege, and they surrendered themselves

into his hand. Once he had pardoned them; now their

independence was taken from them. Their assembly was

dissolved; their great bell, the emblem of their freedom, was

carried to Moscow. The extinction of the Golden Horde was due

to time and policy, rather than to any deeds which have

brought glory to the Russian people.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

Released in this manner from the most dangerous both of

domestic and of foreign foes the power of Ivan rapidly

advanced. The broad province of Penn, that had begun to boast

a half accomplished independence, had been early forced to

acknowledge her subjection. The Khan of Kazan was now made

tributary; and the rule of Ivan was extended from the Oural to

the Neva. Provinces, as important, though less extensive, were

acquired in the south. The Russian princes and cities that had

preserved their independence were all, with the one exception of

Riazan, compelled to acknowledge the sovereignty of Moscow. …

{2758}

At the same time the Lithuanians were thrust back. Their

greatness had gone by; and the territories of Tula, Kalouga,

and Orel now ceasing to own allegiance to a declining power,

were incorporated with the rising Empire. That Empire had

already reached the Dnieper, and was already scheming to

recover the ancient capital of its princes."

C. F. Johnstone,

Historical Abstracts,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

A. Rambaud,

History of Russia,

chapters 8-14 (volume 1).

RUSSIA: 15th Century.

Effects of the Tartar domination.

Sources of autocracy.

"The invasion of the Mongols, in the beginning of the 13th

century, snapped the thread of Russia's destinies. … Nature,

after preparing the invasion, herself marked its bounds. The

Tatars, now masters of the steppes in the southeast, which

felt to them very much like home, grew ill at ease as soon as

they began to lose themselves in the forests of the north.

They did not settle there. These regions were too European to

suit their half-nomadic habits, and they cared more for

tribute-payers than for subjects. So the 'kniazes' received

their principalities back from the hands of the Mongols—as

fiefs. They had to submit to the presence near their person of

a sort of Tatar 'residents,'—the 'baskàks,' whose duty it was

to take the census and to collect the taxes. They were

compelled to take the long, long journey to the 'Horde,' often

encamped in the heart of Asia, in order to receive their

investiture from the successors of Djinghiz, and ended by

becoming the vassals of a vassal of the 'Great-Khan.' At this

price Russia retained her religion, her dynasties, and—thanks

to her clergy and her princes—her nationality. Never yet was

nation put through such a school of patience and abject

submission. … Under this humiliating and impoverishing

domination the germs of culture laid in the old principalities

withered up. … The Tatar domination developed in the Russians

faults and faculties of which their intercourse with Byzance

had already brought them the germs, and which, tempered by

time, have since contributed to develop their diplomatic

gifts. … The oppression by man, added to the oppression by the

climate, deepened certain traits already sketched in by nature

in the Great-Russian's soul. Nature inclined him to

submission, to endurance, to resignation; history confirmed

these inclinations. Hardened by nature, he was steeled by

history. One of the chief effects of the Tatar domination and

all that makes up Russian history, is the importance given to

the national worship. … The domination of an enemy who was a

stranger to Christianity fortified the sufferers' attachment

to their worship. Religion and native land were merged into

one faith, took the place of nationality and kept it alive. It

was then that the conception sprang up which still links the

quality of Russian to the profession of Greek orthodoxy, and

makes of the latter the chief pledge of patriotism. … Upon

Russia's political sovereignty the Tatar domination had two

parallel effects: it hastened national unity and it

strengthened autocracy. The country which, under the appanage

system, was falling to pieces, was bound together by foreign

oppression as by a chain of iron. Having constituted himself

suzerain of the 'Grand-Kniazes,' whom he appointed and

dethroned at will, the Khan conferred on them his authority.

The Asiatic tyranny of which they were the delegates empowered

them to govern tyrannically. Their despotism over the Russians

was derived from their servitude under the Tatars. … Every

germ of free government, whether aristocratic or democratic,

was stifled. Nothing remained but one power, the

'Velíki-Kniaz,' the autocrat,—and such now, after more than

500 years, still is the basis of the state."

A. Leroy-Beaulieu,

The Empire of the Tsars and the Russians,

part 1, book 4, chapter 3.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

From Ivan the Terrible to Peter the Great.

The Poles at Moscow.

Origin of the dynasty of the Romanoffs.

"Apart from the striking and appalling character of Ivan

himself, whom Mickiewicz, the Polish poet, calls, in his

lectures on the Slavonians, 'the most finished tyrant known in

history—frivolous and debauched like Nero, stupid and

ferocious like Caligula, full of dissimulation like Tiberius

or Louis XI.,' the reign of Ivan the Terrible is interesting

as marking the beginning of the intercourse between Russia and

Western Europe, and especially between Russia and England. The

natural approach to Russia from the west was, of course,

through Poland; but the Poles impeded systematically, and for

political reasons, the introduction of arts and artificers

into Russia, and Sigismund wrote a letter to Elizabeth,

warning her against the Muscovite power as a danger to

civilization, only not formidable for the moment because it

was still semi-barbarous. Ivan the Terrible was the third of

the independent Tsars; and already under Ivan, sometimes

called the 'Great'—to whom indeed belongs the honour of having

finally liberated Russia from the Tartar yoke—endeavours had

been made to enter into relations with various European

nations. Foreigners, too, were encouraged to visit Russia and

settle there. The movement of foreigners towards Russia

increased with each succeeding reign; and beginning with the

first Tsar of Muscovy it became much more marked under the

third, that Ivan the Terrible, under whose reign the mariners

in the service of the English company of 'merchant

adventurers' entered the White Sea, and, in their own

language, 'discovered' Russia. Russia was, indeed, until that

time, so far as Western Europe was concerned, an unknown land,

cut off from Western civilization for political and warlike

reasons by the Poles, and for religious reasons by the

Catholic Church. On the 18th of March, 1584, Ivan was sitting

half dressed, after his bath, 'solacing himself and making

merie with pleasant songs, as he used to doe.' He called for

his chess-board, had placed the men, and was just setting up

the king, when he fell back in a swoon and died. … The death

of Ivan was followed by strong dislike against the English at

Moscow; and the English diplomatist and match-maker, Sir

Jerome Bowes, after being ironically informed that 'the

English king was dead,' found himself seized and thrown into

prison. He was liberated through the representations of

another envoy, who pointed out that it would be imprudent to

excite Elizabeth's wrath; and though for a time intercourse

between Russia and Western Europe was threatened, through the

national hatred of foreigners as manifested by the councillors

of the Tsar, yet when the weak-minded Feodor fell beneath the

influence of his brother-in-law Boris Godounoff, the previous

policy, soon to become traditional, of cultivating relations

with Western Europe, was resumed. …

{2759}

Nineteen years have yet to pass before the election of the

first of the Romanoffs to the throne; for strange as it may

seem, the first member of the dynasty of the Romanoffs was

chosen and appointed to the imperial rule by an assembly

representing the various estates. Meanwhile the order of

succession had been broken. Several pretenders to the throne

had appeared, one of whom, Demetrius, distinctively known as

the 'Imposter,' attained for a time supreme power. Demetrius,

married to a Polish lady, Marina Mniszek, was aided by her

powerful family to maintain his position in Moscow; for the

Mniszeks assembled and sent to the Russian capital a body of

4,000 men. Then Ladislas [son of the king] of Poland

interfered, and after a time [1610] Moscow fell beneath the

power of the Poles.

See POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.

Soon, however, the national feeling of Russia was aroused. A

butcher, or cattle dealer of Nijni Novgorod, named Minin,

whose patriotism has made him one of the most popular figures

in Russian history, got together the nucleus of a national

army, and called upon the patriotic nobleman, Prince Pojarski,

to place himself at its head. Pojarski and Minin marched

together to Moscow, and their success in clearing the capital

of the foreign invaders [1612] is commemorated by a group of

statuary which stands in the principal square of Moscow. …

Among the tombs of the metropolitans buried in … [the

cathedral of the Assumption at Moscow] are those of Philaret

and Hermogenes, who were thrown into prison by the Poles for

refusing to consent to the accession of Ladislas, the Polish

prince, to the Russian throne. Hermogenes died soon after his

arrest. Philaret, at the expulsion of the Poles, was carried

away captive by them in their retreat from Moscow (1612), and

was kept nine years a prisoner in Poland. On his return to

Russia, he found his son, Michael Feodorovitch, elected to the

throne. The belief, then, of the Russian people in Michael's

patriotism, seems to have been founded on a knowledge of the

patriotism of his father. The surname of the metropolitan who

had defied the Polish power and had suffered nine years'

imprisonment in Poland was Romanoff; Philaret was the name he

had adopted on becoming a monk. His baptismal name was Feodor,

and hence the patronymic Feodorovitch attached to the name of

Michael, the first of the Romanoffs. There is little to say

about the reign of Michael Feodorovitch, the circumstances

having once been set forth under which he was elected to the

vacant throne; and his son and successor, Alexis

Michailovitch, is chiefly remembered as father of Peter the

Great."

H. S. Edwards,

The Romanoffs,

chapters 1-2.

ALSO IN:

W. K. Kelly,

History of Russia,

chapters 13-19 (volume 1).

P. Mérimée,

Demetrius the Imposter.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1547.

Assumption of the title, Czar, or Tzar,

by the Grand Prince of Moscow.

"In January 1547, Ivan [IV., known as Ivan the Terrible]

ordered the Metropolitan Macarius to proceed with his

coronation. He assumed at the ceremony not only the title of

Grand Prince, but that of Tzar. The first title no longer

answered to the new power of the sovereign of Moscow, who

counted among his domestics, princes and even Grand Princes.

The name of Tzar is that which the books in the Slavonic

language, ordinarily read by Ivan, give to the kings of Judæa,

Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, and to the emperors of Rome and

Constantinople. Now, was not Ivan in some sort the heir of the

Tzar Nebuchadnezzar, the Tzar Pharaoh, the Tzar Ahasuerus, and

the Tzar David, since Russia was the sixth empire spoken of in

the Apocalypse? Through his grandmother Sophia Palæologus, he

was connected with the family of the Tzars of Byzantium;

through his ancestor Vladimir Monomachus, he belonged to the

Porphyrogeniti; and through Constantine the Great, to Cæsar. …

We may imagine what prestige was added to the dignity of the

Russian sovereign by this dazzling title, borrowed from

Biblical antiquity, from Roman majesty, from the orthodox

sovereigns of Byzantium."

A. Rambaud,

History of Russia,

volume 1, chapter 15.

"This title [Czar] … is not a corruption of the word 'Cæsar,'

as many have supposed [see CÆSAR, THE TITLE], but is an old

Oriental word which the Russians acquired through the Slavonic

translation of the Bible, and which they bestowed at first on

the Greek emperors, and afterwards on the Tartar Khans. In

Persia it signifies throne, supreme authority; and we find it

in the termination of the names of the kings of Assyria and

Babylon, such as Phalassar, Nabonasser, &c.—Karamsin."

W. K. Kelly,

History of Russia,

volume 1, page 125, foot-note.

"Von Hammer, in his last note to his 31st book, says, 'The

title Czar or Tzar is an ancient title of Asiatic sovereigns.

We find an instance of it in the title 'The Schar,' of the

sovereign of Gurdistan; and in that of Tzarina … of the

Scythians.'"

Sir E. S. Creasy,

History of the Ottoman Turks,

page 213, foot-note.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.

First collision with the Turks.

Their repulse from Astrakhan.-

Moscow stormed and sacked by the Crim Tartars.

Peace with the Porte.

At the time (1566) of the accession of Selim II. to the

Ottoman throne, the Russians "had been involved in fierce and

frequent wars with the Sultan's vassals, the Crim Tartars; but

the Porte had taken no part in these contests. But the bold

genius of the Vizier Sokolli now attempted the realisation of

a project, which, if successful, would have barred the

southern progress of Russia, by firmly planting the Ottoman

power on the banks of the Don and the Volga, and along the

shores of the Caspian Sea. … Sokclli proposed to unite the

rivers Don and Volga by a canal, and then send a Turkish

armament up the sea of Azoph and the Don, thence across by the

intended channel to the Volga, and then down the latter river

into the Caspian; from the southern shores of which sea the

Ottomans might strike at Tabriz and the heart of the Persian

power. … Azoph already belonged to the Turks, but in order to

realise the great project entertained it was necessary to

occupy Astrakhan also. Accordingly, 3,000 Janissaries and

20,000 horse were sent [1569] to besiege Astrakhan, and a

cooperative force of 30,000 Tartars was ordered to join them,

and to aid in making the canal. 5,000 Janissaries and 3,000

pioneers were at the same time sent to Azoph to commence and

secure the great work at its western extremity. But the

generals of Ivan the Terrible did their duty to their stern

master ably in this emergency. The Russian garrison of

Astrakhan sallied on its besiegers, and repulsed them with

considerable loss.

{2760}

And a Russian army, 15,000 strong, under Prince Serebinoff,

came suddenly on the workmen and Janissaries near Azoph, and

put them to head-long flight. It was upon this occasion that

the first trophies won from the Turks came into Russian hands.

An army of Tartars, which marched to succour the Turks, was

also entirely defeated by Ivan's forces; and the Ottomans,

dispirited by their losses and reverses, withdrew altogether

from the enterprise. … Russia was yet far too weak to enter on

a war of retaliation with the Turks. She had subdued the

Tartar Khanates of Kasan and Astrakhan; but their kinsmen of

the Crimea were still formidable enemies to the Russians, even

without Turkish aid. It was only two years after the Ottoman

expedition to the Don and Volga that the Khan of the Crimea

made a victorious inroad into Russia, took Moscow by storm,

and sacked the city (1571). The Czar Ivan had, in 1570, sent

an ambassador, named Nossolitof, to Constantinople, to

complain of the Turkish attack on Astrakhan, and to propose

that there should be peace, friendship, and alliance between

the two empires. … The Russian ambassador was favourably

received at the Sublime Porte, and no further hostilities

between the Turks and Russians took place for nearly a

century."

Sir E. S. Creasy,

History of the Ottoman Turks,

chapter 11.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1577-1580.

Conquests by the Poles.

See POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1578-1579.

Yermac's conquest of Siberia.

See SIBERIA.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1613-1617.

War with Sweden.

Cession of territory, including the site of St. Petersburg.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1652.

Allegiance of the Cossacks of the Ukraine transferred from the

King of Poland to the Czar.

See POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.

The great schism, known as the Rascol.

"In the reign of Alexis took place the great revision of the

Bible, carried out by the energy of Nicon, the Patriarch, who,

finding that the church-books were full of ridiculous blunders

caused by ignorant copyists, procured a quantity of the best

Greek manuscripts from Mount Athos, and other places. In 1655,

and the following year, he summoned two councils of the

church, at which the newly translated service-books were

promulgated and the old ones called in. In consequence of this

change, a great schism took place in the Russian Church, a

number of people attaching a superstitious veneration to the

old books, errors and all. Thus was formed the large sect of

the Staro-obriadtsi or Raskolniks, still existing in Russia,

who have suffered great persecutions at many periods of her

history."

W. R. Morfill,

The Story of Russia,

chapter 6.

"The most important innovation, which afterwards became the

symbol and the war-cry of the religious rebellion, referred to

the position of the fingers in making the sign of the cross.

The Russians of Nicon's time when they crossed themselves held

two fingers together, while the Oriental churches and the

Greeks enjoined their adherents to cross themselves with three

fingers united into one point. The two-fingered cross of the

Muscovites was used in the Orient only for giving the priestly

benediction. … Patriarch Nicon was anxious to return to

ancient traditions. Reserving the two-fingered cross for

priestly benedictions only, he re-established the

three-fingered Greek cross, or, as his opponents called it,

'the pinch-of-snuff cross,' for the private act of devotion.

Then, too, in certain cases, for instance in stamping the

round wafers, he introduced the use of the equilateral,

four-sided cross. … The Russians celebrated the mass on seven

wafers, while the Greeks and Orientals used only five. In the

processions of the Church the Russians were in the habit of

first turning their steps westward—going with the sun; the

Greeks marched eastward—against the sun. In all these points

Patriarch Nicon conformed to the traditions of the Greek

mother-church. In conformity with this rule, moreover, he

directed that the hallelujahs should be 'trebled,' or sung

thrice, as with the Greeks, the Russians having up till then

only 'doubled' it—singing, instead of the third hallelujah,

its Russian equivalent, 'God be praised.' Finally, or we

should rather say above all, Nicon introduced a fresh spelling

of the name of Jesus. The fact is that, probably in

consequence of the Russian habit of abbreviating some of the

commonest scriptural names, the second letter in the name

Jesus had been dropped altogether; it was simply spelt Jsus,

without any sign of abbreviation. Patriarch Nicon corrected

this orthographical error, replacing the missing letter. Was

this all? Yes, this was all. As far as doctrinal matters were

concerned, nothing more serious was at stake in the great

religious schism of the 17th century, known by the name of the

Rascol. And yet it was for these trifles—a letter less in a

name, a finger more in a cross, the doubling instead of the

trebling of a word—that thousands of people, both men and

women, encountered death on the scaffold or at the stake. It

was for these things that other scores of thousands underwent

the horrible tortures of the knout, the strappado, the rack,

or had their bodies mutilated, their tongues cut, their hands

chopped off."

Stepniak,

The Russian Peasantry

(American edition),

pages 237-239.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1686-1696.

War of the Holy League against the Turks.

Capture of Azov.

First foothold on the Black Sea acquired.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1689.

Accession of Peter the Great.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1697-1704.

Peter the Great: his travels in pursuit of knowledge;

his apprenticeship to the useful arts;

his civilizing work in Muscovy.

"Many princes before [Peter the Great] had renounced crowns,

wearied out with the intolerable load of public affairs; but

no man had ever divested himself of the royal character, in

order to learn the art of governing better: this was a stretch

of heroism which was reserved for Peter the Great alone. He

left Russia in [1697], having reigned as yet but [a few]

years, and went to Holland disguised under a common name, as

if he had been a menial servant of that same Lefort, whom he

sent in quality of ambassador-extraordinary to the

States-General. As soon as he arrived at Amsterdam, he

enrolled his name among the shipwrights of the admiralty of

the Indies, and wrought in the yard like the other mechanics.

At his leisure hours he learned such parts of the mathematics

as are useful to a prince,—fortification, navigation, and the

art of drawing plans. He went into the workmen's shops, and

examined all their manufactures: nothing could escape his

observation.

{2761}

From thence he passed over into England, where having

perfected himself in the art of ship-building, he returned to

Holland, carefully observing every thing that might turn to

the advantage of his country. At last, after two years of

travel and labor, to which no man but himself would have

willingly submitted, he again made his appearance in Russia,

with all the arts of Europe in his train. Artists of every

kind followed him in abundance. Then were seen, for the first

time, large Russian ships in the Baltic, and on the Black Sea

and the ocean. Stately buildings, of a regular architecture,

were raised among the Russian huts. He founded colleges;

academies, printing-houses, and libraries. The cities were

brought under a regular police. The dress and customs of the

people were gradually changed, though not without some

difficulty; and the Muscovites learned by degrees the true

nature of a social state. Even their superstitious rites were

abolished; the dignity of the patriarch was suppressed; and

the czar declared himself the head of the Church. This last

enterprise, which would have cost a prince less absolute than

Peter both his throne and his life, succeeded almost without

opposition, and insured to him the success of all his other

innovations. After having humbled an ignorant and a barbarous

clergy, he ventured to make a trial of instructing them,

though, by that means, he ran the risk of rendering them

formidable. … The czar not only subjected the Church to the

State, after the example of the Turkish emperors, but, what

was a more masterly stroke of policy, he dissolved a militia

of much the same nature with that of the janizaries: and what

the sultans had attempted in vain, he accomplished in a short

time: he disbanded the Russian janizaries, who were called

Strelitz, and who kept the czars in subjection. These troops,

more formidable to their masters than to their neighbors,

consisted of about 30,000 foot, one half of which remained at

Moscow, while the other was stationed upon the frontiers. The

pay of a Strelitz was no more than four roubles a year; but

this deficiency was amply compensated by privileges and

extortions. Peter at first formed a company of foreigners,

among whom he enrolled his own name, and did not think it

below him to begin the service in the character of a drummer,

and to perform the duties of that mean office; so much did the

nation stand in need of examples! By degrees he became an

officer. He gradually raised new regiments; and, at last,

finding himself master of a well-disciplined army, he broke

the Strelitz, who durst not disobey. The cavalry were nearly

the same with that of Poland, or France, when this last

kingdom was no more than an assemblage of fiefs. The Russian

gentlemen were mounted at their own expense, and fought

without discipline, and sometimes without any other arms than

a sabre or a bow, incapable of obeying, and consequently of

conquering. Peter the Great taught them to obey, both by the

example he set them and by the punishments he inflicted; for

he served in the quality of a soldier and subaltern officer,

and as czar he severely punished the Boyards, that is, the

gentlemen, who pretended that it was the privilege of their

order not to serve but by their own consent. He established a

regular body to serve the artillery, and took 500 bells from

the churches to found cannon. … He was himself a good

engineer; but his chief excellence lay in his knowledge of

naval affairs: he was an able sea-captain, a skilful pilot, a

good sailor, an expert shipwright, and his knowledge of these

arts was the more meritorious, as he was born with a great

dread of the water. In his youth he could not pass over a

bridge without trembling. … He caused a beautiful harbor to be

built at the mouth of the Don, near Azof, in which he proposed

to keep a number of galleys; and some time after, thinking

that these vessels, so long, light, and flat, would probably

succeed in the Baltic, he had upwards of 300 of them built at

his favorite city of Petersburg. He showed his subjects the

method of building ships with fir only, and taught them the

art of navigation. He had even learned surgery, and, in a case

of necessity, has been known to tap a dropsical person. He was

well versed in mechanics, and instructed the artists. … He was

always travelling up and down his dominions, as much as his

wars would allow him; but he travelled like a legislator and

natural philosopher, examining nature everywhere, endeavoring

to correct or perfect her; sounding with his own hands the

depths of seas and rivers, repairing sluices, visiting docks,

causing mines to be searched for, assaying metals, ordering

accurate plans to be drawn, in the execution of which he

himself assisted. He built, upon a wild and uncultivated spot,

the imperial city of Petersburg. … He built the harbor of

Cronstadt, on the Neva, and Sainte-Croix, on the frontiers of

Persia; erected forts in the Ukraine and Siberia; established

offices of admiralty at Archangel, Petersburg, Astrakhan, and

Azof; founded arsenals, and built and endowed hospitals. All

his own houses were mean, and executed in a bad taste; but he

spared no expenses in rendering the public buildings grand and

magnificent. The sciences, which in other countries have been

the slow product of so many ages, were, by his care and

industry, imported into Russia in full perfection. He

established an academy on the plan of the famous societies of

Paris and London. … Thus it was that a single man changed the

face of the greatest empire in the universe. It is however a

shocking reflection, that this reformer of mankind should have

been deficient in that first of all virtues, the virtue of

humanity. Brutality in his pleasures, ferocity in his manners,

and cruelty in his punishments, sullied the lustre of so many

virtues. He civilized his subjects, and yet remained himself a

barbarian. He would sometimes with his own hands execute

sentences of death upon the unhappy criminals; and, in the

midst of a revel, would show his dexterity in cutting off

heads."

Voltaire,

History of Charles XII., King of Sweden,

book 1.

ALSO IN:

J. L. Motley,

Peter the Great.

E. Schuyler,

Peter the Great,

volume 1.

A. Leroy-Beaulieu,

The Empire of the Tsars,

part 1, book 4, chapter 4.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1699.

The Peace of Carlowitz with the Sultan.

Possession of Azov confirmed.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1700.

Aggressive league with Poland and Denmark

against Charles XII. of Sweden.

Defeat at Narva.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1701-1706.

War with Charles XII. of Sweden in Poland and Livonia.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

{2762}

RUSSIA: A. D. 1703-1718.

The founding of St. Petersburg.

"Immediately after the capture of Nyenskanz [1703], a council

of war was convened to consider the question of defending and

utilising the mouth of the Neva, and whether it would be

better to strengthen the little fort which had just been

taken, or to seek a fit site for a commercial town nearer the

sea. The latter course was decided upon. Near its mouth the

Neva takes a sharp turn and divides into three or four

branches, which by subsequent redivision form a number of

islands, large and small. These marshy islands, overgrown with

forests and thickets, and liable to be covered with water

during the westerly winds, were inhabited by a few Finnish

fishermen, who were accustomed to abandon their mud huts at

the approach of high water, and seek a refuge on the higher

ground beyond. It was on the first of these islands, called by

the Finns Yanni-Saari, or Hare Island, where the river was

still broad and deep, that Peter laid the foundation of a

fortress and a city, named St. Petersburg, after his patron

saint. … For this work many carpenters and masons were sent

from the district of Novgorod, who were aided by the soldiers.

Wheelbarrows were unknown (they are still little used in

Russia), and in default of better implements the men scraped

up the earth with their hands, and carried it to the ramparts

on pieces of matting or in their shirts. Peter wrote to

Ramodanofsky, asking him to send the next summer at least

2,000 thieves and criminals destined for Siberia, to do the

heavy work under the direction of the Novgorod carpenters. At

the same time with the construction of the bastions, a church

was built in the fortress and dedicated to St. Peter and St.

Paul. … Just outside of the fortress Peter built for himself a

small hut, which he called his palace. It was about fifty-five

feet long by twenty wide, built of logs roofed with shingles,

and contained only three rooms, lighted by little windows set

in leaden frames. In respect for this, his earliest residence

in St. Petersburg, Peter subsequently had another building

erected outside of it to preserve it from the weather, and in

this state it still remains, an object of pilgrimage to the

curious and devout. … In spite of disease and mortality among

the men, in spite of the floods, which even in the first year

covered nearly the whole place and drowned some who were too

ill to move, the work went on. But in its infancy St.

Petersburg was constantly in danger from the Swedes, both by

sea and land. … St. Petersburg was the apple of Peter's eye.

It was his 'paradise,' as he often calls it in his letters. It

was always an obstacle, and sometimes the sole obstacle, to

the conclusion of peace. Peter was willing to give up all he

had conquered in Livonia and Esthonia, and even Narva, but he

would not yield the mouth of the Neva. Nevertheless, until the

war with Sweden had been practically decided by the battle of

Poltava, and the position of St. Petersburg had been thus

secured, although it had a certain importance as a commercial

port, and as the fortress which commanded the mouth of the

Neva, it remained but a village. The walls of the fortress

were finally laid with stone, but the houses were built of

logs at the best, and for many years, in spite of the marshy

soil, the streets remained unpaved. If fate had compelled the

surrender of the city, there would not have been much to

regret. Gradually the idea came to Peter to make it his

capital. In 1714 the Senate was transported thither from

Moscow, but wars and foreign enterprises occupied the Tsar's

attention, and it was not until 1718 that the colleges or

ministries were fully installed there, and St. Petersburg

became in fact the capital of the Empire."

E. Schuyler,

Peter the Great,

chapter 46 (volume 2).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1707-1718.

Invasion by Charles XII. of Sweden.

His ruinous defeat at Pultowa.

His intrigues with the Turks.

Unlucky expedition of the Czar into Moldavia.

Russian conquests in the north.

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

RUSSIA: A. D. 1721.

The Peace of Nystad with Sweden.

Livonia and other conquests of Peter the Great secured.

Finland given up.

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

CENTRAL EUROPE IN 1715

AFTER THE TREATIES OF UTRECHT AND RASTADT.

FRANCE.[IN 1643]

ACQUIRED BY FRANCE UNDER LOUIS XIV.

HABSBURG POSSESSIONS.

HOHENZOLLERN POSSESSIONS.

DANISH POSSESSIONS.

HOUSE OF HOLSTEEN-GOTTORP.

ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE.

STATES OF THE CHURCH.

THE BOUNDARY OF THE EMPIRE IS SHOWN BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.

EASTERN EUROPE IN 1715.

SHOWING SOME PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT CHANGES.

HABSBURG POSSESSIONS.

HOHENZOLLERN POSSESSIONS.

VENETIAN POSSESSIONS.

DANISH AND NORWEGIAN POSSESSIONS.

SWEDISH POSSESSIONS.

RUSSIA.

POLAND.

THE EASTERN BOUNDARY UP THE EMPIRE IS SHOWN

BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

The reigns of Catherine I., Peter II., and Anne Ivanovna.

Fruitless war with Turkey.

Depredations in the Crimea.

"The death of Peter found the Russian Court divided into two

powerful factions. The reactionary party, filled with Russians

of the old school, who had looked upon the reforms of Peter

with no favourable eye, such as the Golitsins and the

Dolgorukis, were anxious to raise to the throne Peter, the son

of Alexis [Peter the Great's son, whom he had caused to be put

to death], a mere boy; whereas the party of progress, led by

Menshikov, wished that Catherine, the Tsar's widow, should

succeed. … The party of reform finally triumphed. Catherine

was elected the successor of her husband, and the chief

authority fell into the hands of Alexander Menshikov. … The

brief reign of Catherine is distinguished only by two events

which added any glory to Russia. The Academy of Sciences was

founded in 1726, and Behring, a Dane, was sent on an exploring

expedition to Kamchatka. He has left his name indelibly

written on the geography of the world. … The Empress died on

the 17th of May, 1727, a little more than two years after her

accession to the throne, aged about 39 years. … A ukase of

Peter permitted Catherine to choose her successor. She

accordingly nominated Peter, the son of the unfortunate

Alexis, and, in default of Peter and his issue, Elizabeth and

Anne, her daughters. Anne died in 1728, the year after her

mother; she had married Karl Friedrich, the Duke of Holstein,

… and was the mother of the unfortunate Peter III. Menshikov

was appointed the guardian of the young Tsar till he had

reached the age of 17." In four months Menshikov was in

disgrace and the young Tsar had signed a ukase which condemned

him to Siberian banishment. He died in 1729, and was followed

to the grave a year later by the boy autocrat whose fiat had

been his ruin. On the death of Peter II., the will of

Catherine, in favor of her daughters, was set aside, and the

Council of the Empire conferred the crown on Anne [Anne

Ivanovna], the widowed Duchess of Courland, who was a daughter

of Ivan, elder brother of Peter the Great. An attempt was made

to impose on her a constitution, somewhat resembling the Pacta

Conventa of the Poles, but she evaded it. "The Empress threw

herself entirely into the hands of German favourites,

especially a Courlander of low extraction, named Biren, said

to have been the son of a groom. … The Empress was a woman of

vulgar mind, and the Court was given up to unrefined orgies. …

{2763}

Her reign was not an important one for Russia either as

regards internal or foreign affairs. The right of

primogeniture which had been introduced into the Russian law

of real property by Peter the Great, was abolished; it was

altogether alien to the spirit of Slavonic institutions. A

four years' war with Turkey led to no important results."

W. R. Morfill,

The Story of Russia,

chapter 8.

"The Russians could have no difficulty in finding a pretence

for the war [with Turkey], because the khan of the Turkish

allies and dependents, the Tatars on the coast of the Black

Sea and the Sea of Asof, and in the Crimea, could never wholly

restrain his wandering hordes from committing depredations and

making incursions into the neighbouring pasture-lands of

Russia. … In 1735 a Russian corps marched into the Crimea,

ravaged a part of the country, and killed a great number of

Tatars; but having ventured too far without a sufficient stock

of provisions, they were obliged to retreat, and sustained so

great a loss in men that what had been accomplished bore no

proportion to this misfortune. The almost total failure of

this first attempt, which had cost the Russians 10,000 men, by

no means deterred them from pursuing their designs of

conquest. Count Munich marched with a large army from the

Ukraine into the Crimea (1730). The Tatars … suffered the

Russian troops to advance unmolested, thinking themselves safe

behind their entrenchments. … But entrenchments of that kind

were unable to resist the impetuosity of the Russian troops.

They were surmounted; the Tatars repulsed; and a great part of

the Crimea lay at the mercy of the conquerors. In the month of

June they entered the Crimean fortress of Perekop. The Russian

troops now retaliated the devastations committed by the Tatars

in the Empire; but they found it impossible to remain long. …

Whatever the army was in want of had to be fetched with

extreme difficulty from the Ukraine; so that Munich at length

found himself, towards autumn, under the necessity of

withdrawing with his troops by the shortest way to the

Ukraine. … While Munich was in the Crimea, endeavouring to

chastise the Tatars for their depredations, Lascy had

proceeded with another army against Asof. The attack proved

successful; and on the 1st of July the fort of Asof had

already submitted to his arms. … The Ottomans published a

manifesto against Russia, but they were neither able

afterwards to protect the Crimea nor Moldavia, for they were

soon threatened with an attack from Austria also. By the

treaty with Russia, the emperor was bound to furnish 30,000

auxiliaries in case of a war with the Turks; but a party in

the Austrian cabinet persuaded the emperor that it would be

more advantageous to make war himself. … In the year 1737 a

new expedition was undertaken from the Ukraine at an immense

cost. … A new treaty had been concluded with Austria before

this campaign, in which the two empires agreed to carry on the

war in common, according to a stipulated plan. In order to

gain a pretence for the war, Austria had previously acted as

if she wished to force her mediation upon the Turks. The first

year's campaign was so unfortunate that the Austrians were

obliged to give up all idea of prosecuting their operations,

and to think of the protection and defence of their own

frontiers." But "the Russians were every where victorious, and

made the names of their armies a terror both in the east and

the west. Lascy undertook a new raid into the Crimea. Munich

first threatened Bender, then reduced Otchakof without much

difficulty, and left a few troops behind him when he withdrew

… who were there besieged by a large combined army of Turks

and Tatars, supported by a fleet. The Russians not only

maintained the fortress, which was, properly speaking,

untenable, but they forced the Turks to retire with a loss of

10,000 men. The Russian campaign in 1738 was as fruitless, and

cost quite as many men, as the Austrian, but it was at least

the means of bringing them some military renown." In 1739, the

Russians, under Munich, advanced in the direction of Moldavia,

violating Polish territory. "The Turkish and Tatar army which

was opposed to the Russians was beaten and routed [at

Stavoutchani] on the first attack. … Immediately afterwards

the whole garrison, struck with a panic, forsook the fortress

of Khotzim, which had never been once attacked, and it was

taken possession of by the Russians, who were astonished at

the ease of the conquest. Jassy was also taken, and Munich

even wished to attack Bender, when the news of the peace of

Belgrade … made him infuriate, because he saw clearly enough

that Russia alone was not equal to carry on the war. … By the

peace of Belgrade, Austria not only suffered shame and

disgrace, but lost all the possessions which had been gained

by Eugene in the last war, her best military frontier, and her

most considerable fortresses. … By virtue of this treaty,

Austria restored to Turkey Belgrade, Shabacz, the whole of

Servia, that portion of Bosnia which had been acquired in the

last war, and Austrian Vallachia. Russia was also obliged to

evacuate Khotzim and Otchakof; the fortifications of the

latter were, however, blown up; as well as those of Perekop;

Russia retained Asof, and a boundary line was determined,

which offered the Russians the most favourable opportunities

for extending their vast empire southward, at the cost of the

Tatars and Turks."

W. K. Kelly,

History of Russia,

chapter 33 (volume 1).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1726-1740.

The question of the Austrian Succession.

Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1732-1733.

Interference in the election of king of Poland.

See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.

Two regencies and two revolutions.

The reign of Empress Elizabeth.

The Empress Anne died in 1740. Her deceased sister, Catherine,

had left a daughter, Anna, married to Anthony Ulrich, Prince

of Brunswick, and this daughter had an infant son, Ivan. By

the will of the Empress the child Ivan was named as her

successor, and Biren was appointed Regent. He enjoyed the

regency but a short time, when he was overcome by a palace

conspiracy and sent in banishment to Siberia. The mother of

the infant Czar was now made Regent; but her rule was brief.

Another revolution, in the latter part of 1741, consigned her,

with her son and husband, to a prison, and raised the Princess

Elizabeth, second daughter of Peter the Great, to the Russian

throne. "The Empress Anna might have ruled without control,

and probably have transmitted the throne to her son Ivan, had

Elizabeth been left to the quiet enjoyment

of her sensual propensities.

{2764}

Elizabeth indulged without concealment or restraint in amours

with subalterns, and even privates of the guard whose barracks

lay near her residence; she was addicted, like them, to strong

drink, and had entirely gained their favour by her good humour

and joviality. Her indolence made her utterly averse to

business, and she would never have thought of encumbering

herself with the cares of government had she not been

restricted in her amusements, reproved for her behaviour, and,

what was worst of all, threatened with a compulsory marriage

with the ugly and disagreeable Anthony Ulrich, of Brunswick

Bevern, brother of the Regent's husband. At the instigation,

and with the money, of the French ambassador, La Chétardie, a

revolution was effected. … Elizabeth, in the manifest which

she published on the day of her accession, declared that the

throne belonged to her by right of birth, in face of the

celebrated ukase issued by her father in 1722, which empowered

the reigning sovereign to name his successor. … On

communicating her accession to the Swedish Government [which

had lately declared war and invaded Finland with no success],

she expressed her desire for peace, and her wish to restore

matters to the footing on which they had been placed by the

Treaty of Nystadt. The Swedes, who took credit for having

assisted the revolution which raised her to the throne,

demanded from the gratitude of the Empress the restitution of

all Finnland, with the town of Wiborg and part of Carelia; but

Elizabeth, with whom it was a point of honour to cede none of

the conquests of her father, would consent to nothing further

than the re-establishment of the Peace of Nystadt. On the

renewal of the war the Swedes were again unsuccessful in every

rencounter, as they had been before."

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 6, chapter 3 (volume 3).

"This war had no result except to show the weakness of the

Sweden of Charles XII. against regenerate Russia. The

Scandinavian armies proved themselves very unworthy of their

former reputation. Elizabeth's generals, Lascy and Keith,

subdued all the forts in Finland. At Helsingfors 17,000 Swedes

laid down their arms before a hardly more numerous Russian

force. By the treaty of Abo [August 17, 1743], the Empress

acquired South Finland as far as the river Kiümen, and caused

Adolphus Frederic, Administrator of the Duchy of Holstein, and

one of her allies, to be elected Prince Royal of Sweden, in

place of the Prince Royal of Denmark. … In her internal policy

… Elizabeth continued the traditions of the great Emperor. She

developed the material prosperity of the country, reformed the

legislation, and created new centres of population; she gave

an energetic impulse to science and the national literature;

she prepared the way for the alliance of France and Russia,

emancipated from the German yoke; while in foreign affairs she

put a stop to the threatening advance of Prussia." Elizabeth

died in January, 1762.

A. Rambaud,

History of Russia,

volume 2, chapter 6.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1743.

Acquisition of part of Finland from Sweden.

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

RUSSIA: A. D. 1755.

Intrigue with Austria and Saxony against Frederick the Great.

Causes of the Seven Years War.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1758.

Invasion of Prussia.

Defeat at Zorndorf.

Retreat.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1759.

Renewed invasion of Prussia.

Victory at Kunersdorf.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1761-1762.

Brief reign of Peter III.

His peace with Frederick the Great.

His deposition and death.

His queen, Catherine II., on the throne.

"Charles Peter Ulric, duke of Holstein Gottorp, whom Elizabeth

had nominated her successor, who had embraced the Greek

religion, and who, at his baptism, had received the name of

Peter Fedorovitch, had arrived at St. Petersburg immediately

after her accession: he was then in his fourteenth year. The

education of this unfortunate prince was neglected. … Military

exercises were the only occupation for which he had any

relish, and in them he was indulged. … His potations, which

were frequent and long, were encouraged by his companions;

and, in a few years, he became a complete bacchanalian." In

1744 the young prince was married to "Sophia Augusta, daughter

of the prince of Anhalt Zerbst, who, on her conversion to the

Greek faith,—a necessary preliminary to her marriage,—had

received the baptismal name of Catherine. This union was

entitled to the more attention, as in its consequences it

powerfully affected, not only the whole of Russia, but the

whole of Europe. Shortly before its completion, Peter was

seized with the small-pox, which left hideous traces on his

countenance. The sight of him is said so far to have affected

Catherine that she fainted away. But though she was only in

her sixteenth year, ambition had already over her more

influence than the tender passion, and she smothered her

repugnance. Unfortunately, the personal qualities of the

husband were not of a kind to remove the ill impression: if he

bore her any affection, which appears doubtful, his manners

were rude, even vulgar. … What was still worse, she soon

learned to despise his understanding; and it required little

penetration to foresee that, whatever might be his title after

Elizabeth's death, the power must rest with Catherine. Hence

the courtiers in general were more assiduous in their

attentions to her than to him,—a circumstance which did not

much dispose him for the better. Finding no charms in his new

domestic circle, he naturally turned to his boon companions;

his orgies became frequent; and Catherine was completely

neglected. Hence her indifference was exchanged into absolute

dislike. … Without moral principles; little deterred by the

fear of worldly censure, in a court where the empress herself

was any thing but a model of chastity; and burning with hatred

towards her husband,—she soon dishonoured his bed." Elizabeth

died on the 29th of December, 1761, and Peter III. succeeded

to the throne without opposition. The plotting against him on

behalf of his wife, had long been active, but no plans were

ripe for execution. He was suffered to reign for a year and a

half; but the power which he received at the beginning slipped

quickly away from him. He was humane in disposition, and

adopted some excellent measures. He suppressed the secret

chancery—an inquisitorial court said to be as abominable as

the Spanish inquisition. He emancipated the nobles from the

servility to the crown which Peter the Great had imposed on

them.

{2765}

He improved the discipline of the army, and gave encouragement

to trade. But the good will which these measures might have

won for him was more than cancelled by his undisguised

contempt for Russia and the Russians, and especially for their

religion, and by his excessive admiration for Frederick the

Great, of Prussia, with whom his predecessor had been at war

[but with whom he entered into alliance.]

See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

The clergy and the army were both alienated from him, and were

easily persuaded to support the revolution, which Catherine

and her favorites planned for his overthrow. Their scheme was

carried out on the morning of the 19th of July, 1762, when

Peter was in the midst of one of his orgies at Oranienbaum,

some miles from the capital. Catherine went to the barracks of

the troops, and regiment after regiment declared for her.

"Accompanied by about 2,000 soldiers, with five times that

number of citizens, who loudly proclaimed her sovereign of

Russia, she went to the church of Our Lady of Kasan. Here

every thing was prepared for her reception: the archbishop of

Novogorod, with a host of ecclesiastics, awaited her at the

altar; she swore to observe the laws and religion of the

empire; the crown was solemnly placed on her head; she was

proclaimed sole monarch of Russia, and the grand-duke Paul her

successor." The dethroned czar, when the news of these events

reached him, doubted and hesitated until he lost even the

opportunity to take to flight. On the day following

Catherine's coronation he signed an act of abdication. Within

a week he was dead. According to accounts commonly credited,

he was poisoned, and then strangled, because the poison did

its deadly work too slowly. "Whether Catherine commanded this

deed of blood, has been much disputed. There can be little

doubt that she did. None of the conspirators would have

ventured to such an extremity unless distinctly authorised by

her." Two years later Catherine added another murder to her

crimes by directing the assassination of Ivan, who had been

dethroned as an infant by Elizabeth in 1741, and who had grown

to manhood in hopeless imprisonment.

History of Russia

(Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopedia),

volume 2, chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

History of the Reign of Peter III. and Catherine II.,

volume 1.

A. Rabbe and J. Duncan,

History of Russia,

volume 1, pages 203-221.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1762-1796.

Character and reign of Catherine II.

Partition of Poland.

Wars with the Turks.

Acquisition of the Crimea and part of the Caucasus.

Extension of boundaries to the Dnieper.

"Thus was inaugurated the reign of Catherine II., a woman

whose capacities were early felt to be great, but were great

for evil as well as for good. … She was without scruple in the

gratification of her passions, and without delicacy in their

concealment; and a succession of lovers, installed

ostentatiously in her palace, proclaimed to the world the

shamelessness of their mistress. Yet she was great undoubtedly

as a sovereign. With a clear and cultivated intellect, with

high aims and breadth of views, and fearless because despising

the opinions of others, she could plan and she could achieve

her country's greatness; and in the extended dominions and

improved civilization which she bequeathed to her successor is

found a true claim to the gratitude of her subjects. The

foreign transactions of the reign begin with the history of

Poland. With Frederick of Prussia, Catherine may be said to

have shared both the scheme of partition and the spoils that

followed.

See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

If it is doubtful which originated the transaction, there is

at least no doubt but that Russian policy had prepared the way

for such a measure. … The war with Turkey [see TURKS: A. D.

1768-1774] was closed with equal profit and yet greater glory

to the Russian Empire. The Russian armies had fought and

conquered upon the soil of Moldavia, and had invaded and

occupied the Crimea. At the same time the Russian fleets, no

longer confining themselves to the Baltic or Black Seas, had

sailed round Europe, and had appeared in the Archipelago. An

insurrection of the Greeks had aided their design; and for a

time the Bosphorus and Constantinople had been threatened. The

great Empress of the North had dazzled Europe by the vastness

of her power and designs; and Turkey, exhausted and unequal to

further contest, was constrained to purchase peace. The

possession of Azof, Kertch, Yenikale, and Kinburn, the free

navigation of the Euxine and the Mediterranean, were the

immediate gains of Russia. A stipulation for the better

treatment of the Principalities, and for the rights of

remonstrance, both in their behalf, and in that of the Greek

church at Constantinople, gave the opening for future

advantages. Another clause assured the independence of the

Khan of the Crimea, and of the Tartars inhabiting the northern

shores of the Black Sea. Under the name of liberty, these

tribes were now, like Poland, deprived of every strength

except their own; and the way was prepared for their

annexation by Russia. The Peace of Kainardji, as this

settlement was called, was signed in 1774. Within ten years

dissensions had arisen within the Crimea, and both Turks and

Russians had appeared upon the scene. The forces of Catherine

passed the isthmus as allies of the reigning Khan; but they

remained to receive his abdication, and to become the masters

of his country.

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

At the same time the Kuban was entered and subdued by

Souvarof, and thus already the Caucasus was reached. Catherine

was now at the height of her power. In a triumphant progress

she visited her new dominions, and gave the august name of

Sebastopol to a new city which was already destined to be the

scourge of the Turkish Empire. She believed herself to be upon

the road to Constantinople; and, in the interviews which she

held with the Emperor Joseph II., she began to scheme for the

partition of Turkey, as she had done for that of Poland. … The

Empress now found herself assailed in two distinct quarters.

Gustavus III. of Sweden, allying with the Sultan, invaded

Finland; and in her palace at St. Petersburg the Empress heard

the Swedish guns.

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

She was relieved, however, on the north by the dissension in

the Swedish army, which compelled the King to an inglorious

retreat; and she became able to give an undivided attention to

the affairs of the south. While an Austrian army, which

supported her, was threatening the north-west of Turkey, her

own forces conquered in the north-east. Under Souvarof the

town of Oczakof was taken, and the battle of Rimnik was won.

{2766}

Ismail, that gave the key of the Danube, next fell, and in the

horrors of its fall drew forth a cry from Europe. The triumph

of Catherine was assured; but already the clouds of revolution

had risen in the west; Austria, too busy with the affairs of

the Netherlands, had withdrawn from the fight; and the Empress

herself, disquieted, and satisfied for the time with her

successes, concluded the Peace of Jassy, which extended her

frontiers to the Dniester, and gave her the coast on which so

soon arose the rich city of Odessa. The acquisitions of

Catherine upon the south were completed. Those upon the west

had still to receive important additions. Poland, already once

partitioned was again to yield new provinces to Russia.

See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792, and 1793-1796.

The internal government of the Empire was meant undoubtedly to

rival these foreign successes, but unhappily fell short of

them. … The long meditated secularization of the estates of

the clergy was at last accomplished; the freedom of the serfs

was now first urged; and, as a unique experiment in Russian

history, the convoking of a kind of States General was made to

discuss the project. But both project and parliament came to

nothing. … There was much that was unreal in everything, and

Europe, as well as the great Empress herself, was deceived.

And so it came to pass that at the close of the reign there

was the spectacle of much that had been begun but little

finished. Before the death of Catherine [1796], in fact, her

greatness may be said to have passed away."

C. F. Johnstone,

Historical Abstracts,

chapter 6.

"The activity of Catherine was prodigious, and her autocratic

instincts extremely strong, and these impulses, affected by

the French doctrines, which we must not forget set up

despotism, if enlightened, as the perfection of wisdom, made

her government attempt to accomplish all things and to meddle

in every department of the national life. She tried to force

civilisation into premature growths; established modern

institutions of many kinds in a backward and half-barbaric

empire; arranged industrial and economic projects and works in

the minutest details; and rigidly prescribed even court dress

and fashions. Ségur thus describes this omni-present and

ubiquitous interference:—'It is sought to create at the same

time a third estate, to attract foreign commerce, to establish

all kinds of manufactures, to extend agriculture, to increase

paper money, to raise the exchanges, to reduce the interest of

money, to found cities, to people deserts, to cover the Black

Sea with a new navy, to conquer one neighbour and circumvent

another, and finally to extend Russian influence all over

Europe.' These liberal reforms and grand aspirations came,

however, for the most part to nothing; and Catherine's

internal government grew by degrees into a grievous, cruel and

prying despotism. … The antithesis of the liberalism in words

and of the tyranny in deeds in Catherine's reign may be

attributed to four main causes. She gradually found out that

reform and progress were impossible in the Russian Empire—half

Asiatic, backward and corrupt—and she swung back to the old

tyranny of the past. The great rising of the serfs under

Pugacheff, too—a servile outbreak of the worst kind —changed

to a great extent the type of her government, and gave it a

harsh and cruel complexion:—'The domestic policy of Catherine

bore, until the end, the traces of those terrible years, and

showed, as it were, the bloody cicatrices of the blows given

and received in a death struggle.' … The foreign policy of

Catherine was more successful than her government and

administration at home, and the reasons are sufficiently

plain. She found grand opportunities to extend her power in

the long quarrels between France and England, in the alliance

she maintained with Frederick the Great—an alliance she clung

to, though she felt the burden—in the instability and weakness

of the Austrian councils, in the confusion and strife of the

French Revolution, above all in the decay of Islam; and

Russia justly hailed her as a great conqueror. … The

Muscovite race would not see her misdeeds in the march of

conquest she opened for it; and her reputation has steadily

increased in its eyes. 'The spirit of the people passes, in

its fulness, into her. It was this that enabled her to make a

complete conquest of her empire, and by this we do not mean

the power which she wrested from the weakness, the cowardice,

and the folly of Peter III.; but the position which this

German woman attained at the close of her life, and especially

after her death, in the history, and the national life, and

development of a foreign and hostile race. For it may be said

that it is since her death, above all, that she has become

what she appears now—the sublime figure, colossal alike and

splendid, majestic and attractive, before which incline, with

an equal impulse of gratitude, the humble Moujik and the man

of letters, who shakes the dust of reminiscences and legends

already a century old.' In one particular, Catherine gave

proof of being far in advance of the ideas of her day, and of

extraordinary craft and adroitness. She anticipated the

growing power of opinion in Europe, and skilfully turned it to

her side by the patronage of the philosophers of France. In

Napoleon's phrase, she did not spike the battery, she seized

it and directed its fire; she had Voltaire, Diderot, and

D'Alembert, admiring mouthpieces, to apologise for, nay to

extol, her government. This great force had prodigious

influence in throwing a glamour over the evil deeds of her

reign, and in deceiving the world as to parts of her conduct:

—'All this forms part of a system—a system due to the

wonderful intuition of a woman, born in a petty German court,

and placed on the most despotic throne of Europe; due, too—and

so better—to her clear apprehension of the great power of the

modern world—public opinion. It is, we do not hesitate to

believe and affirm, because Catherine discovered this force,

and resolved to make use of it, that she was able to play the

part she played in history. Half of her reputation in Europe

was caused by the admiration of Voltaire, solicited, won,

managed by her with infinite art, nay, paid for when

necessary.'"

The Empress Catherine II.

(Edinburgh Review, July, 1893).

"In 1781 Catherine had already sent to Grimm the following

resume of the history of her reign, set forth by her new

secretary and factotum, Besborodko, in the fantastic form of

an inventory:

Governments instituted according to the new form, 29;

Towns built, 144;

Treaties made, 30;

Victories won, 78;

Notable edicts, decreeing laws, 88;

Edicts on behalf of the people, 123;

Total, 492.

{2767}

Four hundred and ninety-two active measures! This astonishing

piece of book-keeping, which betrays so naïvely all that there

was of romantic, extravagant, childish, and very feminine, in

the extraordinary genius that swayed Russia, and in some sort

Europe, during thirty-four years, will no doubt make the

reader smile. It corresponds, however, truly enough, to a

sum-total of great things accomplished under her direct

inspiration. … In the management of men … she is simply

marvellous. She employs all the resources of a trained

diplomatist, of a subtle psychologist, and of a woman who

knows the art of fascination; she employs them together or

apart, she handles them with unequalled 'maestria.' If it is

true that she sometimes takes her lovers for generals and

statesmen, it is no less true that she treats on occasion her

generals and statesmen as lovers. When the sovereign can do

nothing, the Circe intervenes. If it avails nothing to

command, to threaten, or to punish, she becomes coaxing and

wheedling. Towards the soldiers that she sends to death,

bidding them only win for her victory, she has delicate

attentions, flattering forethought, adorable little ways. …

Should fortune smile upon the efforts she has thus provoked

and stimulated, she is profusely grateful: honours, pensions,

gifts of money, of peasants, of land, rain upon the artisans

of her glory. But she does not abandon those who have had the

misfortune to be unlucky. … Catherine's art of ruling was not,

however, without its shortcomings, some of which were due to

the mere fact of her sex, whose dependences and weaknesses she

was powerless to overcome. 'Ah!' she cried one day, 'if heaven

had only granted me breeches instead of petticoats, I could do

anything. It is with eyes and arms that one rules, and a woman

has only ears.' The petticoats were not solely responsible for

her difficulties. We have already referred to a defect which

bore heavily upon the conduct of affairs during her reign:

this great leader of men, who knew so well how to make use of

them, did not know how to choose them. … It seems that her

vision of men in general was disturbed, in this respect, by

the breath of passion which influenced all her life. The

general, the statesman, of whom she had need, she seemed to

see only through the male whom she liked or disliked. … These

mistakes of judgment were frequent. But Catherine did more

than this, and worse. With the obstinacy which characterised

her, and the infatuation that her successes gave her, she came

little by little to translate this capital defect into a

'parti pris,' to formulate it as a system; one man was worth

another, in her eyes, so long as he was docile and prompt to

obey. … And her idea that one man is worth as much as another

causes her, for a mere nothing, for a word that offends her,

for a cast of countenance that she finds unpleasing, or even

without motive, for the pleasure of change and the delight of

having to do with some one new, as she avows naïvely in a

letter to Grimm, to set aside, disgraced or merely cashiered,

one or another of her most devoted servants."

R. Waliszewski,

Romance of an Empress,

volume 2, book 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

W. Tooke,

Life of Catherine II.

Memoirs of Catherine II., by herself.

Princess Daschkaw,

Memoirs.

S. Menzies,

Royal Favourites.

F. C. Schlosser,

History of the 18th Century,

volumes 4-7.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1786.

Establishment of the Jewish Pale.

See JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1791-1793.

Joined in the Coalitions against Revolutionary France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;

1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);

1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1796.

Accession of Paul.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1798-1799.

The war of the Second Coalition against Revolutionary France.

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

RUSSIA: A. D. 1799.

Suwarrow's victorious campaign in Italy

and failure in Switzerland.

Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland.

Its disastrous ending.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER);

(AUGUST-DECEMBER); and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1800.

Desertion of the Coalition by the Czar.

His alliance with Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1800-1801.

War with England.

The Northern Maritime League and its sudden overthrow

at Copenhagen by the British fleet.

Peace with England.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1801.

Paul's despotism and assassination.

Accession of Alexander I.

The Emperor Paul's "choice of his Ministers was always

directed by one dominant idea—that of surrounding himself with

servants on whom he could entirely rely; for from the moment

of his accession he foresaw and dreaded a Palace revolution. …

He erred in the selection, and especially in the extent, of

the means which he employed to save his life and his power;

they only precipitated his deplorable end. Among the men whom

he suspected, he persecuted some with implacable rigour, while

he retained others at their posts and endeavoured to secure

their fidelity by presents; this, however, only made them

ungrateful. Never was there a sovereign more terrible in his

severity, or more liberal when he was in a generous mood. But

there was no certainty in his favour. A single word uttered

intentionally or by accident in a conversation, the shadow of

a suspicion, sufficed to make him persecute those whom he had

protected. The greatest favourites of to-day feared to be

driven from the Court on the morrow, and banished to a distant

province. Yet the Emperor wished to be just. … All who

belonged to the Court or came before the Emperor were thus in

a state of continual fear." This fear, and the hatred which it

inspired, produced in due time a conspiracy, headed by Counts

Panin and Pahlen, of the Emperor's Council. Purporting to have

for its object only the deposition of the Czar, the conspiracy

was known and acquiesced in by the heir to the throne, the

Grand-Duke Alexander, who had been persuaded to look upon it

as a necessary measure for rescuing Russia from a demented

ruler. "Paul was precipitating his country into incalculable

disasters, and into a complete disorganisation and

deterioration of the Government machine. … Although everybody

sympathised with the conspiracy, nothing was done until

Alexander had given his consent to his father's deposition."

Then it was hurried to its accomplishment. The conspirators,

including a large number of military and civil officials,

supped together, on the evening of March 3, 1801. At midnight,

most of them being then intoxicated, they went in a body to

the palace, made their way to the Emperor's

bed-chamber—resisted by only one young valet—and found him, in

his night-clothes, hiding in the folds of a curtain. "They

dragged him out in his shirt, more dead than alive; the terror

he had inspired was now repaid to him with usury. …

{2768}

He was placed on a chair before a desk. The long, thin, pale,

and angular form of General Bennigsen [a Hanoverian officer,

just admitted to the conspiracy, but who had taken the lead

when others showed signs of faltering], with his hat on his

head and a drawn sword in his hand, must have seemed to him a

terrible spectre. 'Sire,' said the General, 'you are my

prisoner and have ceased to reign; you will now at once write

and sign a deed of abdication in favour of the Grand-Duke

Alexander.' Paul was still unable to speak, and a pen was put

in his hand. Trembling and almost unconscious, he was about to

obey, when more cries were heard. General Bennigsen then left

the room, as he has often assured me, to ascertain what these

cries meant, and to take steps for securing the safety of the

palace and of the Imperial family. He had only just gone out

when a terrible scene began. The unfortunate Paul remained

alone with men who were maddened by a furious hatred of him. …

One of the conspirators took off his official scarf and tied

it round the Emperor's throat. Paul struggled. … But the

conspirators seized the hand with which he was striving to

prolong his life, and furiously tugged at both ends of the

scarf. The unhappy emperor had already breathed his last, and

yet they tightened the knot and dragged along the dead body,

striking it with their bands and feet." When Alexander learned

that an assassination instead of a forced abdication had

vacated the throne for him, he "was prostrated with grief and

despair. … The idea of having caused the death of his father

filled him with horror, and he felt that his reputation had

received a stain which could never be effaced. … During the

first years of his reign, Alexander's position with regard to

his father's murderers was an extremely difficult and painful

one. For a few months he believed himself to be at their

mercy, but it was chiefly his conscience and a feeling of

natural equity which prevented him from giving up to justice

the most guilty of the conspirators. … The assassins all

perished miserably."

Prince Adam Czartoryski,

Memoirs,

volume 1, chapters 9 and 11.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1805.

The Third Coalition against France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1805.

The crushing of the Coalition at Austerlitz.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1806-1807.

War with Napoleon in aid of Prussia.

Battle of Eylau.

Treaty of Bartenstein with Prussia.

Decisive defeat at Friedland.

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

1806-1807; and 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1807.

Ineffective operations of England as an ally against Turkey.

Treaty of Tilsit.

Secret understandings of Napoleon with the Czar.

See TURKS: A. D.1806-1807;

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

RUSSIA: A. D. 1807-1810.

Northern fruits of the Peace of Tilsit.

English seizure of the Danish fleet.

War with England and Sweden.

Conquest of Finland.

Peculiar annexation of the Grand Duchy to the Empire.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1808.

Imperial conference and Treaty of Erfurt.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1809.

Cession of Eastern Galicia by the Emperor of Austria.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1809-1812.

War with Turkey.

Treaty of Bucharest.

Acquisition of Bessarabia.

See TURKS: A. D. 1789-1812.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1810.

Grievances against France.

Desertion of the Continental System.

Resumption of commerce with Great Britain.

Rupture with Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (June-September).

Napoleon's invasion.

Battles of Smolensk and Borodino.

The French advance to Moscow.

"With the military resources of France, which then counted 130

departments, with the contingents of her Italian kingdoms, of

the Confederation of the Rhine, of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw,

and with the auxiliary forces of Prussia and Austria, Napoleon

could bring a formidable army into the field. On the first of

June the Grand Army amounted to 678,000 men, 356,000 of whom

were French, and 322,000 foreigners. It included not only

Belgians, Dutchmen, Hanoverians, Hanseats, Piedmontese, and

Romans, then confounded under the name of Frenchmen, but also

the Italian army, the Neapolitan army, the Spanish regiments,

natives of Germany. … Besides Napoleon's marshals, it had at

its head Eugene, Viceroy of Italy; Murat, King of Naples;

Jerome, King of Westphalia; the princes royal and heirs of

nearly all the houses in Europe. The Poles alone in this war,

which recalled to them that of 1612, mustered 60,000 men under

their standards. Other Slavs from the Illyrian provinces,

Carinthians, Dalmatians, and Croats, were led to assault the

great Slav empire. It was indeed the 'army of twenty nations,'

as it is still called by the Russian people. Napoleon

transported all these races from the West to the East by a

movement similar to that of the great invasions, and swept

them like a human avalanche against Russia. When the Grand

Army prepared to cross the Niemen, it was arranged thus:—To

the left, before Tilsit, Macdonald with 10,000 French and

20,000 Prussians under General York of Wartenburg; before

Kovno, Napoleon with the corps of Davoust, Oudinot, Ney, the

Guard commanded by Bessières, the immense reserve cavalry

under Murat—in all a total of 180,000 men; before Pilony,

Eugène with 50,000 Italians and Bavarians; before Grodno,

Jerome Bonaparte, with 60,000 Poles, Westphalians and Saxons,

&c. We must add to these the 30,000 Austrians of

Schwartzenberg, who were to fight in Gallicia as mildly

against the Russians as the Russians had against the Austrians

in 1809. Victor guarded the Vistula and the Oder with 30,000

men, Augereau the Elbe with 50,000. Without reckoning the

divisions of Macdonald, Schwartzenberg, Victor, and Augereau,

it was with about 290,000 men, half of whom were French, that

Napoleon marched to cross the Niemen and threaten the centre

of Russia. Alexander had collected on the Niemen 90,000 men,

commanded by Bagration; on the Bug, tributary to the Vistula,

60,000 men, commanded by Barclay de Tolly; those were what

were called the Northern army and the army of the South. On

the extreme right, Wittgenstein with 30,000 men was to oppose

Macdonald almost throughout the campaign; on the extreme left,

to occupy the Austrian Schwartzenberg as harmlessly as

possible, Tormassof was placed with 40,000.

{2769}

Later this latter army, reinforced by 50,000 men from the

Danube, became formidable, and was destined, under Admiral

Tchitchagof, seriously to embarrass the retreat of the French.

In the rear of all these forces was a reserve of 80,000

men—Cossacks and militia. … In reality, to the 290,000 men

Napoleon had mustered under his hand, the Emperor of Russia

could only oppose the 150,000 of Bagration and Barclay de

Tolly. … At the opening of the campaign the head-quarters of

Alexander were at Wilna. … They deliberated and argued much.

To attack Napoleon was to furnish him with the opportunity he

wished; to retire into the interior, as Barclay had advised in

1807, seemed hard and humiliating. A middle course was sought

by adopting the scheme of Pfühl—to establish an intrenched

camp at Drissa, on the Dwina, and to make it a Russian Torres

Vedras. The events in the Peninsula filled all minds. Pfühl

desired to act like Wellington at Torres Vedras." But his

intrenched camp was badly placed; it was easily turned, and

was speedily abandoned when Napoleon advanced beyond the

Niemen, which he did on the 24th of June. The Russian armies

fell back. "Napoleon made his entry into Wilna, the ancient

capital of the Lithuanian Gedimin. He had said in his second

proclamation, 'The second Polish war has begun!' The Diet of

Warsaw had pronounced the re-establishment of the kingdom of

Poland, and sent a deputation to Wilna to demand the adhesion

of Lithuania, and to obtain the protection of the Emperor. …

Napoleon, whether to please Austria, whether to preserve the

possibility of peace with Russia, or whether he was afraid to

make Poland too strong, only took half measures. He gave

Lithuania an administration distinct from that of Poland. … A

last attempt to negotiate a peace had failed. … Napoleon had

proposed two unacceptable conditions—the abandonment of

Lithuania, and the declaration of war against Great Britain.

If Napoleon, instead of plunging into Russia, had contented

himself with organising and defending the ancient principality

of Lithuania, no power on earth could have prevented the

reestablishment of the Polish-Lithuanian State within its

former limits. The destinies of France and Europe would have

been changed. … Napoleon feared to penetrate into the

interior; he would have liked to gain some brilliant success

not far from the Lithuanian frontier, and seize one of the two

Russian armies. The vast spaces, the bad roads, the

misunderstandings, the growing disorganisation of the army,

caused all his movements to fail. Barclay de Tolly, after

having given battle at Ostrovno and Vitepsk, fell back on

Smolensk; Bagration fought at Mohilef and Orcha, and in order

to rejoin Barclay retreated to Smolensk. There the two Russian

generals held council. Their troops were exasperated by this

continual retreat, and Barclay, a good tactician, with a clear

and methodical mind, did not agree with Bagration, impetuous,

like a true pupil of Souvorof. The one held firmly for a

retreat, in which the Russian army would become stronger and

stronger, and the French army weaker and weaker, as they

advanced into the interior; the other wished to act on the

offensive, full of risk as it was. The army was on the side of

Bagration, and Barclay, a German of the Baltic provinces, was

suspected and all but insulted. He consented to take the

initiative against Murat, who had arrived at Krasnoé, and a

bloody battle was fought (August 14). On the 16th, 17th, and

18th of August, another desperate fight took place at

Smolensk, which was burnt, and 20,000 men perished. Barclay

still retired, drawing with him Bagration. In his retreat

Bagration fought Ney at Valoutina; it was a lesser Eylau:

15,000 men of both armies remained on the field of battle.

Napoleon felt that he was being enticed into the interior of

Russia. The Russians still retreated, laying waste all behind

them. … The Grand Army melted before their very eyes. From the

Niemen to Wilna, without ever having seen the enemy, it had

lost 50,000 men from sickness, desertion and marauding; from

Wilna to Mohilef nearly 100,000. … In the Russian army, the

discontent grew with the retreating movement; … they began to

murmur as much against Bagration as against Barclay. It was

then that Alexander united the two armies under the supreme

command of Koutouzof. … Koutouzof halted at Borodino. He had

then 72,000 infantry, 18,000 regular cavalry, 7,000 Cossacks,

10,000 opoltchénié or militiamen, and 640 guns served by

14,000 artillerymen or pioneers; in all, 121,000 men. Napoleon

had only been able to concentrate 86,000 infantry, 28,000

cavalry, and 587 guns, served by 16,000 pioneers or

artillerymen. … On the 5th of September the French took the

redoubt of Chevardino; the 7th was the day of the great

battle: this was known as the battle of Borodino among the

Russians, as that of the Moskowa in the bulletins of Napoleon,

though the Moskowa flows at some distance from the field of

carnage. … The battle began by a frightful cannonade of 1,200

guns, which was heard 30 leagues round. Then the French, with

an irresistible charge, took Borodino on one side and the

redoubts on the other; Ney and Murat crossed the ravine of

Semenevskoé, and cut the Russian army nearly in two. At ten

o'clock the battle seemed won, but Napoleon refused to carry

out his first success by employing the reserve, and the

Russian generals had time to bring up new troops in line. They

recaptured the great redoubt, and Platof, the Cossack, made an

incursion on the rear of the Italian army; an obstinate fight

took place at the outworks. At last Napoleon made his reserve

troops advance; again Murat's cavalry swept the ravine;

Caulaincourt's cuirassiers assaulted the great redoubt from

behind, and flung themselves on it like a tempest, while

Eugène of Italy scaled the ramparts. Again the Russians had

lost their outworks. Then Koutouzof gave the signal to

retreat. … The French had lost 30,000 men, the Russians

40,000. … Koutouzof retired in good order, announcing to

Alexander that they had made a steady resistance, but were

retreating to protect Moscow." But after a council of war, he

decided to leave Moscow to its fate, and the retreating

Russian army passed through and beyond the city, and the

French entered it at their heels.

A. Rambaud,

History of Russia,

volume 2, chapter 12.

{2770}

"The facts prove beyond doubt that Napoleon did not foresee

the danger of an advance upon Moscow, and that Alexander I.

and the Russian generals never dreamed of trying to draw him

into the heart of the country. Napoleon was led on, not by any

plan,—a plan had never been thought of,—but by the intrigues,

quarrels, and ambition of men who unconsciously played a part

in this terrible war and never foresaw that the result would

be the safety of Russia. … Amid these quarrels and intrigues,

we are trying to meet the French, although ignorant of their

whereabouts. The French encounter Neverovski's division, and

approach the walls of Smolensk. It is impossible not to give

battle at Smolensk. We must maintain our communications. The

battle takes place, and thousands of men on both sides are

killed. Contrary to the wishes of the tsar and the people, our

generals abandon Smolensk. The inhabitants of Smolensk,

betrayed by their governor, set fire to the city, and, with

this example to other Russian towns, they take refuge in

Moscow, deploring their losses and sowing on every side the

seeds of hate against the enemy. Napoleon advances and we

retreat, and the result is that we take exactly the measures

necessary to conquer the French."

Count L. Tolstoi,

The Physiology of War: Napoleon and the Russian Campaign,

chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

C. Joyneville,

Life and Times of Alexander I.,

volume 2, chapter 4.

Baron Jomini,

Life of Napoleon,

chapter 18 (volume 3).

Count P. de Segur,

History of the Expedition to Russia,

books 1-8 (volumes 1-2).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (September).

The French in Moscow.

The burning of the city.

"With rapid steps the French army advanced towards the heights

whence they hoped to perceive at length the great city of

Moscow; and, if the Russians were filled with the utmost

sadness, the hearts of the French were equally inspired with

feelings of joy and triumph, and the most brilliant illusions.

Reduced from 420,000 (which was its number at the passage of

the Niemen) to 100,000, and utterly exhausted, our army forgot

all its troubles on its approach to the brilliant capital of

Muscovy. … Imagination … was strongly excited within them at

the idea of entering Moscow, after having entered all the

other capitals of Europe with the exception of London,

protected by the sea. Whilst Prince Eugene advanced on the

left of the army, and Prince Poniatowski on its right, the

bulk of the army, with Murat at its head, Davout and Ney in

the centre, and the Guard in the rear, followed the great

Smolensk road. Napoleon was in the midst of his troops, who,

as they gazed upon him and drew near to Moscow, forgot the

days of discontent, and uttered loud shouts in honour of his

glory and their own. The proposal submitted by Miloradovitch

was readily accepted, for the French had no desire to destroy

Moscow, and it was agreed that not a shot should be fired

during the evacuation, on condition that the Russian army

should continue to defile across the city without a moment's

halt. … The Russian rear-guard defiled rapidly to yield the

ground to our advanced guard, and the King of Naples, followed

by his staff and a detachment of cavalry, plunged into the

streets of Moscow, and, traversing by turns the humblest

quarters and the wealthiest, perceived everywhere the most

profound solitude, and seemed to have entered a city of the

dead. … The information which was now obtained—that the whole

population of the city had fled—saddened the exultation of the

commanders of our advanced guard, who had flattered themselves

that they would have had the pleasure of surprising the

inhabitants by their kindness. … On the morning of the 15th

September, Napoleon entered Moscow, at the head of his

invincible legions, but passed through a deserted city, and

his soldiers were now, for the first time on entering a

capital, the sole witnesses of their own glory. Their feelings

on the occasion were sad ones. As soon as Napoleon had reached

the Kremlin, he hastened to ascend the lofty tower of the

great Ivan, and to survey from its elevation the magnificent

city he had conquered. … A sullen silence, broken only by the

tramp of the cavalry, had replaced that populous life which

during the very previous evening had rendered the city one of

the most animated in the world. The army was distributed

through the various quarters of Moscow, Prince Eugene

occupying the northwest quarter, Marshal Davout the southwest,

and Prince Poniatowski the southeast. Marshal Ney, who had

traversed Moscow from west to east, established his troops in

the district comprised between the Riazan and Wladimir roads;

and the Guard was naturally posted at the Kremlin and in its

environs. The houses were full of provisions of every kind,

and the first necessities of the troops were readily

satisfied. The Superior officers were received at the gates of

palaces by numerous servants in livery, eager in offering a

brilliant hospitality; for the owners of these palaces,

perfectly unaware that Moscow was about to perish, had taken

great pains, although they fully shared the national hatred

against the French, to procure protectors for their rich

dwellings by receiving into them French officers. … From their

splendid lodgings, the officers of the French army wandered

with equal delight through the midst of the city, which

resembled a Tartar camp sown with Italian palaces. They

contemplated with wonder the numerous towns of which the

capital is composed, and which are placed in concentric

circles, the one within the other. … A few days before, Moscow

had contained a population of 300,000 souls, of whom scarcely

a sixth part now remained, and of these the greater number

were concealed in their houses or prostrated at the foot of

the altars. The streets were deserts, and only echoed with the

footsteps of our soldiers. … But although the solitude of the

city was a source of great vexation to them, they had no

suspicion of any approaching catastrophe, for the Russian

army, which alone had hitherto devastated their country, had

departed, and there appeared to be no fear of fire. The French

army hoped, therefore, to enjoy comfort in Moscow, to obtain,

probably, peace by means of its possession, and at least good

winter-cantonments in case the war should be prolonged. But,

on the afternoon they had entered, columns of flame arose from

a vast building containing … quantities of spirits, and just

as our soldiers had almost succeeded in mastering the fire in

this spot, a violent conflagration suddenly burst forth in a

collection of buildings called the Bazaar, situated to the

northeast of the Kremlin, and containing the richest

magazines, abounding in stores of the exquisite tissues of

India and Persia, the rarities of Europe, colonial produce,

and precious wines. The troops of the Guard immediately

hastened up and attempted to subdue the flames; but their

energetic efforts were unfortunately unsuccessful, and the

immense riches of the establishment fell a prey to the fire,

with the exception of some portions which our men were able to

snatch from the devouring element.

{2771}

This fresh accident was again attributed to natural causes,

and considered as easily explicable in the tumult of an

evacuation. During the night of the 15th of September,

however, a sudden change came over the scene; for then as

though every species of misfortune were to fall at the same

moment on the ancient Muscovite capital, the equinoctial gales

suddenly arose with the extreme violence usual to the season

and in countries where widespread plains offer no resistance

to the storm. This wind, blowing first from the east, carried

the fire to the west into the streets comprised between the

Iwer and Smolensk routes, which were the most beautiful and

the richest in all Moscow. Within some hours the fire,

spreading with frightful rapidity, and throwing out long

arrows of flame, spread to the other westward quarters. And

soon rockets were observed in the air, and wretches were

seized in the act of spreading the conflagration. Interrogated

under threat of instant death, they revealed the frightful

secret,—the order given by Count Rostopschin for the burning

of the city of Moscow as though it had been a simple village

on the Moscow route. This information filled the whole army

with consternation. Napoleon ordered that military commissions

should be formed in each quarter of the city for the purpose

of judging, shooting, and hanging incendiaries taken in the

act, and that all the available troops should be employed in

extinguishing the flames. Immediate recourse was had to the

pumps, but it was found they had been removed; and this latter

circumstance would have proved, if indeed any doubt on the

matter had remained, the terrible determination with which

Moscow had been given to the flames. In the mean time, the

wind, increasing in violence every moment, rendered the

efforts of the whole army ineffectual, and, suddenly changing,

with the abruptness peculiar to equinoctial gales, from the

east to the northwest, it carried the torrent of flame into

quarters which the hands of the incendiaries had not yet been

able to fire. After having blown during some hours from the

northwest, the wind once more changed its direction, and blew

from the southwest, as though it had a cruel pleasure in

spreading ruin and death over the unhappy city, or, rather,

over our army. By this change of the wind to the southwest the

Kremlin was placed in extreme peril. More than 400 ammunition

wagons were in the court of the Kremlin, and the arsenal

contained some 400,000 pounds of powder. There was imminent

danger, therefore, that Napoleon with his Guard, and the

palace of the Czars, might be blown up into the air. …

Napoleon, therefore, followed by some of his lieutenants,

descended from the Kremlin to the quay of the Moskowa, where

he found his horses ready for him, and had much difficulty in

threading the streets, which, towards the northwest (in which

direction he proceeded), were already in flames. The terrified

army set out from Moscow. The divisions of Prince Eugene and

Marshal Ney fell back upon the Zwenigarod and St. Petersburg

roads, those of Marshal Davout fell back upon the Smolensk

route, and, with the exception of the Guard, which was left

around the Kremlin to dispute its possession with the flames,

our troops drew back in horror from before the fire, which,

after flaming up to heaven, darted back towards them as though

it wished to devour them. The few inhabitants who had remained

in Moscow, and had hitherto lain concealed in their dwellings,

now fled, carrying away such of their possessions as they

valued most highly, uttering lamentable cries of distress,

and, in many instances, falling victims to the brigands whom

Rostopochin had let loose, and who now exulted in the midst of

the conflagration, as the genius of evil in the midst of

chaos. Napoleon took up his quarters at the Château of

Petrowskoié, a league's distance from Moscow on the St.

Petersburg route, in the centre of the cantonments of the

troops under Prince Eugene, awaiting there the subsidence of

the conflagration, which had now reached such a height that it

was beyond human power either to increase or extinguish it. As

a final misfortune the wind changed on the following day from

southwest to direct west, and then the torrents of flame were

carried towards the eastern quarters of the city, the streets

Messnitskaia and Bassmanaia, and the summer palace. As the

conflagration reached its terrible height, frightful crashes

were heard every moment,—roofs crushing inward, and stately

façades crumbling headlong into the streets as their supports

became consumed in the flames. The sky was scarcely visible

through the thick cloud of smoke which overshadowed it, and

the sun was only apparent as a blood-red globe. For three

successive days—the 16th, the 17th, and the 18th of

September—this terrific scene continued, and in unabated

intensity. At length, after having devoured four-fifths of the

city, the fire ceased, gradually quenched by the rain, which,

as is usually the case, succeeded the violence of the

equinoctial gales. As the flames subsided, only the spectre,

as it were, of what had once been a magnificent city was

visible; and, indeed, the Kremlin, and about a fifth part of

the city, were alone saved,—their preservation being chiefly

due to the exertions of the Imperial Guard. As the inhabitants

of Moscow themselves entered the ruins, seeking what property

still remained in them undestroyed, it was scarcely possible

to prevent our soldiers from acting in the same manner. … Of

this horrible scene the chiefest horror of all remains to be

told: the Russians had left 15,000 wounded in Moscow, and,

incapable of escaping, they had perished, victims of

Rostopschin's barbarous patriotism."

A. Thiers,

History of the] Consulate and the Empire,

book 44 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

General Count M. Dumas,

Memoirs,

chapter 15 (volume 2).

J. Philippart,

Northern Campaigns, 1812-1813,

volume 1, pages 81-115.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (October-December).

The retreat from Moscow.

Its horrors.

"Napoleon waited in vain for propositions from the Czar; his

own were scornfully rejected. Meanwhile the Russians were

reorganizing their armies, and winter set in. On the 13th of

October, the first frost gave warning that it was time to

think of the retreat, which the enemy, already on the French

flank, was threatening to cut off. Leaving Mortier with 10,000

men in the Kremlin, the army quitted Moscow on the 19th of

October, thirty-five days after it had entered the city. It

still numbered 80,000 fighting men and 600 cannons, but was

encumbered with camp-followers and vehicles. At

Malo-Jaroslavetz a violent struggle took place on the 24th.

The town was captured and recaptured seven times. It was

finally left in the hands of the French. Here, however, the

route changed.

{2772}

The road became increasingly difficult, the cold grew intense,

the ground was covered with snow, and the confusion in the

quartermaster's department was terrible. When the army reached

Smolensk, there were only 50,000 men in the ranks (November

9). Napoleon had taken minute precautions to provide supplies

and reinforcements all along his line of retreat; but the

heedlessness of his subalterns, and the difficulty of being

obeyed at such distances and in such a country, rendered his

foresight useless. At Smolensk, where he hoped to find

provisions and supplies, everything had been squandered.

Meanwhile there was not a moment to lose; Wittgenstein, with

the army of the North, was coming up on the French right.

Tchitchagof was occupying Minsk behind the Beresina, with the

army which had just come from the banks of the Danube. Kutusof

was near at hand. The three Russian armies proposed to unite

and bar the Beresina, which the French were obliged to cross.

The French began their march, but the cold became suddenly

intense; all verdure had disappeared, and there being no food

for the horses, they died by the thousand. The cavalry was

forced to dismount; it became necessary to destroy or abandon

a large portion of the cannon and ammunition. The enemy

surrounded the French columns with a cloud of Cossacks, who

captured all stragglers. On the following days the temperature

moderated. Then arose another obstacle,—the mud, which

prevented the advance; and the famine was constant. Moreover,

the retreat was one continuous battle. Ney, 'the bravest of

the brave,' accomplished prodigies of valor. At Krasnoi the

Emperor himself was obliged to charge at the head of his

guard. When the Beresina was reached, the army was reduced to

40,000 fighting men, of whom one-third were Poles. The

Russians had burned the bridge of Borisof, and Tchitchagof, on

the other shore, barred the passage. Fortunately a ford was

found. The river was filled with enormous blocks of ice;

General Eblé and his pontoniers, plunged in the water up to

their shoulders, built and rebuilt bridges across it. Almost

all the pontoniers perished of cold or were drowned. Then,

while on the right of the river Ney and Oudinot held back the

army of Tchitchagof, and Victor on the left that of

Wittgenstein, the guard, with Napoleon, passed over. Victor,

after having killed or wounded 10,000 of Wittgenstein's

Russians, passed over during the night. When, in the morning,

the rear-guard began to cross the bridges, a crowd of

fugitives rushed upon them. They were soon filled with a

confused mass of cavalry, infantry, caissons, and fugitives.

The Russians came up and poured a shower of shells upon the

helpless crowd. This frightful scene has ever since been

famous as the passage of the Beresina. The governor of Minsk

had 24,000 dead bodies picked up and burned. Napoleon

conducted the retreat towards Wilna, where the French had

large magazines. At Smorgoni he left the army, to repair in

all haste to Paris, in order to prevent the disastrous effects

of the last events, and to form another army. The army which

he had left struggled on under Murat. The cold grew still more

intense, and 20,000 men perished in three days. Ney held the

enemy a long time in check with desperate valor; be was the

last to recross the Niemen (December 20). There the retreat

ended, and with it this fatal campaign. Beyond that river the

French left 300,000 soldiers, either dead or in captivity."

Victor Duruy,

History of France,

chapter 66.

"Thousands of horses soon lay groaning on the route, with

great pieces of flesh cut off their necks and most fleshy

parts by the passing soldiery for food; whilst thousands of

naked wretches were wandering like spectres, who seemed to

have no sight or sense, and who only kept reeling on till

frost, famine, or the Cossack lance put an end to their power

of motion. In that wretched state no nourishment could have

saved them. There were continual instances, even amongst the

Russians, of their lying down, dozing, and dying within a

quarter of an hour after a little bread had been supplied. All

prisoners, however, were immediately and invariably stripped

stark naked and marched in columns in that state, or turned

adrift to be the sport and the victims of the peasantry, who

would not always let them, as they sought to do, point and

hold the muzzles of the guns against their own heads or hearts

to terminate their suffering in the most certain and

expeditious manner; for the peasantry thought that this

mitigation of torture 'would be an offence against the

avenging God of Russia, and deprive them of his further

protection.' A remarkable instance of this cruel spirit of

retaliation was exhibited on the pursuit to Wiazma.

Milaradowitch, Beningsen, Korf, and the English General, with

various others, were proceeding on the high-road, about a mile

from the town, where they found a crowd of peasant-women, with

sticks in their hands, hopping round a felled pine-tree, on

each side of which lay about sixty naked prisoners, prostrate,

but with their heads on the tree, which those furies were

striking in accompaniment to a national air or song which they

were yelling in concert; while several hundred armed peasants

were quietly looking on as guardians of the direful orgies.

When the cavalcade approached, the sufferers uttered piercing

shrieks, and kept incessantly crying 'La mort, la mort, la

mort!' Near Dorogobouche a young and handsome Frenchwoman lay

naked, writhing in the snow, which was ensanguined all around

her. On hearing the sound of voices she raised her head, from

which extremely long black, shining hair flowed over the whole

person. Tossing her arms about with wildest expression of

agony, she kept frantically crying, 'Rendez moi mon

enfant'—Restore me my babe. When soothed sufficiently to

explain her story, she related, 'That on sinking from

weakness, a child newly born had been snatched away from her;

that she had been stripped by her associates, and then stabbed

to prevent her falling alive into the hands of their

pursuers.' … The slaughter of the prisoners with every

imaginable previous mode of torture by the peasantry still

continuing, the English General sent off a despatch to the

Emperor Alexander' to represent the horrors of these outrages

and propose a check.' The Emperor by an express courier

instantly transmitted an order 'to prohibit the parties under

the severest menaces of his displeasure and punishment;' at

the same time he directed 'a ducat in gold to be paid for any

prisoner delivered up by peasant or soldier to any civil

authority for safe custody.' The order was beneficial as well

as creditable, but still the conductors were offered a higher

price for their charge, and frequently were prevailed on to

surrender their trust, for they doubted the justifiable

validity of the order.

{2773}

Famine also ruthlessly decimated the enemy's ranks. Groups

were frequently overtaken, gathered round the burning or burnt

embers of buildings which had afforded cover for some wounded

or frozen; many in these groups were employed in peeling off

with their fingers and making a repast of the charred flesh of

their comrades' remains. The English General having asked a

grenadier of most martial expression, so occupied, 'if this

food was not loathsome to him?' 'Yes,' he said, 'it was; but

he did not eat it to preserve life—that he had sought in vain

to lose—only to lull gnawing agonies.' On giving the grenadier

a piece of food, which happened to be at command, he seized it

with voracity, as if he would devour it whole; but suddenly

checking himself, he appeared suffocating with emotion:

looking at the bread, then at the donor, tears rolled down his

cheeks; endeavouring to rise, and making an effort as if he

would catch at the hand which administered to his want, he

fell back and had expired before he could be reached.

Innumerable dogs crouched on the bodies of their former

masters, looking in their faces, and howling their hunger and

their loss; whilst others were tearing the still living flesh

from the feet, hands, and limbs of moaning wretches who could

not defend themselves, and whose torment was still greater, as

in many cases their consciousness and senses remained

unimpaired. The clinging of the dogs to their masters' corpses

was most remarkable and interesting. At the commencement of

the retreat, at a village near Selino, a detachment of fifty

of the enemy had been surprised. The peasants resolved to bury

them alive in a pit: a drummer boy bravely led the devoted

party and sprang into the grave. A dog belonging to one of the

victims could not be secured; every day, however, the dog went

to the neighbouring camp, and came back with a bit of food in

his mouth to sit and moan over the newly-turned earth. It was

a fortnight before he could be killed by the peasants, afraid

of discovery. The peasants showed the English General the spot

and related the occurrence with exultation, as if they had

performed a meritorious deed. The shots of the peasantry at

stragglers or prisoners rang continuously through the woods;

and altogether it was a complication of misery, of cruelty, of

desolation, and of disorder, that can never have been exceeded

in the history of mankind. Many incidents and crimes are

indeed too horrible or disgusting for relation."

General Sir R. Wilson,

Narrative of Events during the Invasion of Russia,

pages 255-261.

General Sir R. Wilson,

Private Journal,

volume 1, page 202-257.

When Napoleon abandoned the army, at Smorghoni, on the 6th of

December, the King of Naples was left in command. "They

marched with so much disorder and precipitation that it was

only when they arrived at Wilna that the soldiers were

informed of a departure as discouraging as it was unexpected.

'What!' said they among themselves, 'is it thus that he

abandons those of whom he calls himself the father? Where then

is that genius, who, in the height of prosperity, exhorted us

to bear our sufferings patiently? He who lavished our blood,

is he afraid to die with us? Will he treat us like the army of

Egypt, to whom, after having served him faithfully, he became

indifferent, when, by a shameful flight, he found himself free

from danger?' Such was the conversation of the soldiers, which

they accompanied by the most violent execrations. Never was

indignation more just, for never were a class of men so worthy

of pity. The presence of the emperor had kept the chiefs to

their duty, but when they heard of his departure, the greater

part of them followed his example, and shamefully abandoned

the remains of the regiments with which they had been

intrusted. … The road which we followed presented, at every

step, brave officers, covered with rags, supported by branches

of pine, their hair and beards stiffened by the ice. These

warriors, who, a short time before, were the terror of our

enemies, and the conquerors of Europe, having now lost their

fine appearance, crawled slowly along, and could scarcely

obtain a look of pity from the soldiers whom they had formerly

commanded. Their situation became still more dreadful, because

all who had not strength to march were abandoned, and every

one who was abandoned by his comrades, in an hour afterwards

inevitably perished. The next day every bivouac presented the

image of a field of battle. … The soldiers burnt whole houses

to avoid being frozen. We saw round the fires the

half-consumed bodies of many unfortunate men, who, having

advanced too near, in order to warm themselves, and being too

weak to recede, had become a prey to the flames. Some

miserable beings, blackened with smoke, and besmeared with the

blood of the horses which they had devoured, wandered like

ghosts round the burning houses. They gazed on the dead bodies

of their companions, and, too feeble to support themselves,

fell down, and died like them. … The route was covered with

soldiers who no longer retained the human form, and whom the

enemy disdained to make prisoners. Every day these miserable

men made us witnesses of scenes too dreadful to relate. Some

had lost their hearing, others their speech, and many, by

excessive cold and hunger, were reduced to a state of frantic

stupidity, in which they roasted the dead bodies of their

comrades for food, or even gnawed their own hands and arms.

Some were so weak that, unable to lift a piece of wood, or

roll a stone towards the fires which they had kindled, they

sat upon the dead bodies of their comrades, and, with a

haggard countenance, steadfastly gazed upon the burning coals.

No sooner was the fire extinguished, than these living

spectres, unable to rise, fell by the side of those on whom

they had sat. We saw many who were absolutely insane. To warm

their frozen feet, they plunged them naked into the middle of

the fire. Some, with a convulsive laugh, threw themselves into

the flames, and perished in the most horrid convulsions, and

uttering the most piercing cries; while others, equally

insane, immediately followed them, and experienced the same

fate."

E. Labaume,

Circumstantial Narrative of the Campaign in Russia,

part 2, book 5.

ALSO IN:

Count P. de Segur,

History of the Expedition to Russia,

books 9-12 (volume 2).

C. Joyneville,

Life and Times of Alexander I.,

volume 2, chapter 5.

Earl Stanhope,

The French Retreat from Moscow

(Historical Essays;

and, also,

Quarterly Review., October 1867, volume 123).

Baron de Marbot,

Memoirs, volume 2, chapters 28-32.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1812-1813.

Treaty of Kalisch with Prussia.

The War of Liberation in Germany.

Alliance of Austria.

The driving of the French beyond the Rhine.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, to 1814.

{2774}

RUSSIA: A. D. 1814 (January-April).

The Allies in France and in possession of Paris.

Fall of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and (MARCH-APRIL).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1814 (May).

The Treaty of Paris.

Evacuation of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1814-1815.

The Congress of Vienna.

Acquisitions in Poland.

Surrender of Eastern Galicia.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.

Napoleon's return from Elba.

The Quadruple Alliance.

The Waterloo campaign and its results.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815, to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.

The Allies again in France.

Second Treaty of Paris.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.

The Holy Alliance.

See HOLY ALLIANCE.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1817.

Expulsion of Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1820-1822.

The Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.

See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1825.

Accession of Nicholas.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1827-1829.

Intervention on behalf of Greece.

Battle of Navarino.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1830-1832.

Polish revolt and its suppression.

Barbarous treatment of the insurgents.

See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1831-1846.

Joint occupation of Cracow.

Extinction of the republic.

Its annexation to Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1833-1840.

The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1839-1859.

Subjugation of the Caucasus.

See CAUCASUS.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1849.

Aid rendered to Austria against the Hungarian patriots.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854.

Causes of the Crimean War with Turkey, England and France.

"The immediate cause of the war which broke out in 1853 was a

dispute which had arisen between France and Russia upon the

custody of the Holy Places in Jerusalem. The real cause was

the intention of Russia to hasten the dismemberment of the

Turkish Empire. Nicholas, in a memorable conversation,

actually suggested to the British ambassador at St. Petersburg

that England should receive Egypt and Crete as her own portion

of the spoil. This conversation, which took place in January

1853, was at once reported to the British Government. It

undoubtedly prepared the way for future trouble. … It had the

effect of rendering the British Ministry suspicious of his

intentions, at a moment when a good understanding with this

country was of the first importance to the Czar of Russia.

There can, then, be very little doubt that Nicholas committed

a grave error in suggesting a partition, which may have seemed

reasonable enough to Continental statesmen, but which was

regarded with horror by England. Almost at the same moment he

affronted France by declining to call Napoleon 'Monsieur mon

frère.' … Nicholas had the singular indiscretion to render a

British ministry suspicious of him, and a French emperor angry

with him, in the same month. Napoleon could easily avenge the

affront. … The Greek and Latin Churches both claimed the right

of protecting the Holy Places of Palestine. Both appealed to a

Mahometan arrangement in support of their claim: each declined

to admit the pretensions of the other. The Latin Church in

Palestine was under the protection of France; the Greek Church

was under the protection of Russia; and France and Russia had

constantly supported, one against the other, these rival

claims. In the beginning of 1853 France renewed the

controversy. She even threatened to settle the question by

force. The man whom Nicholas would not call 'mon frère' was

stirring a controversy thick with trouble for the Czar of

Russia. It happened, moreover, that the controversy was one

which, from its very nature, was certain to spread. Nearly

eighty years before, by the Treaty of Kainardji, the Porte had

undertaken to afford a constant protection to its Christian

subjects, and to place a new Greek Church at Constantinople,

which it undertook to erect, 'and the ministers who officiated

at it under the specific protection of the Russian Empire.'

The exact meaning of this famous article had always been

disputed. In Western Europe it had been usually held that it

applied only to the new Greek Church at Constantinople, and

the ministers who officiated at it. But Russian statesmen had

always contended that its meaning was much wider; and British

statesmen of repute had supported the contention. The general

undertaking which the Porte had given to Russia to afford a

constant protection to its Christian subjects gave Russia —so

they argued—the right to interfere when such protection was

not afforded. In such a country as Turkey, where chronic

misgovernment prevailed, opportunity was never wanting for

complaining that the Christians were inadequately protected.

The dispute about the Holy Places was soon superseded by a

general demand of Russia for the adequate protection of the

Christian subjects of the Porte; In the summer of 1853 the

demand took the shape of an ultimatum; and, when the Turkish

ministers declined to comply with the Russian demand, a

Russian army crossed the Pruth and occupied the

Principalities. In six months a miserable quarrel about the

custody of the Holy Places had assumed dimensions which were

clearly threatening war. At the advice of England the Porte

abstained from treating the occupation of the Principalities

as an act of war; and diplomacy consequently secured an

interval for arranging peace. The Austrian Government framed a

note, which is known as the Vienna Note, as a basis of a

settlement. England and the neutral powers assented to the

note; Russia accepted it; and it was then presented to the

Porte. But Turkey, with the obstinacy which has always

characterised its statesmen, declined to accept it. War might

even then have been prevented if the British Government had

boldly insisted on its acceptance, and had told Turkey that if

she modified the conditions she need not count on England's

assistance. One of the leading members of Lord Aberdeen's

Ministry wished to do this, and declared to the last hour of

his life that this course should have been taken.

{2775}

But the course was not taken. Turkey was permitted, or,

according to Baron Stockmar, encouraged to modify the Vienna

Note; the modifications were rejected by Russia; and the

Porte, on the 26th of September, delivered an ultimatum, and

on the 4th of October 1853 declared war. These events excited

a very widespread indignation in this country. The people,

indeed, were only imperfectly acquainted with the causes which

had produced the quarrel; many of them were unaware that the

complication had been originally introduced by the act of

France; others of them failed to reflect that the refusal of

the Porte to accept a note which the four Great Powers—of

which England was one—had agreed upon was the immediate cause

of hostilities. Those who were better informed thought that

the note was a mistake, and that the Turk had exercised a wise

discretion in rejecting it; while the whole nation

instinctively felt that Russia, throughout the negotiations,

had acted with unnecessary harshness. In October 1853,

therefore, the country was almost unanimously in favour of

supporting the Turk. The events of the next few weeks turned

this feeling into enthusiasm. The Turkish army, under Omar

Pasha, proved its mettle by winning one or two victories over

the Russian troops. The Turkish fleet at Sinope was suddenly

attacked and destroyed. Its destruction was, undoubtedly, an

act of war: it was distorted into an act of treachery; a

rupture between England and Russia became thenceforward

inevitable; and in March 1854 England and France declared

war."

S. Walpole,

Foreign Relations,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

A. W. Kinglake,

The Invasion of the Crimea,

volume l.

J. Morley,

Life of Richard Cobden,

volume 2, chapter 6.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (September).

The Crimean War: Landing of the Allies.

Battle of the Alma.

Sufferings of the invading army.

"England, then, and France entered the war as allies. Lord

Raglan, formerly Lord Fitzroy Somerset, an old pupil of the

Great Duke in the Peninsular War, and who had lost his right

arm serving under Wellington at Waterloo, was appointed to

command the English forces. Marshal St. Arnaud, a bold,

brilliant soldier of fortune, was intrusted by the Emperor of

the French with the leadership of the soldiers of France. The

allied forces went out to the East and assembled at Varna, on

the Black Sea shore, from which they were to make their

descent on the Crimea. The war, meantime, had gone badly for

the Emperor of Russia in his attempt to crush the Turks. The

Turks had found in Omar Pasha a commander of remarkable

ability and energy; and they had in one or two instances

received the unexpected aid and counsel of clever and

successful Englishmen. … The invasion of the Danubian

provinces was already, to all intents, a failure. Mr. Kinglake

and other writers have argued that but for the ambition of the

Emperor of the French and the excited temper of the English

people the war might well have ended then and there. The

Emperor of Russia had found, it is contended, that he could

not maintain an invasion of European Turkey; his fleet was

confined to its ports in the Black Sea, and there was nothing

for him but to make peace. But we confess we do not see with

what propriety or wisdom the allies, having entered on the

enterprise at all, could have abandoned it at such a moment,

and allowed the Czar to escape thus merely scotched. … The

allies went on. They sailed from Varna for the Crimea. … There

is much discussion as to the original author of the project

for the invasion of the Crimea. The Emperor Napoleon has had

it ascribed to him; so has Lord Palmerston; so has the Duke of

Newcastle; so, according to Mr. Kinglake, has the 'Times'

newspaper. It does not much concern us to know in whom the

idea originated, but it is of some importance to know that it

was essentially a civilian's and not a soldier's idea. It took

possession almost simultaneously, as far as we can observe, of

the minds of several statesmen, and it had a sudden

fascination for the public. The Emperor Nicholas had raised

and sheltered his Black Sea fleet at Sebastopol. That fleet

had sallied forth from Sebastopol to commit what was called

the massacre of Sinope. Sebastopol was the great arsenal of

Russia. It was the point from which Turkey was threatened;

from which, it was universally believed, the embodied ambition

of Russia was one day to make its most formidable effort of

aggression. Within the fence of its vast sea-forts the fleet

of the Black Sea lay screened. From the moment when the

vessels of England and France entered the Euxine the Russian

fleet had withdrawn behind the curtain of these defences, and

was seen upon the open waves no more. If, therefore,

Sebastopol could be taken or destroyed, it would seem as if

the whole material fabric, put together at such cost and labor

for the execution of the schemes of Russia, would be shattered

at a blow. … The invasion of the Crimea, however, was not a

soldier's project. It was not welcomed by the English or the

French commander. It was undertaken by Lord Raglan out of

deference to the recommendations of the Government; and by

Marshal St. Arnaud out of deference to the Emperor of the

French, and because Lord Raglan, too, did not see his way to

decline the responsibility of it. The allied forces were,

therefore, conveyed to the south-western shore of the Crimea,

and effected a landing in Kalamita Bay, a short distance north

of the point at which the river Alma runs into the sea.

Sebastopol itself lies about 30 miles to the south; and then,

more southward still, divided by the bulk of a jutting

promontory from Sebastopol, is the harbor of Balaklava. The

disembarkation began on the morning of September 14th, 1854.

It was completed on the fifth day; and there were then some

27,000 English, 30,000 French, and 7,000 Turks landed on the

shores of Catherine the Great's Crimea. The landing was

effected without any opposition from the Russians. On

September 19th, the allies marched out of their encampments

and moved southward in the direction of Sebastopol. They had a

skirmish or two with a reconnoitring force of Russian cavalry

and Cossacks; but they had no business of genuine war until

they reached the nearer bank of the Alma. The Russians, in

great strength, had taken up a splendid position on the

heights that fringed the other side of the river. The allied

forces reached the Alma about noon on September 20th. They

found that they had to cross the river in the face of the

Russian batteries armed with heavy guns on the highest point

of the hills or bluffs, of scattered artillery, and of dense

masses of infantry which covered the hills. The Russians were

under the command of Prince Mentschikoff.

{2776}

It is certain that Prince Mentschikoff believed his position

unassailable, and was convinced that his enemies were

delivered into his hands when he saw the allies approach and

attempt to effect the crossing of the river. … The attack was

made with desperate courage on the part of the allies, but

without any great skill of leadership or tenacity of

discipline. It was rather a pell-mell sort of fight, in which

the headlong courage and the indomitable obstinacy of the

English and French troops carried all before them at last. A

study of the battle is of little profit to the ordinary

reader. It was an heroic scramble. There was little coherence

of action between the allied forces. But there was happily an

almost total absence of generalship on the part of the

Russians. The soldiers of the Czar fought stoutly and

stubbornly, as they have always done; but they could not stand

up against the blended vehemence and obstinacy of the English

and French. The river was crossed, the opposite heights were

mounted, Prince Mentschikoff's great redoubt was carried, the

Russians were driven from the field, the allies occupied their

ground; the victory was to the Western Powers. … The Russians

ought to have been pursued. They themselves fully expected a

pursuit. They retreated in something like utter confusion. …

But there was no pursuit. Lord Raglan was eager to follow up

the victory; but the French had as yet hardly any cavalry, and

Marshal St. Arnaud would not agree to any further enterprise

that day. Lord Raglan believed that he ought not to persist;

and nothing was done. … Except for the bravery of those who

fought, the battle was not much to boast of. … At this

distance of time it is almost touching to read some of the

heroic contemporaneous descriptions of the great scramble of

the Alma. … Very soon, however, a different note came to be

sounded. The campaign had been opened under conditions

differing from those of most campaigns that went before it.

Science had added many new discoveries to the art of war.

Literature had added one remarkable contribution of her own to

the conditions amidst which campaigns were to be carried on.

She had added the 'special correspondent.' … When the

expedition was leaving England it was accompanied by a special

correspondent from each of the great daily papers of London.

The 'Times' sent out a representative whose name almost

immediately became celebrated—Mr. William Howard Russell, the

'preux chevalier' of war correspondents in that day, as Mr.

Archibald Forbes of the 'Daily News' is in this. … Mr. Russell

soon saw that there was confusion; and he had the soundness of

judgment to know that the confusion was that of a

breaking-down system. Therefore, while the fervor of delight

in the courage and success of our army was still fresh in the

minds of the public at home, while every music-hall was

ringing with the cheap rewards of valor, in the shape of

popular glorifications of our commanders and our soldiers, the

readers of the 'Times' began to learn that things were faring

badly indeed with the conquering army of the Alma. The ranks

were thinned by the ravages of cholera. The men were pursued

by cholera to the very battle-field, Lord Raglan himself said.

… The hospitals were in a wretchedly disorganized condition.

Stores of medicines and strengthening food were decaying in

places where no one wanted them or could well get at them,

while men were dying in hundreds among our tents in the Crimea

for lack of them. The system of clothing, of transport, of

feeding, of nursing—everything had broken down. Ample

provisions had been got together and paid for; and when they

came to be needed no one knew where to get at them. The

special correspondent of the 'Times' and other correspondents

continued to din these things into the ears of the public at

home. Exultation began to give way to a feeling of dismay. The

patriotic anger against the Russians was changed for a mood of

deep indignation against our own authorities and our own war

administration. It soon became apparent to everyone that the

whole campaign had been planned on the assumption that it was

to be like the career of the hero whom Byron laments, 'brief,

brave, and glorious.' Our military authorities here at home—we

do not speak of the commanders in the field—had made up their

minds that Sebastopol was to fall, like another Jericho, at

the sound of the war-trumpets' blast. Our commanders in the

field were, on the contrary, rather disposed to overrate than

to underrate the strength of the Russians. … It is very likely

that if a sudden dash had been made at Sebastopol by land and

sea, it might have been taken almost at the very opening of

the war. But the delay gave the Russians full warning, and

they did not neglect it. On the third day after the battle of

the Alma the Russians sank seven vessels of their Black Sea

fleet at the entrance of the harbor of Sebastopol. This was

done full in the sight of the allied fleets, who at first,

misunderstanding the movements going on among the enemy,

thought the Russian squadron were about to come out from their

shelter and try conclusions with the Western ships. But the

real purpose of the Russians became soon apparent. Under the

eyes of the allies the seven vessels slowly settled down and

sank in the water, until at last only the tops of their masts

were to be seen; and the entrance of the harbor was barred as

by sunken rocks against any approach of an enemy's ship. There

was an end to every dream of a sudden capture of Sebastopol."

J. McCarthy,

History of Our Own Times,

chapter 27 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

General Sir E. Hamley,

The War in the Crimea,

chapters 2-3.

W. H. Russell,

The British Expedition to the Crimea,

books 1-2.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (September-October).

Opening of the siege of Sebastopol.

Four days after the battle of the Alma the allies reached the

Belbek, so close to Sebastopol that "it became a matter of

necessity to decide upon their next step. It appears to have

been the wish of the English at once to take advantage of

their victory and assault the north side. It is now known that

such a step would almost certainly have been successful. … But

again St. Arnaud offered objections." It was then determined

"to undertake a flank march round the head of the harbour, and

to take possession of the heights on the south. It was a

difficult operation, for the country was unknown and rough,

and while in the act of marching the armies were open to any

assault upon their left flank. It was however carried out

unmolested. … On the 26th the English arrived at the little

landlocked harbour of Balaclava, at the foot of the steep

hills forming the eastern edge of the plateau. The fleet, duly

warned of the operation, had already arrived. …

{2777}

Canrobert … had now succeeded the dying St. Arnaud. … A

similar question to that which had arisen on the 24th now

again rose. Should Sebastopol be attacked at once or not?

Again it would appear that Lord Raglan, Sir Edmund Lyons, and

others, were desirous of immediate assault. Again the French,

more instructed in the technical rules of war, and supported

by the opinion of Sir John Burgoyne, who commanded the English

Engineers, declined the more vigorous suggestion, and it was

determined at least to wait till the siege guns from the fleet

were landed, and the artillery fire of the enemy weakened, in

preparation for the assault. In the light of subsequent

knowledge, and perhaps even with the knowledge then obtainable

if rightly used, it appears that in all the three instances

mentioned the bolder less regular course would have been the

true wisdom. For Menschikoff had adopted a somewhat strange

measure of defence. He had given up all hopes of using his

fleet to advantage. He had caused some of his vessels to be

sunk at the entrance of the harbour, which was thus closed;

and having drawn the crews, some 18,000 in number, from the

ships, he had intrusted to them the defence of the town, and

had marched away with his whole army. The garrison did not now

number more than 25,000, and they were quite unfit—being

sailors—for operations in the field. The defences were not

those of a regular fortress, but rather of an entrenched

position. … There were in Sebastopol two men who, working

together, made an extraordinary use of their opportunities.

Korniloff, the Admiral, forcing himself to the front by sheer

nobleness of character and enthusiasm, found in Colonel von

Todleben, at that time on a voluntary mission in the town, an

assistant of more than common genius. … The decision of the

allies to await the landing of their siege train was more

far-reaching than the generals at the time conceived, although

some few men appear to have understood its necessary result.

It in fact changed what was intended to be a rapid coup de

main into a regular siege—and a regular siege of an imperfect

and inefficient character, because the allied forces were not

strong enough to invest the town. … Preparation had not been

made to meet the change of circumstances. The work thrown upon

the administration was beyond its powers; the terrible

suffering of the army during the ensuing winter was the

inevitable result. … The bombardment of the suburb, including

the Malakoff and the Redan, fell to the English; the French

undertook to carry it out against the city itself, directing

their fire principally against the Flagstaff battery. … Slowly

the siege trains were landed and brought into position in the

batteries marked out by the engineers. … It was not till the

16th of October that these preparations were completed. … The

energy of Korniloff and the skill of Todleben had by this time

roused the temper of the garrison, and had rendered the

defences far more formidable; and in the beginning of October

means had been taken to persuade Menschikoff to allow

considerable bodies of troops to return to the town. … On the

17th the great bombardment began. The English batteries gained

the mastery over those opposed to them, but the efforts of the

French, much reduced by the fire of the besieged, were brought

to a speedy conclusion by a great explosion within their

lines. Canrobert sent word to Lord Raglan that he should be

unable to resume the fire for two days. The attack by the

fleet had been to little purpose. … Every day till the 25th of

October the fire of the allies was continued. But under cover

of this fire (always encountered by the ceaseless energy of

Todleben) the change had begun, and the French were attacking

the Flagstaff bastion by means of regular approaches. On that

day the siege was somewhat rudely interrupted. The presence of

the Russian army outside the walls and the defect in the

position of the allies became evident."

J. F. Bright,

History of England, 1837-1880,

pages 251-256.

ALSO IN:

A. W. Kinglake,

The Invasion of the Crimea,

volumes 3-4.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (October-November).

The Crimean War: Balaclava and Inkermann.

"The Russian general soon showed that he was determined not to

allow the allies to carry on their operations against the town

undisturbed. Large parties of Russian soldiers had for some

time been reconnoitring in the direction of Balaclava, showing

that an attack in that quarter was meditated. At length, on

the 25th of October, an army of 30,000 Russians advanced

against the English position, hoping to get possession of the

harbours and to cut the allies off from their supplies, or at

any rate to destroy the stores which had already been landed.

The part of the works on which the Russian troops first came

was occupied by redoubts, defended by a body of Turkish

recruits, recently arrived from Tunis, who, after offering a

very feeble resistance, fled in confusion. But when the

Russians, flushed with this first success, attempted to pursue

the advantage they had gained, they soon encountered a very

different foe in the Highlanders, commanded by Sir Colin

Campbell, who bore the brunt of the Russian attack with great

firmness. The British cavalry particularly distinguished

themselves in this action, routing a far superior force of

Russian cavalry. It was in the course of this engagement that

the unfortunate blunder occurred, in consequence of which 607

men [the 'Light Brigade' immortalized by Tennyson] galloped

forth against an army, and only 198 came back, the rest having

been killed, wounded, or made prisoners. A long,

unsatisfactory controversy was carried on some time after,

having for its object to decide who was to blame for throwing

away, in this foolish manner, the lives of so many gallant

men. It seems that the orders were not very clearly expressed,

and that the general—Lord Lucan—by whom they were received,

misapprehended them more completely than a man in his position

ought to have done. In the end, the Russians were forced to

retire, without having effected their object: but as they

retained some portion of the ground that had been occupied by

the allies at the commencement of the battle, they too claimed

the victory, and Te-Deums were sung all over Russia in honour

of this fragmentary success. However, the Russian commander

did not abandon the hope of being able to obtain possession of

Balaclava. On the very day following the affair which has just

been related, the Russians within the town made a sortie with

a force of about 6,000 men: but near the village of Inkermann

they encountered so strong a resistance from a far inferior

force, that they were obliged to retreat.

{2778}

The Russian army at Balaclava had been prepared to coöperate

with them; but the promptitude and vigour with which the

allies repelled the sortie prevented the Russians from

entrenching themselves at Inkermann, and thus frustrated the

plan of a combined attack on the allied position which had

probably been formed. The village of Inkermann, which was the

scene of this skirmish, shortly after witnessed a more deadly

and decisive contest. It was on the morning of Sunday,

November 5th, that the approach of the Russian army was heard,

while it was still concealed from view by the mists which

overhung the British position. That army had been greatly

increased by the arrival of large reinforcements, and every

effort had been made to exalt the courage of the soldiers:

they had been stimulated by religious services and

exhortations, as well as by an abundant supply of ardent

spirits; and they came on in the full confidence that they

would be able to sweep the comparatively small British force

from the position it occupied. That position was the centre of

a grand attack made by the whole Russian army. The obscurity

prevented the generals of the allies from discovering what was

going on, or from clearly discerning, among a series of

attacks on different parts of their position, which were real,

and which were mere feints. There was a good deal of confusion

in both armies; but the obscurity, on the whole, favoured the

Russians, who had received their instructions before they set

out, and were moving together in large masses. It was, in

fact, a battle fought pell-mell, man against man, and regiment

against regiment, with very little guidance or direction from

the commanding officers, and consequently one in which the

superior skill of the British gave them little advantage. The

principal point of attack throughout was the plateau of

Inkermann, occupied by the Guards and a few British regiments,

who maintained a long and unequal struggle against the main

body of the Russian army. It was, in fact, a hand-to-hand

contest between superior civilization on the one hand, and

superior numbers on the other, in which it is probable that

the small British force would have been eventually swept off

the field. Bosquet, the ablest of the French generals, with a

soldier's instinct at once divined, amid all the obscurity,

turmoil, and confusion, that the British position was the real

point of attack; and therefore, leaving a portion of his force

to defend his own position, he marched off to Inkermann, and

never halted till his troops charged the Russians with such

fury that they drove them down the hill, and decided the fate

of the battle in favour of the allies. … Meanwhile Mr. Sidney

Herbert, the minister at war, had succeeded in inducing Miss

Florence Nightingale, well known in London for her skilful and

self-denying benevolence, to go out and take charge of the

military hospitals in which the wounded soldiers were

received. Everything connected with the hospitals there was in

a state of the most chaotic confusion. The medical and other

stores which had been sent out were rotting in the holds of

vessels, or in places where they were not wanted. Provisions

had been despatched in abundance, and yet nothing could be

found to support men who were simply dying from exhaustion.

The system of check and counter-check, which had been devised

to prevent waste and extravagance in the time of peace, proved

to be the very cause of the most prodigious waste,

extravagance, and inefficiency in the great war in which

England was now embarked. The sort of dictatorial authority

which had been conferred on Miss Nightingale, supported by her

own admirable organising and administrative ability, enabled

her to substitute order for confusion, and procure for the

multitudes of wounded men who came under her care the comforts

as well as the medical attendance they needed. She arrived at

Scutari with her nurses on the very day of the battle of

Inkermann. Winter was setting-in in the Crimea with unusual

rigour and severity."

W. N. Molesworth,

History of England, 1830-1874,

volume 3, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

E. H. Nolan,

Illustrated History of the War against Russia,

chapters 40-48 (volume 1).

Chambers' Pictorial History of the Russian War,

chapters 7-8.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1855.

Siege and capture of Kars.

"Everywhere unsuccessful in Europe, the Russians were more

fortunate in Asia. Towards the close of 1854, the Turkish army

at Kars was in a wretched and demoralised condition. Its

unsatisfactory state, and the reverses it had experienced,

resulting, it was well known, from the misconduct of the

Turkish officials, induced the British government to appoint

Colonel Williams as a commissioner to examine into the causes

of previous failures, and endeavour to prevent a repetition of

them. … Colonel Williams, attended only by major Teesdale and

Dr. Sandwith, arrived at Kars at the latter end of September,

1854, where he was received with the honour due to his

position. Kars, in past times considered the key of Asia

Minor, is 'a true Asiatic town in all its picturesque

squalor,' and has a fortress partly in ruins, but once

considered most formidable. On inspecting the Turkish army

there, Colonel Williams found the men in rags; their pay

fifteen and even eighteen months in arrear; the horses

half-starved; discipline so relaxed that it could be scarcely

said to exist; and the officers addicted to the lowest vices

and most disorderly habits. … Though treated with an

unpardonable superciliousness and neglect by Lord Stratford de

Redcliffe, the British ambassador at Constantinople, Colonel

Williams succeeded in promoting a proper discipline, and in

securing the men from being plundered by their officers. In

the January of 1855, the Turkish government granted Colonel

Williams the rank of terik, or general in the Ottoman army,

together with the title of Williams Pasha. The inactivity of

the Russian army at Gumri excited much surprise; but

notwithstanding the condition of the Turks, they permitted

spring to pass away, and summer to arrive, before active

hostilities were resumed. … During this period, the Turks at

Kars had been employed, under the direction of colonel Lake,

in throwing up fortifications around the town, which gradually

assumed the appearance of a formidably intrenched camp. Early

in June the Russians left Gumri, and encamped within five

leagues of Kars. They were estimated at 40,000 men; while the

Turkish troops amounted to about 15,000 men, who had been

familiarised with defeat, and scourged by fever and the

scurvy. In addition to this, their provisions were

insufficient to enable them to sustain a siege of any

considerable duration, and their stock of ammunition was very

low The Russians made a partial attack on the town on the 16th

of June, but they met with a repulse. … The road to Erzeroum

was in their possession, and the supplies intended for the

Turks fell into their hands.

{2779}

In effect, they had blockaded Kars by drawing a cordon of

troops around it. A period of dreary inaction followed this

movement of the Russians, broken only by trivial skirmishes at

the outposts. Want was already felt within the town, and the

prospect of surrender or starvation was imminent. … Omar

Pasha, and a large body of Turkish troops from the Crimea, had

landed at Batoum, and it was expected that they would soon

arrive to raise the siege of Kars. This circumstance,

occurring shortly after the arrival of the news of the fall of

Sebastopol, induced many of the officers of the besieged army

to believe that the Russians were about to retire. This

surmise was strengthened by the fact, that, for several days,

large convoys of heavily laden waggons were observed leaving

the Russian camp. General Williams, however, was not deceived

by this artifice, and correctly regarded it as the prelude to

an extensive attack upon Kars. An hour before dawn on the 29th

of September, the tramp of troops and the rumble of artillery

wheels was heard in the distance, and the Turkish garrison

made hurried preparations to receive the foe. Soon the dim

moonlight revealed a dark moving mass in the valley. It was an

advancing column of the enemy, who had hoped to take the Turks

by surprise. In this they were deceived; for no sooner were

they within range, than a crushing shower of grape informed

them that the Moslems were on the alert. The battle commenced

almost immediately. The assailants rushed up the hill with a

shout, and advanced in close column on the breastworks and

redoubts. From these works a murderous fire of musketry and

rifles was poured forth, aided by showers of grape from the

great guns. This told with terrible effect upon the dense

masses of the foe, who fell in heaps. … Riddled with shot, the

Russians were completely broken, and sent headlong down the

hill, leaving hundreds of dead behind them. … Had not the

Turkish cavalry been destroyed by starvation—a circumstance

which rendered pursuit impossible—the Russian army might have

been almost annihilated. The Turks had obtained an unequivocal

victory, after a battle of nearly seven hours' duration. Their

loss did not exceed 463 killed, of whom 101 were townspeople,

and 631 wounded. That of the Russians was enormous; 6,300 of

them were left dead upon the field, and it is said that they

carried 7,000 wounded off the ground. Though the Russians had

suffered a severe reverse, they were not driven from the

position they held prior to the battle … and were enabled to

resume the blockade of the city with as much strictness as

before. The sufferings of the unhappy garrison and inhabitants

of Kars form one of the most terrible pictures incidental to

this war. Cholera and famine raged within the town; and those

who were enfeebled by the last frequently fell victims to the

first. The hospitals were crowded with the sick and wounded,

but the nourishment they required could not be obtained. The

flesh of starved horses had become a luxury, and the rations

of the soldiers consisted only of a small supply of coarse

bread, and a kind of broth made merely of flour and water. …

Children dropt and died in the streets; and every morning

skeleton-like corpses were found in various parts of the camp.

The soldiers deserted in large numbers, and discipline was

almost at an end. … As all hope of relief from Selim Pasha or

Omar Pasha had expired, general Williams resolved to put an

end to these miseries by surrendering the town to the foe. …

Articles of surrender were signed on the 25th of November. …

The fall of Kars was a disgrace and a scandal to all who might

have contributed to prevent it."

T. Gaspey,

History of England, George III.-Victoria,

chapter 56 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

T. H. Ward,

Humphrey Sandwith,

chapter 9.

S. Lane-Poole,

Life of Stratford Canning,

chapter 31 (volume 2).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

Unfruitful peace negotiations at Vienna.

Renewed bombardment of Sebastopol.

Battle of the Tchernaya.

Repulse of the English from the Redan.

Taking of the Malakhoff by the French.

The congress at Paris.

Peace.

In November, 1854, the Czar, Nicholas I., authorized

Gortschakoff, his Minister at Vienna, to signify to the

Western Powers his willingness to conclude peace on the basis

of "the four points" which the latter had laid down in the

previous spring. These "four points" were as follows:

"(1) The protectorate which Russia had hitherto exercised over

the Principalities was to be replaced by a collective

guarantee;

(2) the navigation of the mouths of the Danube was to be freed

from all impediments;

(3) the treaty of 1841 was to be revised in the interests of

the European equilibrium; and

(4) Russia was to renounce all official protectorate over the

Sultan's subjects, of whatever religion they might be. …

The Czar's new move was not entirely successful. It did not

prevent Austria from concluding a close arrangement with the

Western Powers, and it induced her, in concert with France and

England, to define more strictly the precise meaning attached

to the four points. With some disappointment, Russia was

doomed to find that every successive explanation of these

points involved some fresh sacrifice on her own part. The

freedom of the lower Danube, she was now told, could not be

secured unless she surrendered the territory between that

river and the Pruth which she had acquired at the treaty of

Adrianople; the revision of the treaty of 1841, she was

assured, must put an end to her preponderance in the Black

Sea. These new exactions, however, did not deter the Czar from

his desire to treat. By no other means was it possible to

prevent Austria from taking part against him; and a

conference, even if it ultimately proved abortive, would in

the interim confine her to neutrality. Under these

circumstances, Nicholas consented to negotiate. … The

conference which it was decided to hold in December did not

assemble till the following March. The negotiation which had

been agreed to by Aberdeen, was carried out under Palmerston;

and, with the double object of temporarily ridding himself of

an inconvenient colleague, and of assuring the presence of a

statesman of adequate rank at the conference, Palmerston

entrusted its conduct to Russell. While Russell was on his way

to Vienna, an event occurred of momentous importance. Sore

troubled at the events of the war, alarmed at the growing

strength of his enemies, the Emperor of Russia had neither

heart nor strength to struggle against a slight illness. His

sudden death [March 2, 1855] naturally made a profound

impression on the mind of Europe. …

{2780}

Alexander, his successor, a monarch whose reign commenced with

disaster and ended with outrage, at once announced his

adherence to the policy of his father. His accession,

therefore, did not interrupt the proceedings of the

Conference; and, in the first instance, the diplomatists who

assembled at Vienna succeeded in arriving at a welcome

agreement. On the first two of the four points all the Powers

admitted to the Conference were substantially in accord. On

the third point no such agreement was possible. The Western

Powers were determined that an effectual limitation should be

placed on the naval strength of Russia in the Black Sea; and

they defined this limit by a stipulation that she should not

add to the six ships of war which they had ascertained she had

still afloat. Russia, on the contrary, regarded any such

condition as injurious to her dignity and her rights, and

refused to assent to it. Russia, however, did not venture on

absolutely rejecting the proposal of the allies. Instead of

doing so, she offered either to consent to the opening of the

Dardanelles and the Bosphorus to the ships of war of all

nations, or to allow the Sultan a discretion in determining

whether he would open them to the vessels either of the

Western Powers or of Russia. The Western Powers, however, were

firm in their determination to prevent the fleets of Russia

from passing into the Mediterranean, and refused the

alternative. With its rejection the Conference practically

terminated. After its members separated, however, Buol, the

Austrian Minister, endeavoured to evolve from the Russian

offer a possible compromise. …The rejection of the Austrian

alternative necessitated the continuance of the war. But the

struggle was resumed under conditions very different from

those on which it had previously been conducted. Austria,

indeed, considered that the rejection of her proposal released

her from the necessity of actively joining the Western Powers,

and, instead of taking part in the war, reduced her armaments.

But the Western Powers obtained other aid. The little State of

Sardinia sent a contingent to the Crimea; later on in the year

Sweden joined the alliance. Fresh contingents of troops

rapidly augmented the strength of the French and English

armies, and finer weather as well as better management

banished disease from the camp. Under these circumstances the

bombardment was renewed in April. In May a successful attack

on Kertch and Yenikale, at the extreme east of the Crimea,

proved the means of intercepting communication between

Sebastopol and the Caucasian provinces, and of destroying vast

stores intended for the sustenance of the garrison. In June

the French, to whose command Pelissier, a Marshal of more

robust fibre than Canrobert, had succeeded, made a successful

attack on the Mamelon, while the English concurrently seized

another vantage-ground. Men at home, cheered by the news of

these successes, fancied that they were witnessing the

beginning of the end. Yet the end was not to come immediately.

A great assault, delivered on the 18th of June, by the French

on the Malakhoff, by the English on the Redan, failed; and its

failure, among other consequences, broke the heart· of the old

soldier [Lord Raglan] who for nine months had commanded the

English army. … His capacity as a general does not suffer from

any comparison with that of his successor, General Simpson.

That officer had been sent out to the Crimea in the preceding

winter; he had served under Raglan as chief of the staff; and

he was now selected for the command. He had, at least, the

credit which attaches to any military man who holds a

responsible post in the crisis of an operation. For the crisis

of the campaign had now come. On both sides supreme efforts

were made to terminate the struggle. On the 16th of August the

Russian army in force crossed the Tchernaya, attacked the

French lines, but experienced a sharp repulse. On the 8th of

September the assault of June was repeated; and though the

British were again driven back from the Redan, the French

succeeded in carrying the Malakhoff. The Russians, recognising

the significance of the defeat, set Sebastopol and their

remaining ships on fire, and retreated to the northern bank of

the harbour. After operations, which had lasted for nearly a

year, the allies were masters of the south side of the city.

It is, perhaps, unnecessary to prolong any further the

narrative of operations which had little influence on history.

The story of the defence of Kars and of the bombardment of

Sweaborg have an interest of their own. But they had no effect

on the events which followed or on the peace which ensued.

Soon after, the Vienna Conference was dissolved, indeed, it

became evident that the war was approaching its close. The

cost and the sacrifices which it involved were making the

French people weary of the struggle, and the accidental

circumstances, which gave them in August and September the

chief share in the glory, disposed them to make peace. The

reasons which made the French, however, eager for peace, did

not apply to the English. They, on the contrary, were

mortified at their failures. Their expectations had been

raised by the valour of their army at Alma, at Balaklava, and

at Inkerman. But, since the day of Inkerman, their own share

in the contest had added no new page of splendour to the

English story. The English troops had taken no part in the

battle of the Tchernaya; their assaulting columns had been

driven back on the 18th of June; they had been repulsed in the

final attack on the Redan; and the heroic conduct of their own

countrymen at Kars had not prevented the fall of that

fortress. Men at home, anxious to account for the failure of

their expectations, were beginning to say that England is like

the runner, never really ripe for the struggle till he has

gained his second wind. They were reluctant that she should

retire from the contest at the moment when, having repaired

her defective administration and reinforced her shattered

army, she was in a position to command a victory. Whatever

wishes, however, individual Englishmen might entertain,

responsible statesmen, as the autumn wore on, could not

conceal from themselves the necessity of finding some

honourable means for terminating the war. In October the

British Cabinet learned with dismay that the French Emperor

had decided on withdrawing 100,000 men from the Crimea. About

the same time the members of the Government learned with equal

alarm that, if war were to be continued at all, the French

public were demanding that France should secure some advantage

in Poland, in Italy, and on the left bank of the Rhine. In

November the French ministry took a much more extreme course,

and concerted with Austria terms of peace without the

knowledge of England. …

{2781}

It was impossible any longer to depend on the co-operation of

France, and … it was folly to continue the struggle without

her assistance. The protocol which Austria had drawn up, and

to which France had assented, was, with some modifications,

adopted by Britain and presented, as an ultimatum, to Russia

by Austria. In the middle of January, 1856, the ultimatum was

accepted by Russia; a Congress at which Clarendon, as Foreign

Minister, personally represented his country, was assembled at

Paris. The plenipotentiaries, meeting on the 25th of February,

at once agreed on a suspension of hostilities. Universally

disposed towards peace, they found no difficulty in

accommodating differences which had proved irreconcilable in

the previous year, and on the 30th of March, 1856, peace was

signed. The peace which was thus concluded admitted the right

of the Porte to participate in the advantages of the public

law of Europe; it pledged all the contracting parties, in the

case of any fresh misunderstanding with the Turk, to resort to

mediation before using force. It required the Sultan to issue

and to communicate to the Powers a firman ameliorating the

condition of his Christian subjects; it declared that the

communication of the firman gave the Powers no right, either

collectively or separately, to interfere between the Sultan

and his subjects; it neutralised the Black Sea, opening its

waters to the mercantile marine of every nation, but, with the

exception of a few vessels of light draught necessary for the

service of the coast, closing them to every vessel of war; it

forbade the establishment or maintenance of arsenals on the

shores of the Euxine; it established the free navigation of

the Danube; it set back the frontier of Russia from the

Danube; it guaranteed the privileges and immunities of the

Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia; it similarly

guaranteed the privileges of Servia, though it gave the Sultan

the right of garrison in that province; and it undertook that

Russia and Turkey should restore the conquests which they had

made in Asia [Kars, etc.] one from another during the war.

Such were the terms on which the war was terminated. Before

the plenipotentiaries separated they were invited by Walewski,

the Foreign Minister and first representative of France, to

discuss the condition of Greece, of the Roman States, and of

the two Sicilies; to condemn the licence to which a free press

was lending itself in Belgium; and to concert measures for the

mitigation of some of the worst evils of maritime war."

See DECLARATION OF PARIS.

S. Walpole,

History of England from 1815,

chapter 24.

ALSO IN:

E. Hertslet,

The Map of Europe by Treaty,

volume 2, documents 263-272.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1855.

Accession of Alexander II.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1859.

Improved treatment of the Jews.

See JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

Conquests in Central Asia.

Subjugation of Bokhara, Khiva and Khokand.

"The original cause of Russia's appearance in Central Asia or

Turkestan may be considered either the turbulence of the

Kirghiz tribes, or the ambitions and clearly defined policy of

Peter the Great. … Although the Czarina Anne received in 1734

the formal surrender of all the Kirghiz hordes, it was not

until the present century had far advanced that the Russian

Government could so much as flatter itself that it had

effectually coerced them. … When the Kirghiz were subjugated

Russia found no difficulty in reaching the lower course of the

Jaxartes, on which [in 1849] … she established her advanced

post at Kazala, or Fort No. 1. With her ultimate task thus

simplified, nothing but the Crimean War prevented Russia's

immediate advance up the Jaxartes into Turkestan. … The

conquest of the Khanate of Turkestan began with the siege and

capture of the forts Chulak Kurgan and Yani Kurgan in 1859;

its successful progress was shown by the fall of the fortified

towns of Turkestan and Auliata in 1864; and it was brought to

a conclusion with the storming of Tashkent in 1865. The

conquest of this Khanate, which had been united early in the

century with that of Khokand, was thus speedily achieved, and

this rapid and remarkable triumph is identified with the name

of General Tchernaieff."

D. C. Boulger,

Central Asian Questions,

chapter 1.

"Khudayar Khan, the ruler of Khokand, a noted coward even in

Central Asia, had soon lost his spirits, and implored

Muzaffar-ed-din-Khan for assistance. Bokhara, reputed at that

time the very stronghold of moral and material strength in

Central Asia, was soon at hand with an army outnumbering the

Russian adventurers ten or fifteen times; an army in name

only, but consisting chiefly of a rabble, ill-armed, and

devoid of any military qualities. By dint of preponderating

numbers, the Bokhariots succeeded so far as to inflict a loss

upon the daring Russian general at Irdjar, who, constrained to

retreat upon Tashkend, was at once deposed by his superiors in

St. Petersburg, and, instead of praises being bestowed upon

him for the capture of Tashkend, he had to feel the weight of

Russian ingratitude. His successor, General Romanovsky, played

the part of a consolidator and a preparer, and as soon as this

duty was fulfilled he likewise was superseded by General

Kauffmann, a German from the Baltic Russian provinces, uniting

the qualities of his predecessors in one person, and doing

accordingly the work entrusted to him with pluck and luck in a

comparatively short time. In 1868 the Yaxartes valley,

together with Samarkand, the former capital of Timur, fell

into the hands of Russia, and General Kauffmann would have

proceeded to Bokhara, and even farther, if

Muzaffar-ed-din-Khan … had not voluntarily submitted and

begged for peace. At the treaty of Serpul, the Emir was

granted the free possession of the country which was left to

him, beginning beyond Kermineh, as far as Tchardjui in the

south. … Of course the Emir had to pledge himself to be a true

and faithful ally of Russia. He had to pay the heavy war

indemnity. … he had to place his sons under the tutorship of

the Czar in order to be brought up at St. Petersburg. … and

ultimately he had to cede three points on his southern

frontier—namely, Djam, Kerki, and Tchardjui. … Scarcely five

years had elapsed when Russia … cast her eyes beyond the Oxus

upon the Khan of Khiva. … A plea for a 'casus belli' was soon

unearthed. … The Russian preparations of war had been ready

for a long time, provisions were previously secured on

different points, and General Kauffmann, notoriously fond of

theatrical pageantries, marched through the most perilous

route across bottomless sands from the banks of the Yaxartes

to the Oxus [1873]. …

{2782}

Without fighting a single battle, the whole country on the

Lower Oxus was conquered. Russia again showed herself

magnanimous by replacing the young Khan upon the paternal

throne, after having taken away from him the whole country on

the right bank of the Oxus, and imposed upon his neck the

burden of a war indemnity which will weigh him down as long as

he lives, and cripple even his successors, if any such are to

come after him. Three more years passed, when Russia … again

began to extend the limits of her possessions in the Yaxartes

Valley towards the East. In July, 1876, one of the famous

Russian embassies of amity was casually (?) present at the

Court of Khudayar Khan at Khokand, when suddenly a rebellion

broke out, endangering not only the lives of the Russian

embassy but also of the allied ruler. No wonder, therefore,

that Russia had to take care of the friend in distress. An

army was despatched to Khokand, the rebellion was quelled,

and, as a natural consequence, the whole Khanate incorporated

into the dominions of the Czar. The Khokandians, especially

one portion of them called the Kiptchaks, did not surrender so

easily as their brethren in Bokhara and Khiva. The struggle

between the conquerer and the native people was a bloody and

protracted one; and the butchery at Namangan, an engagement in

which the afterwards famous General Skobeleff won his spurs,

surpasses all the accounts hitherto given of Russian cruelty.

Similar scenes occurred in Endidjan and other places, until

the power of the Kiptchaks, noted for their bravery all over

Central Asia, was broken, and 'peace,' a pendant to the famous

tableau of Vereshtchagin, 'Peace at Shipka,' prevailed

throughout the valleys of Ferghana, enabling the Russian eagle

to spread his wings undisturbedly over the whole of Central

Asia, beginning from the Caspian Sea in the west to the Issyk

Kul in the east, and from Siberia to the Turkoman sands in the

south."

A. Vambéry,

The Coming Struggle for India,

chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

F. von Hellwald,

The Russians in Central Asia,

chapters 7-11.

J. Hutton,

Central Asia,

chapters 12 and 18.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1860-1880.

The rise, spread and character of Nihilism.

See NIHILISM.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1861.

Emancipation of serfs.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN:

RUSSIAN SERFDOM.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1864.

Organization of Public Instruction.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—RUSSIA.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1867.

Sale of Alaska to the United States.

See ALASKA: A. D. 1867.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1869·1881.

Advance in Central Asia from the Caspian.

Capture of Geok Tepe.

Subjugation of the Turkomans.

Occupation of Merv.

"Down to 1869 the Russian advance into Central Asia was

conducted from Orenburg and the various military posts of

Western Siberia. Year by year the frontier was pushed to the

southward, and the map of the Asiatic possessions of Russia

required frequent revision. The long chain of the Altai

Mountains passed into the control of the Czar; the Aral Sea

became a Russian lake; and vast territories with a sparse

population were brought under Russian rule. … The Turcoman

country extends westward as far as the Caspian Sea. To put a

stop to the organized thieving of the Turcomans, and more

especially to increase the extent of territory under their

control, and open the land route to India, the Russians

occupied the eastern shore of the Caspian in 1869. A military

expedition was landed at Krasnovodsk, where it built a fort,

and took permanent possession of the country in the name of

the Czar. Points on the eastern coast of the Caspian had been

occupied during the time of Peter the Great, and again during

the reign of Nicholas I., but the occupation of the region was

only temporary. The force which established itself at

Krasnovodsk consisted of a few companies of infantry, two

sotnias of Cossacks, and half a dozen pieces of artillery.

Three men who afterwards obtained considerable prominence in

the affairs of Central Asia, and one of whom gained a

world-wide reputation as a soldier, were attached to this

expedition. The last was Skobeleff, the hero of Plevna and the

Russo-Turkish campaign of 1877-78. The others were Stolietoff'

and Grodekoff. … The Yomut Turcomans in the Caspian region

made no resistance; they are far less warlike than the Tekke

Turcomans farther to the east, who afterwards became the

defenders of Geok Tepe. … From 1869 to 1873 there were

numerous skirmishes and reconnoitrings, during which the

steppes were pretty well explored as far as Kizil-Arvat.

General Stolietoff' was in command until 1872, when he was

succeeded by Colonel Markusoff, who pushed his explorations to

the wells of Igdy, then bending to the southwest, he passed

Kizil·Arvat on his return to Krasnovodsk. There appeared to be

no obstacle to a Russian advance into the heart of the

country. But when General Lomakin was ordered there during the

years between 1873 and 1879, he found that beyond Kizil-Arvat

were the Tekke Turcomans, who seemed determined to make a

decided opposition to the Muscovite designs. … He advanced

with 4,000 men and reached Geok Tepe without resistance, but

no sooner was he in front of it than the Turcomans fell upon

him. He was severely defeated and made a hasty retreat to

Krasnovodsk with the remnant of his army. General Tergukasoff

was next appointed to the command, but when he saw the

difficulties confronting him he resigned. He was succeeded by

General Petrussovitch under the chief command of Skobeleff.

Thus from Stolietoff to Skobeleff there were no fewer than

seven generals who had tried to conquer the Tekke Turcomans.

Skobeleff, seeing the vast difficulties of the situation,

matured a skilful and scientific plan of operations, for which

he obtained the imperial sanction. … Skobeleff's first work

[1880] was to secure a safe transport, establish a regular

line of steamers across the Caspian, to build suitable docks,

secure 20,000 camels, and build a railway from Michaelovsk to

Kizil-Arvat. Michaelovsk is a small bay near Krasnovodsk and

better suited as a harbor than the latter place. Skobeleff's

first reconnoitring convinced him that Geok Tepe could only be

taken by a regular siege. … Geok Tepe, sometimes called Goek

Tepe ('The Green Hills'), is situated on the Akhal oasis, in

the Turcoman steppes, 387 versts (250 miles), east of the

Caspian Sea. The chain of hills called the Kopet·Dag, lies

south and southwest of Geok Tepe, and on the other side it

touches the sandy desert of Kara Kum, with the hill of Geok on

the east. The Turcomans, or rather the Tekke Turcomans, who

held it are the most numerous of the nomad tribes in that

region.

{2783}

They are reported to count about 100,000 kibitkas, or tents;

reckoning 5 persons to a kibitka, this would give them a

strength of half a million. Their great strength in numbers

and their fighting abilities enabled them to choose their

position and settle on the most fertile oases along the

northern border of Persia for centuries. These oases have been

renowned for their productiveness, and in consequence of the

abundance of food, the Tekkes were a powerful race of men, and

were feared throughout all that part of Asia. … The fortress

of Geok Tepe at the time of the Russian advance consisted of

walls of mud 12 or 15 feet high towards the north and west,

and 6 or 8 feet thick. In front of these walls was a ditch, 6

feet deep, supplied by a running stream, and behind the walls

was a raised platform for the defenders. The space between the

first and second interior wall was from 50 to 60 feet wide,

and occupied by the kibitkas of the Tekke Turcomans and their

families. The second wall was exactly like the outer one." The

Russian siege was opened at the beginning of the year 1881.

"The first parallel, within 800 yards of the walls, was

successfully cut by January 4th. From that date it was a

regular siege, interrupted occasionally by sallies of the

Tekkes within the fort or attacks by those outside. In one of

these fights General Petrussovitch was killed. The besieging

army was about 10,000 strong, while the besieged were from

30,000, to 40,000. … Throughout the siege the Turcomans made

frequent sallies and there was almost continuous fighting.

Sometimes the Turcomans drove the Russians from the outposts,

and if they had been as well armed as their besiegers it is

highly probable that Skobeleff would have fared no better than

did Lomakin in his disastrous campaign. … The storming columns

were ordered to be ready for work on January 24th. … At 7

o'clock in the morning of the 24th, Gaidaroff advanced to

attack the first fortification on the south front, supported

by 36 guns. The wall had already been half crumbled down by an

explosion of powder and completely broken by the firing of a

dynamite mine. At 11.20 the assault took place, and during the

action the mine on the east front was exploded. It was laid

with 125 cwt: of gunpowder, and in its explosion completely

buried hundreds of Tekkes. … About 1.30 P. M. Gaidaroff

carried the southwestern part of the walls, and a battle raged

in the interior. Half an hour later the Russians were in

possession of Denghil-Tepe, the hill redoubt commanding the

fortress of Geok Tepe. The Tekkes then seemed to be

panic-stricken, and took to flight leaving their families and

all their goods behind. … The ditches to Geok Tepe were filled

with corpses, and there were 4, 000 dead in the interior of

the fortress. The loss of the enemy was enormous. In the

pursuit the Russians are said to have cut down no less than

8,000 fugitives. The total loss of the Tekkes during the

siege, capture, and pursuit was estimated at 40,000. …

Skobeleff pushed on in pursuit as far as Askabad, the capital

of the Akhal Tekkes, 27 miles east of Geok Tepe, and from

Askabad he sent Kuropatkin with a reconnoitring column

half-way across the desert to Merv. Skobeleff wanted to

capture Merv; but … he did not feel strong enough to make the

attempt. Kuropatkin was recalled to Askabad, which remained

the frontier post of the Russians for several months, until

circumstances favored the advance upon Sarakhs and the Tejend,

and the subsequent swoop upon Merv, with its bloodless capture

[February, 1884]. The siege and capture of Geok Tepe was the

most important victory ever achieved by the Russians in

Central Asia. It opened the way for the Russian advance to the

frontier of India, and carried the boundaries of the empire

southward to those of Persia. In the interest of humanity, it

was of the greatest importance, as it broke up the system of

man-stealing and its attendant cruelties, which the Turcomans

had practised for centuries. The people of Northern Persia no

longer live in constant terror of Turcoman raids; the slave

markets of Central Asia are closed, and doubtless forever."

T. W. Knox,

Decisive Battles since Waterloo,

chapter 22.

"There is a vast tract of country in Central Asia that offers

great possibilities for settlement. Eastern Afghan, and

Western Turkestan, with an area of 1,500,000 square miles,

have a population which certainly does not exceed 15,000,000,

or ten to the square mile. Were they peopled as the Baltic

provinces of Russia are—no very extreme supposition—they would

support 90,000,000. It is conceivable that something like this

may be realized at no very distant date, when railroads are

carried across China, and when water—the great want of

Turkestan—is provided for by a system of canalisation and

artesian wells. Meanwhile it is important to observe that

whatever benefit is derived from an increase of population in

these regions will mostly fall to China. That empire possesses

the better two-thirds of Turkestan, and can pour in the

surplus of a population of 400,000,000. Russia can only

contribute the surplus of a population of about 100,000,000;

and though the Russian is a fearless and good colonist, there

are so many spaces in Russia in Europe to be filled up, so

many growing towns that need workmen, so many

counter-attractions in the gold bearing districts of Siberia,

that the work of peopling the outlying dependencies of the

empire is likely to be very gradual. Indeed it is reported

that Russia is encouraging Chinese colonists to settle in the

parts about Merv."

C. H. Pearson,

National Life and Character,

pages 43-44.

ALSO IN:

General Skobeleff,

Siege and Assault of Denghil-Tépé

(Geok-Tépé): Official Report.

C. Marvin,

The Russians at the Gates of Herat,

chapter 1-2.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1877-1878.

Successful war with Turkey.

Siege and reduction of Plevna.

Threatening advance towards Constantinople.-

Treaty of San Stefano.

Congress and Treaty of Berlin.

See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877; 1877-1878; and 1878.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1878-1880.

Movements in Afghanistan.

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

{2784}

RUSSIA: A. D. 1879-1881.

Nihilist attempts against the life of the Czar Alexander II.

His assassination.

In November, 1879, "the Czar paid his annual visit to the

memorial church at Sevastopol, when a requiem was celebrated,

and he left the Crimea on November 30.    The following

evening, as his train was entering Moscow, followed by another

carrying his baggage, an explosion took place under the

baggage train from a mine of dynamite below the rails, which

destroyed one carriage, and threw seven more off the line: He

was informed of the cause of the noise he had just heard, as

he stepped on to the platform at Moscow, and it proved to be

another Nihilist outrage [see NIHILISM], designed chiefly by

an ex-Jew, who escaped to France, and by Sophia Perovsky, who

was afterwards concerned in the Emperor's death. A similar

mine, of which the wire was accidentally cut by a passing cart

before the train arrived, had been laid further south at

Alexandrovsk; and another nearer to Odessa was discovered in

time by the officials, who reversed the usual position of the

Imperial trains, thereby probably saving the Czar's life. He

telegraphed the same night to the Empress at Cannes that he

had arrived safely at Moscow, but did not mention his escape,

which she learned from the newspapers, and from her

attendants. In her weak, nervous state, it is not surprising

that the effect was most injurious. … Another plot was

discovered to blow up the landing stage at Odessa when the

Emperor embarked for Yalta on his way from Warsaw in

September; but the arrest of the conspirators frustrated a

scheme by which hundreds as well as the sovereign might have

perished. … The Revolutionary Committee put forth a circular

acknowledging their part in the explosion, and calling on the

people to aid them against the Czar. … A formal sentence of

death was forwarded to him at Livadia by the Revolutionary

Committee in the autumn of 1879; and December 1 was evidently

selected for the Moscow attempt, being the anniversary of the

death of Alexander I.; therefore a fatal day for monarchs in

the eyes of the Nihilists. The Empress continued very ill, and

her desire to return to Russia increased. At last it was

decided to gratify her, as her case was pronounced hopeless. …

The Emperor joined her in the train three stations before she

arrived at St. Petersburg, and drove alone with her in the

closed carriage, in which she was removed from the station to

the Winter Palace. Only a fortnight later [February 17, 1880],

a diabolical attempt was made to destroy the whole Imperial

family. The hours when they assembled in the dining-room were

well known. … The Empress was confined to her room, only kept

alive by an artificial atmosphere being preserved in her

apartment, which was next to the dining-room. Her only

surviving brother, Prince Alexander of Hesse-Darmstadt, had

arrived the same evening on a visit, and his letter to his

wife on the occasion describes the result of the plot: … 'We

were proceeding through a large corridor to His Majesty's

rooms, when suddenly a fearful thundering was heard. The

flooring was raised as if by an earthquake, the gas lamps were

extinguished, and we were left in total darkness. At the same

time a horrible dust and the smell of gunpowder or dynamite

filled the corridor. Some one shouted to us that the

chandelier had fallen down in the saloon where the table was

laid for the dinner of the Imperial family. I hastened thither

with the Czarovitz and the Grand-Duke Vladimir, while Count

Adlerberg, in doubt as to what might happen next, held back

the Emperor. We found all the windows broken, and the walls in

ruins. A mine had exploded under the room. The dinner was

delayed for half an hour by my arrival, and it was owing to

this that the Imperial family had not yet assembled in the

dining-hall.' One of the Princes remarked that it was a gas

explosion; but the Emperor, who fully retained his composure,

said, 'O no, I know what it is;' and it was subsequently

stated that for several weeks past he had found a sealed

black-bordered letter on his table every morning, always

containing the same threat, that he should not survive the 2nd

of March, the twenty-fifth anniversary of his accession. His

first care was to see that his daughter was safe, and he then

asked her to go to the Empress, and prevent her from being

alarmed, while he personally inspected the scene of the

catastrophe. General Todleben was of opinion that 144 lbs. of

dynamite must have been used; and one of the cooks —a

foreigner—and another official disappeared; but none of those

concerned in the plot was arrested at that time. Subsequent

information showed that the explosion was intended for the 2nd

of March, but hastened on account of the arrest of some one

acquainted with the plot. It was caused by machinery placed in

the flue, and set for 6 P. M. It killed and wounded two

servants and thirty-three brave soldiers of the Finnish Guard,

who were assembled in the hall under the dining-room and above

the flue where the dynamite was laid. … The Russian and

foreign newspapers teemed with advice to the Emperor to grant

a constitution, or abdicate in order to save his life; and it

is reported that in a Council of his Ministers and relations

he offered to hand over the sceptre at once to his eldest son,

if they agreed that it would be best for their own safety, and

for Russia; but that he was earnestly requested to continue in

power. However this might be, he took an extraordinary and

decisive step. He appointed an Armenian, General Melikof, a

man of 56 years of age, distinguished in the war with Turkey,

and subsequently as Governor of Charkof, to be the temporary

dictator of the Empire, with almost absolute powers, and over

the six Governors-General who in 1879 were established

throughout Russia. The Commission was for six months. … The

explosion in the Winter Palace caused the greatest panic in

St. Petersburg, and people would no longer take tickets for

the opera, till they ascertained that the Emperor was not

likely to be there. … The sad condition of the Empress, who

lingered, hardly conscious, between life and death, the

incessant Nihilist circulars which day after day were found

among his clothes, or on his writing table, with the real

attempts made to poison him in letters and other ways, and of

assassins to penetrate into the Palace under the guise of

sweeps, petitioners, fire-lighters, and guards, the danger to

which his nearest relations were exposed, and the precautions

which he looked upon as a humiliation that were taken to

ensure his safety, added to the cares of Empire, must have

rendered his [the Emperor's] existence hardly tolerable. It is

not surprising that at last he desired to be left to take his

chance. … He was again seen driving in the streets in an open

droschky, with only his coachman and one Cossack. … In May the

Court usually repaired to Gateschina for the summer manœuvres

of the troops. … The Empress, having somewhat rallied, desired

to go as usual to Gateschina. … But early in the morning of

June 3, she passed quietly away in her sleep. …

{2785}

It has been since ascertained that the Nihilists had planned

to blow up the bridge over which the funeral procession must

pass, so as to destroy all the mourners, including the foreign

princes, the Imperial hearse, and the numerous guards and

attendants; but a tremendous storm of rain and wind on the

previous night and morning, which raised the Neva to a level

with its banks, and threatened to postpone the ceremony,

prevented the last measures being taken to secure the success

of the plot. … On March 2, the Emperor, as usual, attended the

Requiem Mass for his father, and the service to celebrate his

own accession to the throne. During the last week of his life,

he lived in comparative retirement, as it was Lent, and he was

preparing for the Holy Communion, which he received with his

sons on the morning of Saturday, March 12. At 12 that day,

Melikof came to tell him of the capture of one of the

Nihilists concerned in the explosion in the Winter Palace.

This man refused to answer any questions, except that his

capture would not prevent the Emperor's certain assassination,

and that his Majesty would never see another Easter. Both

Melikof and the Czarovitz begged the Emperor in vain not to

attend the parade the next day. … After the Parade [Sunday,

March 13, 1881] the Emperor drove with his brother Michael to

the Michael Palace, the abode of their cousin, the widowed

Grand-Duchess Catherine; and, leaving his brother there, he

set off about two o'clock by the shortest way to the Winter

Palace, along the side of the Catherine Canal. There, in the

part where the road runs between the Summer Garden and the

Canal, a bombshell was hurled under the Imperial carriage, and

exploded in a shower of snow, throwing down two of the horses

of the escort, tearing off the back of the carriage, and

breaking the glass, upsetting two lamp-posts, and wounding one

of the Cossacks, and a baker's boy who was passing with a

basket on his head. As soon as he saw the two victims lying on

the pavement, the Emperor called to the coachman to stop, but

the last only drove on faster, having received private orders

from the Emperor's family to waive all ceremony, and to

prevent his master from going into dangerous situations, or

among crowds. However, the Emperor pulled the cord round the

coachman's arm till he stopped; and then, in spite of the

man's request to let himself be driven straight home, got out

to speak to the sufferers, and to give orders for their prompt

removal to the hospital, as the thermometer was below zero. …

The Emperor gave his directions, and seeing the man who had

thrown the bomb in the grasp of two soldiers, though still

struggling to point a revolver at his sovereign, he asked his

name, on which the aid-de-camp replied: 'He calls himself

Griaznof, and says he is a workman.' The Emperor made one or

two more remarks, and then turned to go back to his carriage.

It was observed he was deadly pale, and walked very slowly;

and as splashes of blood were found in the carriage, it was

afterwards supposed that he had already received slight

wounds. Several men had been placed at different points of the

road with explosive bombs, and hearing the first explosion,

two of these hurried up to see the effect. One of them flung a

bomb at the Emperor's feet when he had gone a few paces

towards his carriage, and it exploded, blowing off one leg,

and shattering the other to the top of the thigh, besides

mortally wounding the assassin himself, who fell with a shriek

to the ground, and injuring twenty foot passengers. The other

accomplice, according to his own evidence, put down his bomb,

and instinctively ran forward to help the Emperor, who did not

utter a sound, though his lips moved as if in prayer. He was

supporting himself with his back against a buttress by

grasping the rails on the canal. His helmet was blown off, his

clothes torn to rags, and his orders scattered about on the

snow, while the windows of houses 150 yards distant were

broken by the explosion, which raised a column of smoke and

snow, and was heard even at the Anitchkof Palace. … Besides

his shattered limbs, the Emperor had a frightful gash in the

abdomen, his left eyelid was burnt, and his sight gone, his

right hand was crushed, and the rings broken. … The Emperor

expired from loss of blood at five-and-twenty minutes to four.

… More than twenty persons were killed and injured by the two

bombs."

C. Joyneville,

Life of Alexander II.,

chapter 13.

ALSO IN:

Annual Register, 1879-1881.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1881.

Accession of Alexander III.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1881-1894.

Character and reign of Alexander III.

Persecution of Jews and unorthodox Christians.

Hostility to western civilization.

"According to an apparently authentic report in the Cracow

paper 'Czas,' confirmed by later publications, the Emperor

Alexander II. had signed the very morning of the day on which

he was murdered a Ukase addressed to the Senate, by which a

committee was to be appointed for realising Count Loris

Melikow's project of a general representative assembly

composed of delegates from the provincial assemblies. On March

20th Alexander III. convoked a grand council of the principal

dignitaries, asking their opinion on Loris Melikow's proposal.

A lively discussion took place, of which the 'Czas' gives a

detailed account. … The Emperor, thanking the members, said

that the majority had declared for the convening of an

assembly elected by the nation for discussing the affairs of

the State, adding, 'I share this opinion of the majority, and

wish that the reform Ukase shall be published as under the

patronage of my father, to whom the initiative of this reform

is due.' The Ukase, however, was not published, Podobenoszew

and Ignatiew having succeeded in discrediting it in the eyes

of the Czar, asserting that it would only create excitement

and increase the existing fermentation. On May 13th a

manifesto appeared, in which the Czar declared his will 'to

keep firmly the reins in obedience to the voice of God, and,

in the belief in the force and truth of autocratic power, to

fortify that power and to guard it against all encroachments.'

A few days later Count Ignatiew, the head of the Slavophil

party, was appointed Minister of the Interior, and by-and-by

the other more liberal Ministers of Alexander II. disappeared.

By far the most important personage under the present

government is Podobenoszew, High Procurator of the Holy Synod,

an office equivalent to a Minister of Public Worship for the

State Church. Laborious and of unblemished integrity, this man

is a fanatic by conviction. Under Alexander II., who was too

much of a European to like him, he had but a secondary

position, but under his pupil, the present Emperor, he has

become all-powerful, the more so because his orthodoxy wears

the national garb, and he insists that the break-down of the

Nicolas I. system was only caused through governing with

Ministers of German origin.

{2786}

He is seconded by Count Tolstoi, the Minister of Internal

Affairs (who replaced the more liberal Saburow), to whom

belong the questions concerning the foreign, i. e.,

non-orthodox, confessions. These two, supported by the

Minister of Justice, Manasseïn, have enacted persecutions

against Catholics, Uniates, Protestants, and Jews [see JEWS:

19TH CENTURY], which seem incredible in our age, but which are

well attested. Thousands of persons who have committed no

wrong other than that of being faithful to their inherited

creed have been driven from their homes, and exiled to

Siberia, or to distant regions without any means of

livelihood. As regards Catholics, these measures are

principally directed against the clergy; but the Uniates, i.

e., the Catholics who have the Slav liturgy, are unsparingly

deported if they refuse to have their children baptised by an

orthodox Pope, and this is done with men, women, and children,

peasants and merchants. Twenty thousand Uniates alone have

been removed from the western provinces to Szaratow. Those who

remain at home have Cossacks quartered upon them, and all

sorts of compulsory means are used to stamp out this sect. …

It is pretty certain that Alexander III. is ignorant of the

atrocities committed in his name, for he is not a man to

sanction deliberate injustice or to tolerate persons of

manifest impurity in important offices. Though the Czar

insists upon having personally honest Ministers, mere honesty

is not sufficient for governing a great empire. Truth does not

penetrate to the ear of the autocrat; the Russian Press does

not reflect public opinion with its currents, but is simply

the speaking-tube of the reigning coterie, which has

suppressed all papers opposed to it, while the foreign Press

is only allowed to enter mutilated by the censorship. Some

people have, indeed, the privilege to read foreign papers in

their original shape, but the Autocrat of All the Russias does

not belong to them. … The Emperor is peaceful and will not

hear of war: he has, in fact, submitted to many humiliations

arising from Russia's conduct towards Bulgaria. … With all

this, however, he is surrounded by Panslavists and allows them

to carry on an underground warfare against the Balkan States.

… He is strongly opposed to all Western ideas of civilisation,

very irritable, and unflinching in his personal dislikes, as

he has shown in the case of Prince Alexander of Battenberg;

and, with his narrow views, he is unable to calculate the

bearing of his words and actions, which often amount to direct

provocation against his neighbours. If, nevertheless,

tolerable relations with England, Austria, and Germany have

been maintained, this is for the most part the merit of M. de

Giers, the Foreign Secretary, an unpretending, cautious, and

personally reliable man of business, whose influence with the

Czar lies in the cleverness with which he appears not to

exercise any."

Professor Geffcken,

Russia under Alexander III.

(New Review, September, 1891).

ALSO IN:

H. von Samson-Himmelstierna,

Russia under Alexander III.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1894.

Death of Alexander III.

Accession of Nicholas II.

The Czar Alexander III. died on the 1st of November, 1894, at

Livadia, and the accession of his eldest son, who ascends the

throne as Nicholas II., was officially proclaimed at St.

Petersburg on the following day. The new autocrat was born in

1868. He is to wed the Princess Alix of Hesse Darmstadt.

----------RUSSIA: End--------

RUSSIA, Great, Little, White, and Black.

"Little Russia consists of the governments of Podolia,

Volhynia, Kief, Tchernigof, Poltava, and Kharkof. … To protect

Poland from Tartar raids, the Polish king entrusted to the

keeping of the Cossacks the whole south-east frontier of

Poland, the former Grand Duchy of Kief, which acquired the

name of Ukraine, 'borderland,' and also of Little Russia, in

contradistinction to the Grand Duchy of Moscow or Great

Russia. …

See COSSACKS.

The provinces of Moghilef, Minsk, and Vitebsk are popularly

known by the name of White Russia. … The peaceful,

industrious, good tempered White Russians are descendants of

the old Slav race of the Krevitchi. … The name of 'the land

of the Krevitchi,' by which White Russia was called in the

11th century, died out on the rise of the Principalities of

Polotsk, Misteslavsk, and Minsk, which belonged first to

Kief, next to Lithuania, and later still to Poland."

H. M. Chester,

Russia, Past and Present,

pages 225. 228, 270-271.

"The epithet of 'White,' applied also to the Muscovite

Russians in the sense of 'free,' at the time when they were

rescued from the Tatar yoke, has been the special designation

of the Russians of the Upper Dnieper only since the end of the

14th century. At first applied by the Poles to all the

Lithuanian possessions torn from the Muscovites, it was

afterwards used in a more restricted sense. Catherine II. gave

the name of White Russia to the present provinces of Vitebsk

and Moghilov, and Nicholas abolished the expression

altogether, since when it has lost all its political

significance, while preserving its ethnical value. … The term

'White' is generally supposed to refer to the colour of their

dress in contradistinction to the 'Black Russians,' between

the Pripet and Niemen, who form the ethnical transition from

the Little to the White Russians. … The terms Little Russia

(Malo-Russia, Lesser Russia), Ukrania, Ruthenia, have never

had any definite limits, constantly shifting with the

vicissitudes of history, and even with the administrative

divisions. … The name itself of Little Russia appears for the

first time in the Byzantine chronicles of the 13th century in

association with Galicia and Volhynia, after which it was

extended to the Middle Dnieper, or Kiyovia. In the same way

Ukrania—that is 'Frontier'—was first applied to Podolia to

distinguish it from Galicia, and afterwards to the southern

provinces of the Lithuanian state, between the Bug and

Dnieper."

É. Reclus,

The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe,

volume 5. pages 282-290.

RUSSIAN AMERICA.

See ALASKA.

RUSTCHUK, Battle of (1594).

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:

14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).

RUTENI, The.

The Ruteni were a Gallic tribe, who bordered on the Roman

Gallia Provincia, between the Cevennes and the Cadurci

occupying the district of France called Rouergue before the

Revolution.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 4, chapter 17.

RUTENNU, The.

See ROTENNU.

{2787}

RÜTLI,

GRÜTLI, The Meadow of.

See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

RUTULIANS, The.

See LATIUM.

RUTUPIÆ.

The principal Kentish seaport of Roman Britain; now

Richborough. It was celebrated for its oysters.

T. Wright,

Celt, Roman and Saxon,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

C. Roach Smith,

Antiquities of Richborough.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

RUWARD OF BRABANT.

"This office was one of great historical dignity, but somewhat

anomalous in its functions. … A Ruward was not exactly

dictator, although his authority was universal. He was not

exactly protector, nor governor, nor stadholder. His functions

… were commonly conferred on the natural heir to the

sovereignty—therefore more lofty than those of ordinary

stadholders."

J. L. Motley,

The Rise of the Dutch Republic;

part 5, chapter 4.

RYE-HOUSE PLOT, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.

RYOTS OF BENGAL, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

RYSWICK, The Peace of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696; and 1697.

S

SAARBRÜCK, OR SAARBRÜCKEN: United to France (1680).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

SAARBRÜCK, OR SAARBRÜCKEN, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

SABÆANS, The.

See ARABIA: ANCIENT SUCCESSION

AND FUSION OF RACES.

SABANA DE LA CRUZ, Battle of (1859).

See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

SABBATHAISTS.

A Jewish sect, believers in the Messianic pretensions of one

Sabbathai Sevi, of Smyrna, who made an extraordinary commotion

in the Jewish world about the middle of the 17th century, and

who finally embraced Mahometanism.

H. H. Milman,

History of the Jews,

book 28.

SABELLIANS, The.

See SABINES;

also, ITALY: ANCIENT.

SABELLIANS, The sect of the.

See NOËTIANS.

SABINE CROSS ROADS, OR MANSFIELD, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

SABINE WARS, The.

The Roman historians—Dionysius, Plutarch, Livy, and others—

gave credit to traditions of a long and dangerous war, or

series of wars, with the Sabines, following the expulsion of

the Tarquins from Rome and the founding of the Republic. But

modern skeptical criticism has left little ground for any part

of the story of these wars. It seems to have been derived from

the chronicles of an ancient family, the Valerian family, and,

as a recent writer has said, it is suspicious that "a Valerius

never holds a magistracy but there is a Sabine war." Ihne

conjectures that some annalist of the Valerian family used the

term Sabine in relating the wars of the Romans with the

Latins, and with the Tarquins, struggling to regain their lost

throne, and that this gave a start to the whole fictitious

narrative of Sabine wars.

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 1, chapter 12.

SABINE WOMEN, The Rape of the.

See ROME: B. C. 753-510.

SABINES, OR SABELLIANS, The.

"The greatest of the Italian nations was the Sabellian. Under

this name we include the Sabines, who are said by tradition to

have been the progenitors of the whole race, the Samnites, the

Picenians, Vestinians, Marsians, Marrucinians, Pelignians, and

Frentanians. This race seems to have been naturally given to a

pastoral life, and therefore fixed their early settlements in

the upland valleys of the Apennines. Pushing gradually along

this central range, they penetrated downwards towards the Gulf

of Tarentum; and as their population became too dense to find

support in their native hills, bands of warrior youths issued

forth to settle in the richer plains below. Thus they mingled

with the Opican and Pelasgian races of the south, and formed

new tribes known by the names of Apulians, Lucanians, and

Campanians. These more recent tribes, in turn, threatened the

Greek colonies on the coast. … It is certain that the nation

we call Roman was more than half Sabellian. Traditional

history … attributes the conquest of Rome to a Sabine tribe.

Some of her kings were Sabine; the name borne by her citizens

was Sabine; her religion was Sabine; most of her institutions

in war and peace were Sabine; and therefore it may be

concluded that the language of the Roman people differed from

that of Latium Proper by its Sabine elements, though this

difference died out again as the Latin communities were

gradually absorbed into the territory of Rome.'

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

introduction, section 2.

See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT; and LATIUM.

SABINIAN, Pope, A. D. 604-606.

SABRINA.

The ancient name of the Severn river.

SAC AND SOC.

A term used in early English and Norman times to signify

grants of jurisdiction to individual land-owners. The

manorial court-leets were the products of these grants.

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 7, section 73.

See, also, MANORS.

SAC, OR SAUK, INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, FOXES, ETC.

SACÆ, The.

"The Sacæ were neighbours of the Hyrcanians, the Parthians,

and the Bactrians in the steppes of the Oxus. Herodotus tells

us that the Sacæ were a nation of the tribe of the Scyths, and

that their proper name was Amyrgians; the Persians called all

the Scythians Sacæ."

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 8, chapter 2 (volume 5).

See, also, SCYTHIANS.

SACERDOTES.

These were the public priests of the ancient Romans, who

performed the 'sacra publica' or religious rites for the

people, at public expense.

E. Guhl and W. Koner.

Life of the Greeks and Romans,

section 103.

SACHEM.

SAGAMORE.

"Each totem of the Lenape [or Delaware Indians of North

America] recognized a chieftain, called sachem, 'sakima,' a

word found in most Algonkin dialects, with slight variations

(Chip., 'ogima,' Cree, 'okimaw, Pequot, 'sachimma '), and

derived from a root 'ŏki,' signifying above in space, and, by

a transfer frequent in all languages, above in power. …

{2789}

It appears from Mr. Morgan's inquiries, that at present and of

later years, 'the office of sachem is hereditary in the gens,

but elective among its members.' Loskiel, however, writing on

the excellent authority of Zeisberger, states explicitly that

the chief of each totem was selected and inaugurated by those

of the remaining two. By common and ancient consent, the chief

selected from the Turtle totem was head chief of the whole

Lenape nation. The chieftains were the 'peace chiefs.' They

could neither go to war themselves, nor send nor receive the

war belt—the ominous string of dark wampum, which indicated

that the tempest of strife was to be let loose. … War was

declared by the people at the instigation of the 'war

captains,' valorous braves of any birth or family who had

distinguished themselves by personal prowess."

D. G. Brinton,

The Lenape and their Legends,

chapter 3.

"At the institution of the League [of the Iroquois] fifty

permanent sachemships were created, with appropriate names;

and in the sachems who held these titles were vested the

supreme powers of the confederacy. … The sachems themselves

were equal in rank and authority, and instead of holding

separate territorial jurisdictions, their powers were joint,

and coextensive with the League. As a safeguard against

contention and fraud, each sachem was 'raised up' and invested

with his title by a council of all the sachems, with suitable

forms and ceremonies. … The sachemships were distributed

unequally between the five nations, but without thereby giving

to either a preponderance of political power. Nine of them

were assigned to the Mohawk nation, nine to the Oneida,

fourteen to the Onondaga, ten to the Cayuga and eight to the

Seneca. The sachems united formed the Council of the League,

the ruling body, in which resided the executive, legislative

and judicial authority."

L. H. Morgan,

The League of the Iroquois,

book 1, chapter 3.

"The New England Indians had functionaries; … the higher class

known as sachems, the subordinate, or those of inferior note

or smaller jurisdiction, as sagamores. … This is the

distinction commonly made (Hutchinson, Massachusetts, I. 410).

But Williamson Maine, I. 494) reverses it; Dudley (Letter to

the Countess of Lincoln) says, 'Sagamore, so are the kings

with us called, as they are sachems southward' (that is, in

Plymouth); and Gookin (Massachusetts Historical Collection.,

1. 154) speaks of the two titles of office as equivalent."

J. G. Palfrey,

History of New England,

volume 1, chapter 1, and foot-note.

SACHEVERELL, Henry: Impeachment of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

SACKETT'S HARBOR:

Naval headquarters in the war of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

SÄCKINGEN: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1637).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

SACRAMENTARIANS.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.

SACRED BAND OF CARTHAGE.

See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

SACRED BAND OF THEBES.

See THEBES, GREECE: B. C. 378.

SACRED MONTH OF THE CHARTISTS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1838-1842.

SACRED MOUNT AT ROME, The.

See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

SACRED PROMONTORY, The.

The southwestern extremity of Spain—Cape St. Vincent—was

anciently called the Sacred Promontory, and supposed by early

geographers to be the extreme western point of the known

world.

E. H. Bunbury,

History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 28, part 1 (volume 2).

SACRED ROADS IN GREECE.

"After the chariot races came into vogue [at the sacred

festivals and games] these equally necessitated good carriage

roads, which it was not easy to make in a rocky locality like

Delphi. Thus arose the sacred roads, along which the gods

themselves were said to have first passed, as Apollo once came

through pathless tracks to Delphi. … Hence the art of

road-making and of building bridges, which deprived the wild

mountain streams of their dangers, took its first origin from

the national sanctuaries, especially from those of Apollo.

While the foot-paths led across the mountain ridges, the

carriage-roads followed the ravines which the water had

formed. The rocky surface was leveled, and ruts hollowed out

which, carefully smoothed, served as tracks in which the

wheels rolled on without obstruction. This style of roads made

it necessary, in order to a more extended intercourse, to

establish an equal gauge, since otherwise the festive as well

as the racing chariots would have been prevented from visiting

the various sanctuaries. And since as a matter of fact, as far

as the influence of Delphi extended in the Peloponnesus and in

central Greece, the same gauge of 5 ft. 4 in. demonstrably

prevailed, not merely the extension, but also the

equalization, of the net-work of Greek roads took its origin

from Delphi."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 2, chapter 4.

SACRED TRUCE, The.

See OLYMPIC GAMES.

----------SACRED WAR: Start--------

SACRED WAR, The First.

See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586,

and DELPHI.

SACRED WAR: The Second.

The Phocians, B. C. 449, counting on the support of Athens,

whose allies they were, undertook to acquire possession of the

sacred and wealthy city of Delphi. The Spartans sent an army

to the defense of the sanctuary and expelled them;· whereupon

the Athenians sent another and restored them.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 45.

SACRED WAR: The Ten Years.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

----------SACRED WAR: End--------

SACRED WAY AT ATHENS.

The road which led from the great gate of Athens called

Dipylum straight to Eleusis, along which the festive

processions moved, was called the Sacred Way.

W. M. Leake,

Topography of Athens,

section 2.

SACRED WAY AT ROME, The.

See VIA SACRA.

SACRIPORTUS, Battle of (B. C. 83).

See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

{2789}

SADDUCEES, The.

"There is a tradition that the name of Sadducee was derived

from Zadok, a disciple of Antigonus of Socko. But the

statement is not earlier than the seventh century after the

Christian Era, and the person seems too obscure to have

originated so widespread a title. It has been also ingeniously

conjectured that the name, as belonging to the whole priestly

class, is derived from the famous high priest of the time of

Solomon. But of this there is no trace in history or

tradition. It is more probable that, as the Pharisees derived

their name from the virtue of Isolation (pharishah) from the

Gentile world on which they most prided themselves, so the

Sadducees derived theirs from their own special virtue of

Righteousness (zadikah), that is, the fulfillment of the Law,

with which, as its guardians and representatives of the law,

they were specially concerned. The Sadducees—whatever be the

derivation of the word—were less of a sect than a class."

Dean Stanley,

Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,

lecture 49.

"At the time when we first meet with them [the Sadducees] in

history, that is to say, under Jonathan the Asmonean [B. C.

159-144—see JEWS: B. C. 166-40], they were, though in a

modified form, the heirs and successors of the Hellenists [see

JEWS: B. C. 332-167]. … Hellenism was conquered under the

Asmoneans, and beaten out of the field, and a new gush of

Jewish patriotism and zeal for the law had taken its place.

The Sadducees, who from the first appear as a school suited

for the times, including the rich and educated statesmen,

adopted the prevailing tone among the people. They took part

in the services and sacrifices of the temple, practised

circumcision, observed the Sabbath, and so professed to be

real Jews and followers of the law, but the law rightly

understood, and restored to its simple text and literal sense.

They repudiated, they said, the authority of the new teachers

of the law (now the Pharisees), and of the body of tradition

with which they had encircled the law. In this tradition they

of course included all that was burdensome to themselves. …

The peculiar doctrines of the Sadducees obviously arose from

the workings of the Epicurean philosophy, which had found

special acceptance in Syria. They admitted indeed the

creation, as it seems, but denied all continuous operation of

God in the world. … The Sadducees proved they were real

followers of Epicurus, by denying the life of the soul after

death. The soul, they said, passes away with the body. … The

mass of the people stood aloof from the Sadducees, whom they

regarded with mistrust and aversion."

J. J. I. Döllinger,

The Gentile and the Jew in the

Courts of the Temple of Christ,

volume 2, page 302-303.

ALSO IN:

E. Schürer,

History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ,

section 26 (division 2, volume 2).

SADOWA, OR KÖNIGGRÄTZ, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

SAFFARY DYNASTY, The.

See SAMANIDES.

SAGAMORE.

See SACHEM.

SAGAMOSO, Battle of (1819).

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

SAGARTIANS, The.

A nomadic people, described by Herodotus, who wandered on the

western borders of the great Iranian desert—the desert region

of modern Persia.

SAGAS.

See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100.

SAGGENASH, The.

See YANKEE.

SAGUENAY.

See CANADA: NAMES.

SAGUNTUM, Capture of, by Hannibal.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

SAHAPTINS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NEZ PERCÉS.

SAHAY, Battle of.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

SAILOR'S CREEK, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

SAIM.

See TIMAR.

SAINT ALBANS (England).

Origin of.

See VERULAMIUM.

SAINT ALBANS (England): A. D. 1455-1461.

Battles of York and Lancaster.

The town of St. Albans, in England, was the scene of two

battles in the lamentable Wars of the Roses. The first

collision of the long conflict between Lancaster and York

occurred in its streets on the 23d of May, 1455, when King

Henry VI. was taken prisoner by the Duke of York and 5,000 to

8,000 of his supporters were slain. Six years later, on the

17th of February, 1461, the contending forces met again in the

streets of St. Albans with a different result. The Yorkists

were put to flight by the Lancastrians under Queen Margaret.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

SAINT ALBANS CONFEDERATE RAID.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER) THE ST. ALBANS RAID.

SAINT ALBANS FENIAN RAID.

See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

SAINT ANDREW, The Russian order of.

An order of knighthood instituted in 1698 by Peter the Great.

SAINT ANDREW, The Scottish order of.

"To keep pace with other sovereigns, who affected forming

orders of knighthood, in which they themselves should preside,

like Arthur at his round table, or Charlemagne among his

paladins, James [IV. of Scotland, A. D. 1488-1513] established

the order of Saint Andrew, assuming the badge of the thistle,

which since that time has been the national emblem of

Scotland."

Sir W. Scott,

History of Scotland,

chapter 21.

SAINT ANDREWS, Siege of the Castle of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.

SAINT ANGELO, Castle.

See CASTLE ST. ANGELO.

SAINT AUGUSTINE, Canons of.

See AUSTIN CANONS.

----------SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: Start--------

SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1565.

Founded by the Spaniards.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1565.

SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1701.

Attack from South Carolina.

See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706.

SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1740.

Unsuccessful attack by the English of Georgia and Carolina.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1862.

Temporary occupation by Union forces.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

----------SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: End--------

SAINT BARTHOLOMEW'S DAY, The Massacre of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST).

SAINT BRICE'S DAY, The Massacre of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

SAINT CHRISTOPHER, The Island:

Ceded to England (1713).

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

{2790}

SAINT CLAIR, General Arthur.

Campaign against the Indians, and defeat.

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

SAINT CLOUD DECREE, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

SAINT DENIS (France), Battle of (1567).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

SAINT DENIS (Belgium), Battle of (1678).

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

SAINT DIDIER, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

SAINT DOMINGO, OR HAYTI, The Island.

See HAYTI.

SAINT DOMINGO, The Republic.

See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.

SAINT GEORGE, Bank of.

See MONEY AND BANKING: GENOA;

also GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.

SAINT GEORGE, The order of.

Founded by Catherine II. of Russia in 1769.

SAINT GERMAIN-EN-LAYE, Peace of (1570).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

SAINT GERMAINS, The French court.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648.

SAINT GERMAINS, The Jacobite court.

When James II., driven from England by the Revolution of 1688,

took refuge in France, he was received with great hospitality

by Louis XIV., who assigned to the exiled king the palace of

Saint-Germains for his residence, with a pension or allowance

which enabled him to maintain a regal court of imposing

splendor. "There was scarcely in all Europe a residence more

enviably situated than that which the generous Lewis had

assigned to his suppliants. The woods were magnificent, the

air clear and salubrious, the prospects extensive and

cheerful. No charm of rural life was wanting; and the towers

of the greatest city of the Continent were visible in the

distance. The royal apartments were richly adorned with

tapestry and marquetry, vases of silver, and mirrors in gilded

frames. A pension of more than 40,000 pounds sterling was

annually paid to James from the French treasury. He had a

guard of honour composed of some of the finest soldiers in

Europe. … But over the mansion and the domain brooded a

constant gloom, the effect, partly of bitter regrets and of

deferred hopes, but chiefly of the abject superstition which

had taken complete possession of his own mind, and which was

affected by all those who aspired to his favour. His palace

wore the aspect of a monastery. … Thirty or forty

ecclesiastics were lodged in the building; and their

apartments were eyed with envy by noblemen and gentlemen who

had followed the fortunes of their Sovereign, and who thought

it hard that, when there was so much room under his roof, they

should be forced to sleep in the garrets of the neighbouring

town. … All the saints of the royal household were praying for

each other and backbiting each other from morning to night."

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 20 (volume 4).

SAINT GOTHARD, Battle of (1664).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

SAINT GREGORY, Order of.

Instituted in 1831 by Pope Gregory XVI.

SAINT HELENA, Napoleon's captivity at.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

SAINT ILDEFONSO, Treaty of.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777;

and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

SAINT ILDEFONSO, University of.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.

SAINT JAGO, Knights of the order of.

See CALATRAVA.

SAINT JAMES, The Palace and Court of.

"Of the British Monarchy the official and diplomatic seat is

St. James', a dingy and shabby pile of brick, which by its

meanness, compared with the Tuileries and Versailles, aptly

symbolizes the relation of the power which built it to that of

the Monarchy of Louis XIV. … At St. James' are still held the

Levees. But those rooms having been found too small for the

prodigiously increasing crowds of ladies, foreign and

colonial, who pant, by passing under the eye of Royalty, to

obtain the baptism of fashion, the Drawing-Rooms are now held

in Buckingham Palace. … The modern town residence of Royalty,

Buckingham Palace, is large without being magnificent, and

devoid of interest of any kind, historical or architectural."

Goldwin Smith,

A Trip to England,

page 54.

SAINT JAMES OF COMPOSTELLA, Knights of.

See CALATRAVA.

SAINT JEAN D'ACRE.

See ACRE.

SAINT JOHN, Knights of; or Hospitallers.

See HOSPITALLERS.

SAINT JOHN OF THE LATERAN, Order of.

An order of knighthood instituted in 1560 by Pope Pius IV.

SAINT JUST,

and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1794 (JULY).

SAINT LAWRENCE:

Discovery and naming of the River by Jacques Cartier.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

SAINT LAZARUS, Knights of.

"Some historians of the order of St. Lazarus have traced its

origin to a supposed association of Christians in the first

century against the persecution of their Jewish and Pagan

enemies. This account is fabulous. It appears certain,

however, that in very early times Christian charity founded

establishments for the sick. … Lazarus became their tutelary

saint and the buildings were styled Lazarettos. One of those

hospitals was in existence at Jerusalem at the time of the

first crusade. It was a religious order, as well as a

charitable institution, and followed the rule of St. Augustin.

For purposes of defence against the Muselman tyrants, the

members of the society became soldiers, and insensibly they

formed themselves into distinct bodies of those who attended

the sick, and those who mingled with the world. The cure of

lepers was their first object, and they not only received

lepers into their order, for the benefit of charity, but their

grand master was always to be a man who was afflicted with the

disorder, the removal whereof formed the purpose of their

institution. The cavaliers who were not lepers, and were in a

condition to bear arms, were the allies of the Christian kings

of Palestine. … The habits of those knights is not known; it

only appears that the crosses on their breasts were always

green, in opposition to those of the knights of St. John,

which were white, and the red crosses of the Templars. … But

neither the names nor the exploits of the knights of St.

Lazarus often appear in the history of the Crusades."

C. Mills,

History of the Crusades,

chapter 8, with foot-notes.

{2791}

SAINT LEGER'S EXPEDITION.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1764.

The founding of the city.

"St. Louis had arisen out of the transfer of the east bank of

the Mississippi to Great Britain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

Rather than live as aliens, under English laws, many French

settlers went with Pierre Laclede, across the Mississippi, to

a place already nicknamed by them Pain Court, where, in

February, 1764, they founded a new town with the name of St.

Louis, in honor of Louis XV. These people were mostly French

Canadians."

S. A. Drake,

The Making of the Great West,

page 179.

See, also, ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1861.

Events at the outbreak of the rebellion.

The capture of Camp Jackson.

See MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1864.

General Price's attempt against.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

SAINT LOUIS, The Order of.

An order of knighthood instituted in 1693 by Louis XIV. of

France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

SAINT MAHÉ, Battle of.

A fierce naval fight, April 24, 1293, off St. Mahé, on the

coast of Brittany, between English and French fleets, both of

which were put afloat without open authority from their

respective governments. The French were beaten with a loss of

8,000 men and 180 ships.

C. H. Pearson,

History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,

volume 2, chapter 13.

SAINT MALO: Abortive English expeditions against.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST).

SAINT MARK, The winged lion of.

See LION OF ST. MARK,

and VENICE: A. D. 829.

SAINT MARKS, Jackson's capture of.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

SAINT MICHAEL, Knights of the Order of, in France.

"Louis XI. [of France] determined on instituting an order of

chivalry himself. It was to be select in its membership,

limited in its number, generous in its professions, and he

fondly hoped the Garter and Fleece would soon sink into

insignificance compared to the Order of Saint Michael. The

first brethren were named from the highest families in France;

the remaining great feudatories, who had preserved some relics

of their hereditary independence, were fixed upon to wear this

mark of the suzerain's friendship. But when they came to read

the oaths of admission, they found that the Order of St.

Michael was in reality a bond of stronger obligation than the

feudal laws had ever enjoined. It was a solemn association for

the prevention of disobedience to the sovereign. … The

brotherhood of noble knights sank, in the degrading treatment

of its founder, into a confederation of spies."

J. White,

History of France,

chapter 7.

SAINT MICHAEL, Knights of the Order of, in Portugal.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

SAINT MICHAEL AND SAINT GEORGE, The Order of.

A British Order of Knighthood, founded in 1818, "for the

purpose of bestowing marks of Royal favour on the most

meritorious of the Ionians [then under the protection of Great

Britain] and Maltese, as well as on British subjects who may

have served with distinction in the Ionian Isles or the

Mediterranean Sea."

Sir B. Burke,

Book of the Orders of Knighthood,

page 107.

SAINT OMER: A. D. 1638.

Unsuccessful siege by the French.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

SAINT OMER: A. D. 1677.

Taken by Louis XIV.

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

SAINT OMER: A. D. 1679.

Ceded to France.

See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

SAINT PATRICK, The order of.

An order of knighthood instituted in 1783 by George III. of

England.

SAINT PAUL, Republic of.

See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.

SAINT PAUL'S SCHOOL.

See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE: ENGLAND.

SAINT PETER'S CHURCH AT ROME.

"The first church which existed on or near the site of the

present building was the oratory founded in A. D. 90, by

Anacletus, bishop of Rome, who is said to have been ordained

by St. Peter himself, and who thus marked the spot where many

Christian martyrs had suffered in the circus of Nero, and

where St. Peter was buried after his crucifixion. In 306

Constantine the Great yielded to the request of Pope

Sylvester, and began the erection of a basilica on this spot,

labouring with his own hands at the work. … Of the old

basilica, the crypt is now the only remnant. … Its destruction

was first planned by Nicholas V. (1450), but was not carried

out till the time of Julius II., who in 1506 began the new St.

Peter's from designs of Bramante. … The next Pope, Leo X.,

obtained a design for a church in the form of a Latin cross

from Raphael, which was changed, after his death (on account

of expense) to a Greek cross, by Baldassare Peruzzi, who only

lived to complete the tribune. Paul III. (1534) employed

Antonio di Sangallo as an architect, who returned to the

design of a Latin cross, but died before he could carry out

any of his intentions. Giulio Romano succeeded him and died

also. Then the pope, 'being inspired by God,' says Vasari,

sent for Michael Angelo, then in his seventy-second year, who

continued the work under Julius III., returning to the plan of

a Greek cross, enlarging the tribune and transepts, and

beginning the dome on a new plan, which he said would 'raise

the Pantheon in the air.' … The present dome is due to Giacomo

della Porta, who brought the great work to a conclusion in

1590, under Sixtus V. … The church was dedicated by Urban

VIII., November 18th, 1626; the colonnade added by Alexander

VII., 1667, the sacristy by Pius VI., in 1780. The building of

the present St. Peter's extended altogether over 176 years,

and its expenses were so great that Julius II. and Leo X. were

obliged to meet them by the sale of indulgences, which led to

the Reformation. The expense of the main building alone has

been estimated at £10,000,000. The annual expense of repairs

is £6,300."

A. J. C. Hare,

Walks in Rome,

chapter 15.

ALSO IN:

H. Grimm,

Life of Michael Angelo,

chapters 15-16.

{2792}

SAINT PETERSBURG: The founding of the city.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1703-1718.

SAINT PRIVAT, OR GRAVELOTTE, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

SAINT QUENTIN: Origin of the town.

See BELGÆ.

SAINT QUENTIN,

Battle and siege of (1557).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

Battle of (1871).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

SAINT SEBASTIAN, Siege and capture of (1813).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

SAINT STEPHEN, The Apostolic order.

This, the Hungarian national order of knighthood, was founded

by Maria Theresa, on the day (May 5, 1764) when the Archduke,

afterwards the Emperor Joseph II., was crowned King of Rome.

SAINT STEPHEN, The Crown of.

The crown of Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.

SAINT STEPHEN'S CHAPEL.

The Chamber of the House of Commons.

See WESTMINSTER PALACE.

SAINT THOMAS OF ACRE, The Knights of.

"This was a little body of men who had formed themselves into

a semi-religious order on the model of the Hospitallers. In

the third Crusade, one William, an English priest, chaplain to

Ralph de Diceto, Dean of S. Paul's, had devoted himself to the

work of burying the dead at Acre, as the Hospitallers had

given themselves at first to the work of tending the sick. He

had built himself a little chapel there, and bought ground for

a cemetery; like a thorough Londoner of the period, he had

called it after S. Thomas the Martyr; and, somehow or other,

as his design was better known, the family of the martyr seem

to have approved of it; the brother-in-law and sister of

Becket became founders and benefactors, and a Hospital of S.

Thomas the Martyr of Canterbury, of Acre, was built in London

itself on the site of the house where the martyr was born. …

They [the knights] had their proper dress and cross: according

to Favin their habit was white, and the cross a full red cross

charged with a white scallop; but the existing cartulary of

the order describes the habit simply as a mantle with a cross

of red and white. … The Chronicle of the Teutonic knights, in

relating the capture of Acre, places the knights of S. Thomas

at the head of the 5,000 soldiers whom the king of England had

sent to Palestine, and Herman Corner, who however wrote a

century later, mentions them amongst the defenders of Acre. We

know from their cartulary that they had lands in Yorkshire,

Middlesex, Surrey, and Ireland."

W. Stubbs,

Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern History,

lecture 8.

SAINT VALERY.

The port, at the mouth of the Somme, from which the fleet of

William the Conqueror sailed for England, September 27, A. D.

1066.

SAINT VINCENT, Naval battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

SAINTONGE, Origin of the name of.

See PICTONES.

SAIONES.

"The Saiones were apparently a class of men peculiar to the

Ostrogothic monarchy [of Theodoric, in Italy]. More honoured

than the Roman lictor (who was but a menial servant of the

magistrate), but hardly perhaps rising to the dignity of a

sheriff or a marshal, they were, so to speak, the arms by

which Royalty executed its will. If the Goths had to be

summoned to battle with the Franks, a Saio carried round the

stirring call to arms. If a Prætorian Prefect was abusing his

power to take away his neighbour's lands by violence, a Saio

was sent to remind him that under Theodoric not even Prætorian

Prefects should be allowed to transgress the law. … The

Saiones seem to have stood in a special relation to the King.

They are generally called 'our Saiones,' sometimes 'our brave

Saiones,' and the official virtue which is always credited to

them (like the 'Sublimity' or the 'Magnificence' of more

important personages) is 'Your Devotion.' One duty which was

frequently entrusted to the Saio was the 'tuitio' of some

wealthy and unwarlike Roman. It often happened that such a

person, unable to protect himself against the rude assaults of

sturdy Gothic neighbours, appealed to the King for protection.

… The chief visible sign of the King's protection, and the

most effective guarantee of its efficiency, was the stout

Gothic soldier who as Saio was quartered in the wealthy

Roman's house."

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 4, chapter 7 (volume 3).

SAJO, Battle of the (1241).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

SAKKARAH, Necropolis of.

The most ancient and important cemetery of Memphis, Egypt.

A. Mariette,

Monuments of Upper Egypt,

page 86.

SAKKARAH, Tablet of.

An important list of Egyptian kings, found by M. Mariette and

now preserved in the Museum of Cairo.

F. Lenormant,

Manual of Ancient History of the East,

book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).

SALADIN: The Empire of.

Among the revolutions which attended the breaking up of the

empire of the Seljuk Turks was one that brought about the rise

to power in Syria and Mesopotamia of a vigorous and capable

soldier named Zenghi or Zengui. Zenghi and his son Noureddin

acquired a wide dominion, with its capital, as it enlarged,

shifting from Mossoul to Aleppo, from Aleppo to Damascus, and

they were the first formidable enemies with whom the

Christians of the Crusade settlements in Syria had to contend.

The dynasty of sultans which they founded was one of those

called Atabecks, or Atabegs, signifying "governors of the

prince." Having found an opportunity (A. D. 1162-1168) to

interfere in the affairs of Egypt, where the Fatimite caliphs

were still nominally reigning, Noureddin sent thither one of

his most trusted officers, Shiracouh, or Shirkoh, a Koord, and

Shiracouh's nephew, Saladin,—then a young man, much addicted

to elegant society and the life of pleasure, at Damascus.

Shiracouh established his master's authority in Egypt—still

leaving the puppet caliph of the Fatimites on his throne—and

he was succeeded by Saladin, as the representative of the

sultan Noureddin, and grand vizier of the caliph. But in 1171,

the latter, being on his death-bed, was quietly deposed and

the sovereignty of the Abbaside caliph of Bagdad was

proclaimed. "This great 'coup d'etat,' which won Egypt over to

the Orthodox Mohammedan sect, and ultimately enabled Saladin

to grasp the independent sovereignty of the country, was

effected, as an Arab historian quaintly observes, 'so quietly,

that not a brace of goats butted over it.'"

{2793}

Saladin had now developed great talents as a ruler, and great

ambitions, as well. On the death of Nouraddin, in 1174, he was

prepared to seize the sultan's throne, and succeeded, after a

short period of civil war, in making himself master of the

whole Atabeg dominion. From that he went on to the conquest of

Jerusalem, and the expulsion of the Christians from all

Palestine, except Tyre and a small strip of coast. By his

defense of that conquest against the crusaders of the Third

Crusade, and by the decided superiority of character which he

evinced, compared with his Christian antagonists, Richard Cœur

de Lion and the rest, Saladin acquired surpassing renown in

the western world and became a great figure in history. He

died at Damascus, in March, 1193, in his fifty-seventh year.

The dynasty which he founded was called the Ayoubite (or

Aiyubite) dynasty, from the name of Saladin's father, Ayoub

(Job), a native Koord of Davin.

W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,

Jerusalem,

chapter 16.

"Saladin gave no directions respecting the order of

succession, and by this want of foresight prepared the ruin of

his empire. One of his sons, Alaziz, who commanded in Egypt,

caused himself to be proclaimed sultan of Cairo; another took

possession of the sovereignty of Aleppo, and a third of the

principality of Amath. Malek-Adel [called Seïf Eddin, the

Sword of Religion, by which latter name, in the corrupted form

Saphadin, he was known commonly to the crusaders], the brother

of Saladin, assumed the throne of Mesopotamia and the

countries in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates. The principal

emirs, and all the princes of the race of the Ayoubites, made

themselves masters of the cities and provinces of which they

held the command. Afdhal [Almelek Alafdhal], eldest son of

Saladin, was proclaimed sultan of Damascus. Master of Syria,

and of the capital of a vast empire, sovereign of Jerusalem

and Palestine, he appeared to have preserved something of the

power of his father; but all fell into disorder and

confusion." After some years of disorder and of war between

the brothers, Malek Adel, or Saphadin, the more capable uncle

of the young princes, gathered the reins of power into his

hands and reunited most of the provinces of Saladin's empire.

On his death, in 1217, the divisions and the disorder

reappeared. The Ayoubite dynasty, however, held the throne at

Cairo (to the dominion of which Palestine belonged) until

1250, when the last of the line was killed by his Mamelukes.

The lesser princes of the divided empire were swept away soon

after by the Mongol invasion.

J. F. Michaud,

History of the Crusades,

books 9, 12-14.

See, also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

SALADIN, The Tithe of.

"In England and in France, in order to defray expenses [of the

Third Crusade], a tax called the Tithe of Saladin, consisting

of a tenth part of all their goods, was levied on every person

who did not take the Cross. … In every parish the Tithe of

Saladin was raised in the presence of a priest, a Templar, a

Hospitaller, a king's man, a baron's man and clerk, and a

bishop's clerk."

W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,

Jerusalem,

chapter 15.

SALADO, OR GUADACELITO, Battle of (1340).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

SALAMANCA, Battle of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).

SALAMANCA, University of.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.

SALAMIS, Cyprus,

Battle of (B. C. 449).

See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

Battle of (B. C. 306).

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.

SALAMIS, Greece: B. C. 610-600.

War of Athens and Megara for possession of the island.

See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.

SALAMIS, Greece: B. C. 480.

Great battle between Greeks and Persians.

See GREECE: B. C. 480.

SALANKAMENT, Battle of (1691).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

SALCES, OR SALSAS: A. D. 1639-1640.

Siege and capture by the French.

Recovery by the Spaniards.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.

SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1628.

The first settlement.

See MASSACHUSETTS:

A. D. 1623-1629 THE DORCHESTER COMPANY.

SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.

Ministry and banishment of Roger Williams.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636.

SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.

The Witchcraft madness.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692; and 1692-1693.

SALERNO, Principality of.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

SALERNO, School of Medicine.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 12-17TH CENTURIES.

SALIAN FRANKS, The.

See FRANKS: ORIGIN, ETC.

----------SALIC LAW: Start--------

SALIC LAW, The.

"A greatly exaggerated importance has been attributed to the

Salic Law. You are acquainted with the reason of this error;

you know that at the accession of Philippe-le-Long, and during

the struggle of Philippe· de-Valois and Edward III. for the

crown of France, the Salic law was invoked in order to prevent

the succession of women, and that, from that time, it has been

celebrated by a crowd of writers as the first source of our

public law, as a law always in vigor, as the fundamental law

of monarchy. Those who have been the most free from this

illusion, as, for example, Montesquieu, have yet experienced,

to some degree, its influence, and have spoken of the Salic

law with a respect which it is assuredly difficult to feel

towards it when we attribute to it only the place that it

really holds in our history. … I pray you to recall that which

I have already told you touching the double origin and the

incoherence of the barbarous laws; they were, at once,

anterior and posterior to the invasion; at once, German and

Germano-Roman: they belonged to two different conditions of

society. This character has influenced all the controversies

of which the Salic law has been the object; it has given rise

to two hypotheses: according to one, this law was compiled in

Germany, upon the right bank of the Rhine, long before the

conquest, and in the language of the Franks. … According to

the other hypothesis, the Salic law was, on the contrary,

compiled after the conquest, upon the left bank of the Rhine,

in Belgium or in Gaul, perhaps in the seventh century, and in

Latin. … I believe, however, that the traditions which,

through so many contradictions and fables, appear in the

prefaces and epilogues annexed to the law, … indicate that,

from the eighth century, it was a general belief, a popular

tradition, that the customs of the Salian Franks were

anciently collected. …

{2794}

We are not obliged to believe that the Salic law, such as we

have it, is of a very remote date, nor that it was compiled as

recounted, nor even that it was ever written in the German

language; but that it was connected with customs collected and

transmitted from generation to generation, when the Franks

lived about the mouth of the Rhine, and modified, extended,

explained, reduced into law, at various times, from that epoch

down to the end of the eighth century—this, I think, is the

reasonable result to which this discussion should lead. … At

the first aspect it is impossible not to be struck with the

apparent utter chaos of the law. It treats of all things—of

political law, of civil law, of criminal law, of civil

procedure, of criminal procedure, of rural jurisdiction, all

mixed up together without any distinction or classification. …

When we examine this law more closely, we perceive that it is

essentially a penal regulation. … I say nothing of the

fragments of political law, civil law, or civil procedure,

which are found dispersed through it, nor even of that famous

article which orders that 'Salic land shall not fall to woman;

and that the inheritance shall devolve exclusively on the

males.' No person is now ignorant of its true meaning. … When,

in the fourteenth century, they invoked the Salic law, in

order to regulate the succession to the crown, it had

certainly been a long time since it had been spoken of, except

in remembrance, and upon some great occasion."

F. Guizot,

History of Civilization,

volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 9.

ALSO IN:

W. C. Perry,

The Franks,

chapter 10.

E. F. Henderson,

Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,

book 2, number 1.

SALIC LAW:

Applied to the regal succession in France.

Louis X., surnamed Hutin, king of France, died in 1316,

leaving a daughter, Jeanne, and his queen with child. The late

king's brother, Philip the Long, became regent; but when the

queen bore a son and the child died, this Philip "hastened to

Rheims, filled the Cathedral with his own followers, and

compelled the archbishop to consecrate him King [Philip V.].

Thence he returned to Paris, assembled the citizens, and, in

the presence of a great concourse of barons and notables of

the realm, declared that no female could succeed to the crown

of France. Thus began the so-called Salic Law of France,

through the determined violence of an unscrupulous man. The

lawyers round the throne, seeking to give to the act of might

the sanction of right, bethought them of that passage in the

law of the Salian Franks which declares 'That no part or

heritage of Salic land can fall to a woman'; and it is from

this that the law obtained the name of 'the Salic Law.'"

G. W. Kitchin,

History of France,

volume 1, book 3, chapter 11, sections 1-2.

"In this contest [after the death of Louis X., as mentioned

above], every way memorable, but especially on account of that

which sprung out of it, the exclusion of females from the

throne of France was first publicly discussed. … It may be

fairly inferred that the Salic law, as it was called, was not

so fixed a principle at that time as has been contended. But

however this may be, it received at the accession of Philip

the Long a sanction which subsequent events more thoroughly

confirmed. Philip himself leaving only three daughters, his

brother Charles [IV.] mounted the throne; and upon his death

the rule was so unquestionably established, that his only

daughter was excluded by the count of Valois, grandson of

Philip the Bold. This prince first took the regency, the

queen-dowager being pregnant, and, upon her giving birth to a

daughter, was crowned king [Philip of Valois]. No competitor

or opponent appeared in France; but one more formidable than

any whom France could have produced was awaiting the occasion

to prosecute his imagined right with all the resources of

valour and genius, and to carry desolation over that great

kingdom with as little scruple as if he was preferring a suit

before a civil tribunal." This was King Edward III. of

England, whose mother Isabel was the sister of the last three

French kings, and who claimed through her a right to the

French crown.

H. Hallam,

The Middle Age,

chapter 1, part 1.

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1328-1339.

SALICE, Battle of.

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

SALICES, Ad, Battle of.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 378.

SALINÆ.

A Roman town in Britain, celebrated for its salt-works and

salt-baths. Its site is occupied by modern Droitwich.

T. Wright,

Celt, Roman and Saxon,

chapter 5.

SALINAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SALINAN FAMILY.

SALISBURY, Gemot of.

William the Conqueror, while establishing feudalism in

England, "broke into its 'most essential attribute, the

exclusive dependence of a vassal upon his lord,' by requiring

in accordance with the old English practice, that all

landowners, mesne tenants as well as tenants-in-chief, should

take the oath of fealty to the King. This was formally decreed

at the celebrated Gemot held on Salisbury Plain, on the 1st of

August, 1086, at which the Witan and all the landowners of

substance in England whose vassals soever they were, attended,

to the number, it is reported, of 60,000. The statute, as soon

as passed, was carried into immediate effect."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead,

English Constitutional History,

page 55.

SALISBURY MINISTRIES, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885; 1885-1886; and 1892-1893.

SALISHAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: FLATHEADS.

SALLUVIANS.

See SALYES.

SALON, Origin of the French.

See RAMBOUILLET, HÔTEL DE.

SALONA, Ancient.

"Amidst the decay of the empire in the third century Dalmatia

suffered comparatively little; indeed, Salonae probably only

reached at that time its greatest prosperity. This, it is

true, was occasioned partly by the fact that the regenerator

of the Roman state, the emperor Diocletian, was by birth a

Dalmatian, and allowed his efforts, aimed at the

decapitalising of Rome, to redound chiefly to the benefit of

the capital of his native land; he built alongside of it the

huge palace from which the modern capital of the province

takes the name Spalato, within which it has for the most part

found a place, and the temples of which now serve it as

cathedral and as baptistery. Diocletian, however, did not make

Salonae a great city for the first time, but, because it was

such, chose it for his private residence; commerce,

navigation, and trade must at that time in these waters have

been concentrated chiefly at Aquileia and at Salonae, and the

city must have been one of the most populous and opulent towns

of the west."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 8, chapter 6.

ALSO IN;

E. A. Freeman,

Subject and Neighbor Lands of Venice.

T. G. Jackson,

Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,

chapters 1-2 and 10-12 (volumes 1-2).

{2795}

SALONICA.

The modern name of ancient Thessalonica.

See THESSALONICA.

SALONIKI, The kingdom of.

The kingdom obtained by Boniface, Marquis of Montferrat, in

the partition of the Byzantine Empire after its conquest by

the Crusaders, A. D. 1204, comprised the province of

Macedonia, with Thessalonica for its capital, and was called

the kingdom of Saloniki. Its duration was brief. In 1222 the

neighboring Greek despot of Epirus took Thessalonica and

conquered the whole kingdom. He then assumed the title of

emperor of Thessalonica, in rivalry with the Greek emperors of

Nicæa and Trebizond. The title of king of Saloniki was

cherished by the family of Montferrat for some generations;

but those who claimed it never made good their title by

possession of the kingdom.

G. Finlay,

History of Greece from the Conquest by the Crusaders,

chapter 5.

See, also, BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

SALOPIAN WARE.

Pottery manufactured by the Romans in Britain from the clay of

the Severn valley. Two sorts are found in considerable

abundance—one white, the other a light red color.

L. Jewitt,

Grave-Mounds,

page 164.

SALSBACH, Death of Turenne at (1675).

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

SALT, French tax on.

See TAILLE AND GABELLE.

SALT LAKE CITY: The founding of (1847).

See MORMONS: A. D. 1846-1848.

SALYES,

SALLUVIANS.

The Salyes or Saluvii or Salluvians, named Salvii Yalli in

Livy's Epitome, "were Ligurians or a mixed race of Celts

and Ligurians. They perhaps occupied part of the coast east

of Massilia: they certainly extended inland behind that

town to the Rhone on the west and to the north as far as

the river Druentia (Durance). They occupied the wide plain

which you may see from the highest point of the great

amphitheatre of Arelate (Arles) stretching east from

Tarascon and the Rhone as far as the eye can reach." The

Salyes were dangerous to Massilia and in 125 B. C. the

latter appealed to the Romans, as allies. The latter

responded promptly and sent Flaccus, one of the consuls, to

deal with the Salyes. He defeated them; but in two or three

years they were again in arms, and consul C. Sextius

Calvinius was sent against them. "The Salyes were again

defeated and their chief city taken, but it is uncertain

whether this capital was Arelate (ArIes) or the place

afterwards named Aquae Sextiae (Aix). … The Roman general

found in this arid country a pleasant valley well supplied

with water from the surrounding hills, and here he

established the colony named Aquae Sextiae." The chiefs of

the conquered Salyes took refuge with the Allobroges, and

that led to the subjugation of the latter (see ALLOBROGES).

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 1, chapters 17 and 21.

SALZBURG, Origin of.

"The foundation of a colony [by Hadrian] at Juvavium, or

Salzburg, which received the name of Forum Hadriani, attests

the vigilance which directed his view from the Rhine to the

Salza, and the taste, I would willingly add, which selected

for a town to bear his name the most enchanting site in

central Europe."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 66.

SALZBURGERS, The.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1734.

SALZWEDEL.

See BRANDENBURG.

SAM ADAMS REGIMENTS, The.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1770.

SAMANA, The proposed cession of.

See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.

SAMANIDES OR SAMANIANS, The.

"As the vigour of the Khalifate began to pass away, and

effeminate luxury crept imperceptibly into the palaces of

Baghdad, the distant lieutenants gradually aspired to

independence. At length, in 868 A. D., one Ya' kub-bin-Lais,

the son of a brasier in Sistan, rose in rebellion, subdued

Balkh, Kabul, and Fars, but died on his march to Baghdad. In

former days he would have been treated as an audacious rebel

against the authority of the Vicar of God; now the degenerate

Khalifah appointed his brother 'Amr his lieutenant on the

death of Ya' kub [A. D. 877], and allowed him to govern Fars,

as the founder of the Saffary, or Brasier, dynasty. Ever

fearful of the power of 'Amr, the Khalifah at length

instigated a Tatar lord, named Isma'il Samany, to raise an

army against the Saffaris, in Khurasan. 'Amr marched against

him, and crossed the Oxus, but he was entirely defeated; and

laughed heartily at a dog, who ran away with the little pot

that was preparing the humble meal of the fallen king. That

morning it had taken thirty camels to carry his kitchen

retinue. 'Amr was sent to Baghdad, and put to death in 901 A.

D. Isma'il, who traced his descent from a Persian noble who

had rebelled against Khusru Parviz, now founded the Samany [or

Samanide] dynasty, which ruled over Khurasan and the north of

Persia, with their capital at Bukhara. The Dailamy [or

Dilemite or Bouide] dynasty ruled in Fars and the south of

Persia during the same period. To the Samanians Persia owes

the restoration of its nationality, which had been oppressed

and trodden under foot by the Arabian conquerors." The

Samanide dynasty was overthrown in 998 by the founder of the

Gaznevide Empire, which succeeded.

C. R. Markham,

General Sketch of the History of Persia,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN;

Sir J. Malcolm,

History of Persia,

volume 1, chapter 6

See, also, TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

SAMARAH, Battle of.

This was the battle in which the Roman emperor Julian was

killed (June 26, A. D. 363), during the retreat from his

ill·starred expedition beyond the Tigris, against the

Persians.

G. Rawlinson,

Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 10.

----------SAMARCAND: Start--------

SAMARCAND.

Ancient Maracanda, the capital city of Sogdiana.

See SOGDIANA;

and BOKHARA.

SAMARCAND: 6th Century.

Taken from the White Huns by the Turks.

See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.

SAMARCAND: A. D. 1209-1220.

Capital of the Khuarezmian empire.

See KHUAREZM.

{2796}

SAMARCAND: A. D. 1221.

Conquest and destruction by Jingis Khan.

When Jingis Khan, the Mongol conqueror and devastator of

Central Asia, invaded the Khahrezmian Empire, Samarkand was

its capital and its most important city. "The fugitive

Khahrezmian prince had left behind him for the defence 110,000

men—i. e., 60,000 Turks and 50,000 Tadjiks—with twenty

elephants." But the Turkish mercenaries deserted in a body and

the town was surrendered after a siege of three days. "The

flourishing city of Samarkand and the fortress were laid even

with the ground; and the inhabitants; stripped of all they

possessed, shared the fate of their brethren of Bokhara. Those

who had contrived to escape were lured back by false promises;

all capable of bearing arms were compulsorily enrolled in the

Mongolian army; the artistic gardeners of the place were sent

off to the far East, where they were wanted to adorn the

future Mongolo-Chinese capital with pleasure-grounds, after

the fashion of those of Samarkand, and the celebrated

artisans, especially the silk and cotton weavers, were either

distributed as clever and useful slaves amongst the wives and

relations of Djenghiz, or else carried with him to Khorasan. A

few were sent as slaves to his sons Tchagatai and Oktai, who

were then marching on Khahrezm. This was the end, in the year

618 (1221), of Samarkand, which Arabian geographers have

described as the most brilliant and most flourishing spot on

the face of the earth."

A. Vámbéry,

History of Bokhara,

chapter 8.

"Samarkand was not only the capital of Trans-Oxiana, but also

one of the greatest entrepots of commerce in the world. Three

miles in circumference, it was surrounded with a wall having

castles at intervals, and pierced by twelve iron gates."

H. H. Howorth,

History of the Mongols,

part 1, page 79.

SAMARCAND: A. D. 1371-1405.

The capital of Timour.

See TIMOUR, THE CONQUESTS OF.

SAMARCAND: A. D. 1868.

Seizure by the Russians.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

----------SAMARCAND: End--------

SAMARIA.

SAMARITANS:

Early history.

The Kingdom of Israel.

Overthrow by the Assyrians.

See JEWS: KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

SAMARITANS:

Repopulation of the city and district by the Assyrian conqueror.

After the capture of the city of Samaria (B. C. 722) and the

deportation of a large part of its inhabitants by the Assyrian

conqueror (see as above), "these districts remained for many

years in a condition of such desolation that they were overrun

with wild beasts. In the meantime King Asarhaddon, whom we

suppose to be Asarhaddon II., having reduced afresh several

refractory towns about twenty years after the death of

Sennacherib, and wishing to inflict on their inhabitants the

favourite punishment of his predecessors, transported large

bodies of their heathen populations into these deserted

regions. … A great number of the settlers in Samaria, the

former capital, appear to have come from the Babylonian city

of Cuthah, from which arose the name of Cutheans, often

applied in derision to the Samaritans by the later Jews. Other

settlers were sent from Babylon itself," and "from the cities

on the west of the Euphrates, Hamath, Ivah, and Sepharvaim."

H. Ewald,

History of Israel,

volume 4, pages 215-216.

SAMARIA:

After the Exile.

In the second and third generations after the return of the

Judæans from exile, there began to be connections formed by

marriage with the neighboring peoples. These peoples,

"particularly the Samaritans, had given up idolatry, and were

longing earnestly and truly to take part in the divine service

at Jerusalem. They were, in fact, proselytes to the religion

of Judæa; and were they always to be sternly repulsed? The

principal Judæan families determined to admit the foreigners

into the community, and the high priest of that time, either

Jehoiakim or his son Eliashib, was ready to carry these wishes

into effect. Marriages were therefore contracted with the

Samaritans and other neighbouring people." But when Ezra and

his party came from Babylon (B. C. 459-458) bringing an access

of religious zeal and narrower interpretations of the law,

these marriages were condemned, and those who had contracted

them were forced to repudiate their foreign wives and the

children borne by such. This cruelly fanatical action changed

the friendly feeling of the Samaritans to hatred. Their

leader, Sanballat, was a man of power, and he began against

the restored Judæans a war which drove them from Jerusalem. It

was not until Nehemiah came from Susa, with the authority of

King Artaxerxes to rebuild the walls, that they recovered the

city. "The strict observance of the Law enjoined by Ezra was

followed out by Nehemiah; he strengthened the wall of

separation between Judæans and Gentiles so securely that it

was almost impossible to break through it." Sanballat, whose

son-in-law, a priest, had been exiled on account of his

Samaritan marriage, now "cunningly conceived the plan of

undermining the Judæan community, by the help of its own

members. How would it be were he to raise a temple to the God

of Israel, in rivalry to the one which held sway in

Jerusalem?" He executed his plan and the Samaritan temple was

raised on Mount Gerizim. Thus "the Samaritans had their

temple, around which they gathered; they had priests from the

house of Aaron; they compared Mount Gerizim … to Mount Moriah;

they drew the inference from the Book of the Law that God had

designed Mount Gerizim as a site for a sanctuary, and they

proudly called themselves Israelites. Sanballat and his

followers being intent upon attracting a great many Judæans to

their community, tempted them with the offer of houses and

land, and in every way helped to support them. Those who had

been guilty of crime and who feared punishment, were received

with open arms by the Samaritans. Out of such elements a new

semi-Judæan community or sect was formed. Their home was in

the somewhat limited district of Samaria, the centre of which

was either the city that gave its name to the province or the

town of Shechem. The members of the new community became an

active, vigorous, intelligent people, as if Sanballat, the

founder, had breathed his spirit into them. … They actually

tried to argue away the right of the Judæans to exist as a

community. They declared that they alone were the descendants

of Israel, and they denied the sanctity of Jerusalem and its

Temple, affirming that everything achieved by the Judæan

people was a debasement of the old Israelite character. … Upon

the Judæan side, the hatred against their Samaritan neighbours

was equally great. … The enmity between Jerusalem and Samaria

that existed in the time of the two kingdoms blazed out anew;

it no longer bore a political character, but one of a

religious tendency."

H. Graetz,

History of the Jews,

chapters 19-20 (volume 1).

{2797}

"While the Hebrew writers unanimously represent the Samaritans

as the descendants of the Cuthæan colonists introduced by

Esarhaddon, a foreign and idolatrous race, their own

traditions derive their regular lineage from Ephraim and

Manasseh, the sons of Joseph. The remarkable fact, that this

people have preserved the book of the Mosaic law in the ruder

and more ancient character, while the Jews, after the return

from Babylonia, universally adopted the more elegant Chaldean

form of letters, strongly confirms the opinion that, although

by no means pure and unmingled, the Hebrew blood still

predominated in their race. In many other respects, regard for

the Sabbath and even for the sabbatic year, and the payment of

tithes to their priests, the Samaritans did not fall below

their Jewish rivals in attachment to the Mosaic polity. The

later events in the history of the kings of Jerusalem show

that the expatriation of the ten tribes was by no means

complete and permanent: is it then an unreasonable

supposition, that the foreign colonists were lost in the

remnant of the Israelitish people, and, though perhaps slowly

and imperfectly weaned from their native superstitions, fell

by degrees into the habits and beliefs of their adopted

country? … Whether or not it was the perpetuation of the

ancient feud between the two rival kingdoms, from this period

[of the return from the captivity in Babylonia] the hostility

of the Jews and Samaritans assumed its character of fierce and

implacable animosity. No two nations ever hated each other

with more unmitigated bitterness."

H. H. Milman,

History of the Jews,

book 9.

SAMARIA:

Change of population by Alexander the Great.

After the submission of Palestine to Alexander the Great (B.

C. 332), Samaria "rebelled and murdered the Macedonian

governor, Andromachus. Alexander expelled the inhabitants, and

planted a Macedonian colony in their room—another heathen

element in the motley population of Samaria."

P. Smith,

History of the World: Ancient,

volume 3, chapter 34.

SAMARIA:

Rebuilding of the city by Herod.

One of the measures of King Herod, for strengthening himself

outside of Jerusalem, was "the rebuilding of Samaria, which he

did (B. C. 25) on a scale of great magnificence and strength,

and peopled it partly with his soldiers, partly with the

descendants of the old Samaritans, who hoped to see their

temple likewise restored." He changed the name of Samaria,

however, to Sebaste—the August.

H. H. Milman,

History of the Jews,

book 11.

SAMARIA:

Justinian's War.

The Christian zeal of the Emperor Justinian [A. D. 527-565]

induced him to undertake the forcible conversion of all

unbelievers in his empire. Among others, the Samaritans of

Palestine were offered "the alternative of baptism or

rebellion. They chose the latter: under the standard of a

desperate leader they rose in arms, and retaliated their

wrongs on the lives, the property, and the temples of a

defenceless people. The Samaritans were finally subdued by the

regular forces of the East; 20,000 were slain, 20,000 were

sold by the Arabs to the infidels of Persia and India, and the

remains of that unhappy nation atoned for the crime of treason

by the sin of hypocrisy. It has been computed that 100,000

Roman subjects were extirpated in the Samaritan war, which

converted the once fruitful province into a desolate and

smoking wilderness."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 47.

----------SAMARIA: End--------

SAMARKAND.

See SAMARCAND.

SAMBUCA, The.

A great military engine, in ancient sieges, was a species of

huge covered ladder, supported by two ships lashed together

and floated up against the sea wall of the besieged town. The

Greeks called it a Sambuca. Mithridates brought one into use

when besieging Rhodes, B. C. 88, but with disastrous failure.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 2, chapter 20.

SAMIAN WARE.

An elegant species of Roman pottery, red in color, which was

in great repute among the ancients.

SAMMARINESI, The.

The citizens of San Marino.

See SAN MARINO, THE REPUBLIC OF.

SAMNITE WARS, The.

See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

SAMNITES, The.

"The Samnite nation [see ITALY: ANCIENT], which, at the time

of the expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome, had doubtless

already been for a considerable period in possession of the

hill-country which rises between the Apulian and Campanian

plains and commands them both, had hitherto found its further

advance impeded on the one side by the Daunians, … on the

other by the Greeks and Etruscans. But the fall of the

Etruscan power towards the end of the third, and the decline

of' the Greek colonies in the course of' the fourth century

[B. C.], made room for them towards the west and south; and

now one Samnite host after another marched down to, and even

moved across, the south Italian seas. They first made their

appearance in the plain adjoining the bay, with which the name

of the Campanians has been associated from the beginning of

the fourth century; the Etruscans there were suppressed, and

the Greeks were confined within narrower bounds; Capua was

wrested from the former [B. C. 424] Cumæ from the latter [B.

C. 420]. About the same time, perhaps even earlier, the

Lucanians appeared in Magna Graecia. … Towards the end of the

fourth century mention first occurs of the separate

confederacy of the Bruttii, who had detached themselves from

the Lucanians—not, like the other Sabellian stocks, as a

colony, but through a quarrel—and had become mixed up with

many foreign elements. The Greeks of Lower Italy tried to

resist the pressure of the barbarians. … But even the union of

Magna Graecia no longer availed; for the ruler of Syracuse,

Dionysius the Elder, made common cause with the Italians

against his countrymen. … In an incredibly short time the

circle of flourishing cities was destroyed or laid desolate.

Only a few Greek settlements, such as Neapolis, succeeded with

difficulty, and more by means of treaties than by force of

arms, in preserving their existence and their nationality.

Tarentum alone remained thoroughly independent and powerful. …

About the period when Veii and the Pomptine plain came into

the hands of Rome, the Samnite hordes were already in

possession of all Lower Italy, with the exception of a few

unconnected Greek colonies, and of the Apulo-Messapian coast."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 5.

SAMO, The Kingdom of.

See AVARS: 7TH CENTURY.

{2798}

SAMOA.

Samoa is the native name of the group of twelve volcanic

islands in central Polynesea formerly known as the Navigator

Islands. Their place on the chart is between the parallels of

13° and 15° south latitude, and 168° and 173° west longitude.

The total area of the islands is about 1,700 square miles. The

population consists of about 36,000 natives and a few hundred

foreigners, English, American and German. The islands are said

to have been first visited by the Dutch navigator, Roggewein,

in 1722. A Christian mission was first established upon them

in 1830, by the London Missionary Society. After some years

the trade of the islands became important, and German traders

acquired an influence which they seem to have used to bring

about a state of civil war between rival kings. The United

States, Great Britain and Germany, at length, in 1879, by

joint action, intervened, and, after ten years more of

disturbed and unsatisfactory government, the affairs of Samoa

were finally settled at a conference of the three Powers held

in Berlin in 1889. A treaty was signed by which they jointly

guarantee the neutrality of the islands, with equal rights of

residence, trade and personal protection to the citizens of

the three signatory Powers. They recognize the independence of

the Samoan Government, and the free right of the natives to

elect their chief or king and choose the form of their

government. The treaty created a supreme court, with

jurisdiction over all questions arising under it. It stopped

the alienation of lands by the natives, excepting town lots in

Apia, the capital town; and it organized a municipal

government for Apia, with an elected council under the

presidency of a magistrate appointed by the three Powers.

Other articles impose customs duties on foreign importations,

and prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors to the natives.

Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1888 and 1889.

ALSO IN:

The Statesman's Year-Book, 1894.

R. L. Stevenson,

A Foot-note to History.

G. H. Bates,

Some Aspects of the Samoan Question,

and Our Relations to Samoa

(The Century, April and May, 1889).

----------SAMOS: Start--------

SAMOS.

SAMIANS.

The island now called Samo, lying close to the coast of Asia

Minor, in the part of the Ægean Sea which was anciently known

as the Icarian Sea. It is of considerable size, being about

eighty miles in circumference. The narrow strait which

separates it from the mainland is only about three-fourths of

a mile wide. The ancient Samians were early and important

members of the Ionian confederacy [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK

COLONIES] and acquired an early prominence among Greek

communities in navigation, commerce, colonizing enterprise and

advancement in the arts. Shortly before the Persian wars, in

the last half of the sixth century B. C. the island became

subject to a profoundly able and ambitious usurper,

Polycrates, the most famous of all the Greek "tyrants" of the

age, and under whom Samos rose to great power and great

splendor of development. "Samos was at that time the brilliant

centre of all Ionia, as far as the latter was yet untouched by

the barbarians. For such a position she was preeminently

fitted: for nowhere had the national life of the Ionians

attained to so many-sided and energetic a development as on

this particular island. … An unwearying impulse for inventions

was implanted in these islanders, and at the same time a manly

and adventurous spirit of discovery, stimulated by the dangers

of unknown seas. … Under Polycrates, Samos had become a

perfectly organized piratical state; and no ship could quietly

pursue its voyages without having first purchased a

safe-conduct from Samos. … But Polycrates intended to be

something more than a freebooter. After he had annihilated all

attempts at resistance, and made his fleet the sole naval

power of the Archipelago, he began to take steps for creating

a new and lasting establishment. The defenceless places on the

coast had to buy security by the regular payment of tribute;

under his protection they united into a body, the interests

and affairs of which came more and more to find their centre

in Samos, which from a piratical state became the federal

capital of an extensive and brilliant empire of coasts and

islands."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 2, chapter 5 (volume 2).

Two of the great works of Polycrates in Samos, the aqueduct,

for which a mountain was tunnelled, and the harbor breakwater,

were among the wonders of antiquity. The Heræum, or temple of

Here, was a third marvel. After the death of Polycrates,

treacherously murdered by the Persians, Samos became subject

to Persia. At a later time it came under the sovereignty of

Athens, and its subsequent history was full of vicissitudes.

It retained considerable importance even to Roman times.

SAMOS: B. C. 440.

Revolt from Athens.

Siege and subjugation.

See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

SAMOS: B. C. 413.

Overthrow of the oligarchy.

Concession of freedom and alliance by Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

SAMOS: B. C. 33-32.

Antony and Cleopatra.

The winter of B. C. 33-32. before the battle of Actium, was

passed by Mark Antony at Samos, in company with Cleopatra, the

Queen of Egypt. "The delicious little island was crowded with

musicians, dancers and stage players; its shores resounded

with the wanton strains of the flute and tabret."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 28.

SAMOS: A. D. 1824.

Defeat of the Turks by the Greeks.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

----------SAMOS: End--------

SAMOSATA.

See COMMAGENE.

SAMOTHRACE.

A mountainous island in the northern part of the Ægean sea, so

elevated that its highest point is over 5,000 feet above the

sea level. In ancient times it derived its chief importance

from the mysteries of the little understood worship of the

Cabiri, of which it seems to have been the chief seat.

G. S. Faber,

Mysteries of the Cabiri

"The temple and mysteries of Samothrace formed a point of

union for many men from all countries: for a great portion of

the world at that time, the temple of Samothrace was like the

Caaba of Mecca, the tomb of the prophet at Medina, or the Holy

Sepulchre at Jerusalem. Samothrace and Dodona were to the

Pelasgian nations what perhaps Delphi and Delos were to the

Hellenic world."

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on the History of Rome,

lecture 1.

SAN.

See ZOAN.

SAN ANTONIO, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

SAN CARLOS, Battle of.

See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

SAN DOMINGO, OR HAYTI.

See HAYTI.

{2799}

----------SAN FRANCISCO: Start--------

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1579.

Supposed visit by Drake.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781;

and AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1772-1776.

First exploration and naming of the Bay.

Founding of the Mission.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1846.

Possession taken by the Americans.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1846.

The naming of the Golden Gate.

The great Bay.

See GOLDEN GATE.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1848.

On the eve of the Gold discoveries.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1856.

The Vigilance Committee.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1856.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1877-1880.

Kearney and the Sand Lot Party.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.

----------SAN FRANCISCO: End--------

SAN FRANCISCO, Battle of (1879).

See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

SAN JACINTO, Battle of (1836).

See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

SAN JUAN OR NORTHWESTERN

WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

The treaty of 1846 which settled the Oregon boundary question

left still in dispute the water-boundary between the territory

of the United States and Vancouver's Island. Provision for

submitting the determination of this San Juan water-boundary

question, as it was called, to the Emperor of Germany was made

in the Treaty of Washington.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

"The Emperor, it appears, referred the arguments on both sides

to three experts, Dr. Grimm, Dr. Kiepert, and Dr. Goldschmidt,

personages among the most eminent of his subjects in

jurisprudence and in science, upon whose report he decided, on

the 21st of October, 1872, in the terms of the reference, that

the claim of the United States to have the line drawn through

the Canal de Haro is most in accordance with the true

interpretation of the treaty concluded on the 15th of June,

1846, between Great Britain and the United States. 'This

Award,' says the President's Message of December 2, 1872,

'confirms the United States in their claim to the important

archipelago of islands lying between the continent and

Vancouver's Island, which for more than 26 years … Great

Britain had contested, and leaves us, for the first time in

the history of the United States as a nation, without a

question of disputed boundary between our territory and the

possessions of Great Britain on this continent.'"

C. Cushing,

The Treaty of Washington,

page 222.

The Haro Archipelago, which formed the subject of dispute, is

a group of many islands, mostly small, but containing one of

considerable importance, namely the island of San Juan. The

combined area of the islands is about 170 square miles. The

archipelago is bounded on the north by the Canal de Haro and

the Gulf of Georgia, on the east by Rosario Strait, on the

west by the Canal de Haro, on the south by the Straits of

Fuca. The entrance to the strait called the Canal de Haro is

commanded by the Island of San Juan, which has, therefore,

been called "'the Cronstadt of the Pacific.' Its position is

such that a few batteries, skilfully placed, would render it

almost impregnable." Hence the importance attached to the

possession of this island, and especially on the part of Great

Britain, looking to the future of British Columbia. By the

decision of the Emperor of Germany the entire Archipelago

became part of the recognized territory of the United States.

Viscount Milton,

History of the San Juan Water Boundary Question [to 1869].

SAN MARINO, The Republic of.

"The Republic of San Marino is a survival unique in the

political world of Europe. … The sovereign independence of San

Marino is due to a series of happy accidents which were

crystallised into a sentiment. The origin of the State is

ascribed to a Dalmatian saint who fled from the early

persecutions at Rome and dwelt in a hermitage on Mount

Titanus. But it is impossible to believe that there was no

earlier population. The mountain is a detached block standing

free of the Apennines,—a short twelve miles from the

sea-coast, easily defensible and commanding a fertile

undulating district. The hill-villages must have existed

before the towns of the coast. As old as Illyrian pirates were

the highland townships of Verrucchio, San Leo, Urbino, Osimo,

Loretto, and above all San Marino. Yet, but for the saint and

his noble benefactress Felicitá, San Marino would have shared

the fate of other highland communes. This lady was a Countess

Matilda on a small scale. She gave to the young congregation

the proprietorship of the mountain, and the lower table-land

was acquired by subsequent purchase and by the generosity of

Pope Æneas Sylvius. But Felicitá could not give

sovereignty,—she could give no more than she possessed. The

sovereignty had rested with the Roman Republic—the Empire—the

Goths —the Greeks—the Germans. The Papacy itself had as much

claim to San Marino as to anything which it possessed. It was

included at all events in the donation of Pepin. In the

Pontificate of John XXII. the Bishop of Feltro, who claimed

the ownership of the town, proposed to sell it, partly because

he needed money to restore his church, partly because the

Sammarinesi were rebellious subjects,—'not recognising

superiors here on earth, and perchance not believing upon a

superior in heaven.' Yet the Papacy appears in the 13th

century to have accepted a judicial decision as to the

sovereign independence of the Republic, and Pius II.

considerably increased its territory in 1463 at the expense of

Sigismund Malatesta. The sovereignty of San Marino is

therefore almost as complete a puzzle as that of the

mysterious Royaume d' Yvetot. … The Malatestas, originally

lords of the neighboring upland fortress of Verrucchio would

willingly have made the whole ridge the backbone of their

State of Rimini. But this very fact secured for the

Sammarinesi the constant friendship of the lords of Urbino. …

Neither power could allow the other to appropriate so

invaluable a strategic position. … The existing constitution

is a living lesson on medieval history. … Theoretically,

sovereignty in the last resort belongs to the people, and of

old this was practically exercised by the Arengo, which thus

has some correspondence in meaning and functions to the

Florentine Parlamento. The Sammarinesi, however, were wiser

than the Florentines. When the increase of population and

territory rendered a gathering of the whole people an

incompetent engine of legislation, the Arengo was not allowed

to remain as a mischievous survival with ill-defined authority

at the mercy of the governmental wire-pullers. The prerogatives

which were reserved to the Arengo were small but definite. …

It was after the accession of territory granted by Pius II. in

1465 that the constitution of the State was fundamentally

altered. …

{2800}

The people now delegated its sovereignty to the Council, which

was raised to 60 members. … In 1600 an order of Patricians was

established, to which was given one-third of the

representation, and the Council now consists of 20 'nobili,'

20 'artisti,' artisans and shopkeepers, and 20 'contadini,'

agriculturists. The harmony of the Republic is undisturbed by

general elections, for the Council is recruited by

co-optation. … At the head of the Executive stand the two

Captains Regent. To them the statutes assign the sovereign

authority and the power of the sword. … They draw a small

salary, and during their six months of office are free from

all State burdens."

E. Armstrong,

A Political Survival

(Macmillan's Magazine, Jan., 1891).

"Between this miniature country and its institutions there is

a delicious disproportion. The little area of thin soil has

for centuries maintained a complicated government. … There is

a national post-office; there is an army of nine hundred and

fifty men and eight officers; there are diplomatic agents in

Paris and Montevideo, and consuls in various European cities.

Services rendered to the State or to science may be rewarded

by knighthood, and so late as 1876 San Marino expressed its

gratitude to an English lady for her gift of a statue of

liberty, by making her Duchess of Acquaviva. Titles are by no

means the most undemocratic part of the republic. On

examination it is seen to be in fact an oligarchy. … Yet an

oligarchy among yeoman farmers is a very different thing from

an oligarchy among merchant princes. San Marino may be

compared with colonial Massachusetts. The few voters have

always really represented the mass of the people. It has been

a singularly united, courageous, honorable, public·spirited,

and prudent people. Union was possible because it was and is a

poor community, in which there were no powerful families to

fight and expel each other, or exiles to come back with an

enemy's army. The courage of the people is shown by their

hospitality to Garibaldi when he was fleeing after his defeat

of 1849. An excellent moral fibre was manifested when, in

1868, the Republic refused to receive the gambling

establishments which had been made illegal in other countries.

The new town-hall is a monument to the enlightened public

spirit of the San Marinese, as well as to their taste. That

the State is prudent is shown by its distinction, almost

unique in Europe, of having no public debt. Other little

states in Europe have had similar good qualities, yet have

long since been destroyed. Why has San Marino outlived them

all? … The perpetuation of the government is due in the first

place to it singular freedom from any desire to extend its

borders. The outlying villages have been added by gift or by

their own free will; and when, in 1797, General Bonaparte

invited the San Marinese to make their wishes known, 'if any

part of the adjacent territory is absolutely necessary to

you,' the hard-headed leaders declined 'an enlargement which

might in time compromise their liberty.' On the other hand,

the poor town had nothing worth plundering, and annexation was

so difficult a task that Benedict XIV. said of Cardinal

Alberoni's attempt in 1739: 'San Marino is a tough

bread-crust; the man who tries to bite it gets his teeth

broken.' Nevertheless, even peaceful and inoffensive

communities were not safe during the last twelve centuries,

without powerful protectors. The determining reason for the

freedom of San Marino since 1300 has been the friendship of

potentates, first of the neighboring Dukes of Urbino, then of

the Popes, then of Napoleon, then of Italy. … When the kingdom

of Italy was formed in 1860, no one cared to erase from the

map a state which even the Pope had spared, and in which

Europe was interested. Hence the San Marinese retained a

situation comparable with that of the native states in India.

A 'consolato' of the Italian Government resides in the town;

the schools are assimilated to the Italian system; appeals may

be had from the courts to the Italian upper courts, and

precautions are taken to prevent the harboring of refugee

criminals. Yet of the old sovereignty four important incidents

are retained. San Marino has a post-office, a kind of national

plaything; but the rare and beautiful stamps are much prized

by collectors, and doubtless the sale helps the coffers of the

state. The San Marinese manage, and well manage, their own

local affairs, without any annoying interference from an

Italian prefect. They owe no military service to Italy, and

their own militia is no burden. Above all, they pay no taxes

to Italy. If I were an Italian, I should like to be a San

Marinese."

A. B. Hart,

The Ancient Commonwealth of San Marino

(The Nation, February 1, 1894).

SAN MARTIN, General Jose de,

The liberation of Chile and Peru.

See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818;

and PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

SAN MARTINO, Battle of (1859).

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

SAN SALVADOR, Bahamas.

The name given by Columbus to the little island in the Bahama

group which he first discovered, and the identity of which is

in dispute.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.

SAN SALVADOR, Central America: A. D. 1821-1871.

Independence of Spain.

Brief annexation to Mexico.

Attempted Federations and their failure.

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

SAN STEFANO, Treaty of.

See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878, and 1878.

SANCHO I., King of Aragon, A. D. 1063-1094;

SANCHO IV. of Navarre, A. D. 1076-1094.

SANCHO I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 955-967.

SANCHO I., King of Navarre, 905-925.

SANCHO I., King of Portugal, 1185-1211.

SANCHO II., King of Castile, 1065-1072.

SANCHO II. (called The Great), King of Navarre, 970-1035;

and I. of Castile, 1026-1035.

SANCHO II., King of Portugal, 1223-1244.

SANCHO III., King of Castile, 1157-1158.

Sancho III., King of Navarre, 1054-1076.

SANCHO IV., King of Leon and Castile, 1284-1295.

SANCHO V., King of Navarre, 1150-1194.

SANCHO VI., King of Navarre, 1194-1236.

SAND LOT PARTY, The.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.

{2801}

SANDEMANIANS.

Robert Sandeman "was a Scotchman who held peculiar religious

views: such as—that an intellectual belief would ensure

salvation, without faith; and that this intellectual belief

was certain to induce Christian virtues. He held these so

strongly and urgently that he made a small sect; and in 1764

he came to Connecticut, and founded churches at Danbury and at

some other places, where his followers were called

'Sandemanians,' and where some traces of them exist still. …

The followers of Robert Sandeman were nearly all Loyalists [at

the time of the American Revolution], and many of them

emigrated from Connecticut to New Brunswick."

C. W. Elliott,

The New England History.,

volume 2. page 370.

SANDJAKS,

SANJAKS.

See BEY; also TIMAR.

SANDJAR, Seljuk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1116-1157.

SANDWICH ISLANDS, The.

See HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.

SANGALA.

An ancient city in the Punjab, India, which was the

easternmost of all the conquests of Alexander the Great. He

took the town by storm (B. C. 326), slaying 17,000 of the

inhabitants and taking 70,000 captives.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 94.

SANHEDRIM, The.

"Beside the priesthood [of the Jewish church], ever since the

time of Ezra, there had been insensibly growing a body of

scholars, who by the time of Herod had risen to a distinct

function of the State. Already under John Hyrcanus there was a

judicial body known as the House of Judgment (Beth Din). To

this was given the Macedonian title of Synedrion [or

Synhedrion], transformed into the barbarous Hebrew word

Sanhedrim, or Sanhedrin."

Dean Stanley,

Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,

lecture 50.

"The Sanhedrin was the great court of judicature; it judged of

all capital offences against the law; it had the power of

inflicting punishment by scourging and by death. … The Great

Sanhedrin was a court of appeal from the inferior Sanhedrins

of twenty-three judges established in the other towns. The

Sanhedrin was probably confined to its judicial duties —it was

a plenary court of justice, and no more during the reigns of

the later Asmonean princes, and during those of Herod the

Great and his son Archelaus. … When Judæa became a Roman

province, the Sanhedrin either, as is more likely, assumed for

the first time, or recovered its station as a kind of senate

or representative body of the nation. … At all events, they

seem to have been the channel of intercourse between the Roman

rulers and the body of the people. It is the Sanhedrin, under

the name of the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the

people, who take the lead in all the transactions recorded in

the Gospels. Jesus Christ was led before the Sanhedrin, and by

them denounced before the tribunal of Pilate."

H. H. Milman,

History of the Jews,

book 12.

SANHIKANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SANITARY COMMISSION,

and Christian Commission, The United States.

"Soon after Mr. Lincoln issued his proclamation [April 15,

1861, at the outbreak of the American Civil War] … calling for

75,000 soldiers, many good men and women instituted what they

termed 'Soldiers' Aid Societies.' At first the government did

not look upon these with approval, under an apprehension that

they might interfere with the discipline and efficiency of the

armies. Certain physicians and clergymen who had interested

themselves in these charitable undertakings perceived how much

good could be accomplished by a more extensive and thorough

organization. Seeking no remuneration, they applied to the

government to give them recognition and moral support, and,

after some difficulty, this being secured, they organized

themselves and were recognized as 'the United States Sanitary

Commission.' The Reverend Henry W. Bellows, D. D., was its

president. Their intention was to aid by their professional

advice the medical department of the government service; but

soon, the field opening out before them, their operations were

greatly enlarged. From being simply an advisory, they became

more and more an executive body. … The Sanitary Commission now

entered on an extraordinary career of usefulness. It ranged

itself in affiliation with the government medical bureau. It

gathered supporters from all classes of the people. … Soon the

commission had an independent transportation of its own. It

had hospital transports, wagons, ambulances, railroad

ambulances, cars. Ingenious men devised for it inventions of

better litters, better stretchers, better ambulances. It

secured comfortable transportation for the wounded soldier

from the battle-field to the hospital. On the railroad it soon

had its hospital cars, with kitchen, dispensary, and a

surgeon's car in the midst. As its work increased, so did its

energies and the singular efficiency of its organization. It

divided its services into several departments of duty.

(1.) Its preventive service, or sanitary inspection

department, had a corps of medical inspectors, who examined

thoroughly troops in the field, and reported their condition

and needs to its own officers and to the government. It had

also a corps of special hospital inspectors, who visited the

general hospitals of the army, nearly 300 in number, their

reports being confidential, and sent to the surgeon general of

the army.

(2.) Its department of general relief. This consisted of

twelve branches of the general commission, having depots in

the large towns, each branch having from 150 to 1,200

auxiliaries engaged in obtaining supplies. These were sent to

the main depot, and there assorted, repacked, and dispatched.

One of these branches, the 'Woman's Central Association,'

collected stores to the value of over a million of dollars;

another, the Northwestern, at Chicago, furnished more than a

quarter of a million. Care was taken to have no waste in the

distribution. Soldiers of all the states were equally

supplied; and even wounded enemies left on the field, or sick

and abandoned in the hospitals, were tenderly cared for.

(3.) Its department of special relief. This took under its

charge soldiers not yet under, or just out of the care of the

government; men on sick leave, or found in the streets, or

left by their regiments. For such it furnished 'homes.' About

7,500 men were, on an average, thus daily or nightly

accommodated. It also had 'lodges' wherein a sick soldier

might stay while awaiting his pay from the paymaster general,

or, if unable to reach a hospital, might stop for a time.

Still more, it had 'Homes for the Wives, Mothers, and Children

of Soldiers.' where those visiting the wounded or sick man to

minister to his necessities might find protection, defense,

food, shelter. It had its 'Feeding Stations,' where a tired

and hungry soldier passing by could have a gratuitous meal. On

the great military lines these stations were permanently

established. On the chief rivers, the Mississippi, the

Cumberland, the Potomac, it had 'sanitary steamers' for

transmitting supplies and transporting the sick and wounded.

It established 'agencies' to see that no injustice was done to

any soldier; that the soldier, his widow, his orphan, obtained

pensions, back pay, bounties, or whatever money was due; that

any errors in their papers were properly corrected, and

especially that no sharper took advantage of them. It

instituted hospital directories by which the friends of a

soldier could obtain information without cost as to his place

and condition, if within a year he had been an inmate of any

hospital. It had such a record of not less than 900,000 names.

Whenever permitted to do so, it sent supplies to the United

States prisoners of war in confinement at Andersonville,

Salisbury, Richmond. …

{2802}

(4.) Its department of field relief. The duty of this was to

minister to the wounded on the field of battle; to furnish

bandages, cordials, nourishment; to give assistance to the

surgeons, and to supply any deficiencies it could detect in

the field hospitals. It had a chief inspector for the armies

of the East; another for the Military Department of the

Mississippi, with a competent staff for each.

(5.) Its auxiliary relief corps. This supplied deficiencies in

personal attendance and work in the hospitals, or among the

wounded on the field. Between May, 1864, when it was first

organized, and January, 1865, it gave its services to more

than 75,000 patients. It waited on the sick and wounded; wrote

letters for them, gave them stationery, postage stamps,

newspapers, and whiled away the heavy hours of suffering by

reading magazines and books to them. To the Sanitary

Commission the government gave a most earnest support; the

people gave it their hearts. They furnished it with more than

three millions of dollars in money, of which one million came

from the Pacific States; they sent it nine millions' worth of

supplies. From fairs held in its interest very large sums were

derived. One in New York yielded a million and a quarter of

dollars; one in Philadelphia more than a million. In towns

comparatively small, there were often collected at such fairs

more than twenty thousand dollars. … The Christian Commission

emulated the noble conduct of the United States Sanitary

Commission. It, too, received the recognition and countenance

of the government. Its object was to promote the physical and

spiritual welfare of soldiers and sailors. Its central office

was in Philadelphia, but it had agencies in all the large

towns. 'It aided the surgeon, helped the chaplain, followed

the armies in their marches, went into the trenches and along

the picket-line. Wherever there was a sick, a wounded, a dying

man, an agent of the Christian Commission was near by.' It

gave Christian burial whenever possible; it marked the graves

of the dead. It had its religious services, its little

extemporized chapels, its prayer-meetings. The American Bible

Society gave it Bibles and Testaments; the Tract Society its

publications. The government furnished its agents and supplies

free transportation; it had the use of the telegraph for its

purposes. Steamboat and railroad companies furthered its

objects with all their ability. It distributed nearly five

millions of dollars in money and supplies."

J. W. Draper,

History of the American Civil War,

chapter 87 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

L. P. Brockett,

Woman's Work in the Civil War.

Mrs. M, A. Livermore,

My Story of the War.

K. P. Wormeley,

The Other Side of the War.

The Sanitary Commission: its Works and Purposes.

J. S. Newberry,

The U. S. Sanitary Commission in the Mississippi Valley.

L. Moss,

Annals of the United States Christian Commission.

SANITARY SCIENCE AND LEGISLATION.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY.

SANJAKS,

SANDJAKS.

See BEY; also TIMAR.

SANQUHAR DECLARATION, The.

The Declaration affixed by the Cameronians to the market-cross

of Sanquhar, in 1680, renouncing allegiance to King Charles

II.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.

SANS ARCS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

SANSCULOTTES.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER).

SANSCULOTTIDES. of the French Republican Calendar, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)

THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

SANSKRIT.

"The name Sanskrit as applied to the ancient language of the

Hindus is an artificial designation for a highly elaborated

form of the language originally brought by the Indian branch

of the great Aryan race into India. This original tongue soon

became modified by contact with the dialects of the aboriginal

races who preceded the Aryans, and in this way converted into

the peculiar language ('bhasha') of the Aryan immigrants who

settled in the neighbourhood of the seven rivers of the Panjab

and its outlying districts ('Sapta-Sindhavas'=in Zand 'Hapta

Hendu'). The most suitable name for the original language thus

moulded into the speech of the Hindus is Hindu-i (= Sindhu-i),

its principal later development being called Hindi, just as

the Low German dialect of the Saxons when modified in England

was called Anglo-Saxon. But very soon that happened in India

which has come to pass in all civilized countries. The spoken

language, when once its general form and character had been

settled, separated into two lines, the one elaborated by the

learned, the other popularized and variously provincialized by

the unlearned. In India, however, … this separation became

more marked, more diversified, and progressively intensified.

Hence, the very grammar which with other nations was regarded

only as a means to an end, came to be treated by Indian

Pandits as the end itself, and was subtilized into an

intricate science, fenced around by a bristling barrier of

technicalities. The language, too, elaborated 'pari passu'

with the grammar, rejected the natural name of Hindu-i, or

'the speech of the Hindus,' and adopted an artificial

designation, viz. Sanskrita, 'the perfectly constructed

speech,' … to denote its complete severance from vulgar

purposes, and its exclusive dedication to religion and

literature; while the name Prakrita—which may mean 'the

original' as well as 'the derived' speech—was assigned to the

common dialect."

M. Williams,

Indian Wisdom.,

introduction, page xxviii.

SANTA ANNA, The career of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826, to 1848-1861,

and TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

SANTA HERMANDAD.

See HOLY BROTHERHOOD.

SANTA INES, Battle of (1859).

See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

{2803}

SANTA LUCIA, Battle of (1848).

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

SANTALS, The.

See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

SANTAREM, Battle of (1184).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

SANTEES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

SANTIAGO, The founding of the city (1541).

See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

SANTIAGO. OR ST. JAGO, Knights of the Order of.

See CALATRAVA.

SANTONES, The.

See PICTONES.

SAPAUDIA.

The early name of Savoy.

See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.

SAPEIRES, The.

See IBERIANS, EASTERN.

SAPIENZA, OR PORTOLONGO; Battle of (1354).

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

SARACENIC EMPIRE.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

SARACENIC SCHOOLS.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

SARACENS, The name.

"From Mecca to the Euphrates, the Arabian tribes were

confounded by the Greeks and Latins under the general

appellation of Saracens. … The name which, used by Ptolemy and

Pliny in a more confined, by Ammianus and Procopius in a

larger, sense, has been derived, ridiculously, from Sarah, the

wife of Abraham, obscurely from the village of Saraka, … more

plausibly from the Arabic words which signify a thievish

character, or Oriental situation. … Yet the last and most

popular of these etymologies is refuted by Ptolemy (Arabia, p.

2. 18. in Hudson, tom. iv.), who expressly remarks the western

and southern position of the Saracens, then an obscure tribe

on the borders of Egypt. The appellation cannot, therefore,

allude to any national character; and, since it was imposed by

strangers, it must be found, not in the Arabic, but in a

foreign language."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 50, and note.

"Dr. Clarke (Travels, volume ii., page 391) after expressing

contemptuous pity for Gibbon's ignorance, derives the word

from Zara, Zaara, Sara, the Desert, whence Saraceni, the

children of the Desert. De Marlès adopts the derivation from

Sarrik, a robber, History des Arabes, volume 1, page 36; St.

Martin from Scharkioun, or Sharkün, Eastern, volume xi., page

55."

H. Milman,

note to Gibbon, as above.

The Kadmonites "are undoubtedly what their name expresses,

Orientals, Saracens, otherwise B'ne Kedem,' or Suns of the

East; a name restricted in practice to the cast contiguous to

Palestine, and comprising only the Arabian nations dwelling

between Palestine and the Euphrates. … The name Saraceni was

in use among the Romans long before Islam, apparently from the

time of Trajan's and Hadrian's wars."

H. Ewald,

History of Israel,

introduction, section 4, with foot-note (volume 1).

In the Middle Ages the term Saracen became common in its

application to the Arabs, and, in fact, to the Mahometan races

pretty generally.

See ROME: A. D. 96-138.

----------SARAGOSSA: Start--------

SARAGOSSA:

Origin.

See CÆSAR-AUGUSTA.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 543.

Siege by the Franks.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

SARAGOSSA: A. D, 713.

Siege and conquest by the Arab-Moors.

See SPAIN: A. D.711-713.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 778.

Siege by Charlemagne.

See SPAIN: A. D. 778.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1012-1146.

The seat of a Moorish kingdom.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1710.-

Defeat of the Spaniards by the Allies.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1808.

Fruitless siege by the French.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1808-1809.

Siege and capture by the French.

Extraordinary defense of the city.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1809.

Siege by the French.

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

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1809.

Battle and Spanish defeat.

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

----------SARAGOSSA: End--------

SARANGIANS.

The name given by Herodotus to a warlike people who dwelt

anciently on the shores of the Hamun and in the Valley of the

Hilmend—southwestern Afghanistan. By the later Greeks they

were called Zarangians and Drangians; by the Persians Zaraka.

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5).

SARATOGA, Burgoyne's surrender at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D.1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

SARATOGA, The proposed State of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

SARCEES (TINNEH).

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

BLACKFEET, AND ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

----------SARDINIA: Start--------

SARDINIA (The Island): Name and early history.

"The name of the island 'Sardo' is derived with probability

from the Phœnician, and describes its resemblance to the human

footstep. … Diodorus reckons this island among the places to

which the Phœnicians sent colonies, after they had enriched

themselves by the silver of Spain. … What the primitive

population of the island was, which the Phœnicians found there

when they touched at its southern ports on their way to Spain,

whether it had come from the coast of Italy, or Africa, we can

only conjecture. In historical times it appears to have been

derived from three principal sources,—immigrations from

Africa, represented by the traditions of Sardus and Aristæus;

from Greece, represented by Iolaus, and from the south and

south-east of Spain, represented by Norax. … The name Norax

has evidently a reference to those singular remains of ancient

architecture, the Nuraghi of Sardinia,—stone towers in the

form of a truncated cone, with a spiral staircase in the

thickness of the wall, which to the number of 3,000 are

scattered over the island, chiefly in the southern and western

parts. Nothing entirely analogous to these has been found in

any other part of the world; but they resemble most the

Athalayas [or Talajots] of Minorca, whose population was

partly Iberian, partly Libyan. … The Carthaginians, at the

time when their naval power was at its height, in the sixth

and fifth centuries B. C., subdued all the level country, the

former inhabitants taking refuge among the mountains, where

their manners receded towards barbarism."

J. Kenrick,

Phœnicia,

chapter 4, section 3.

SARDINIA: A. D. 1017.

Conquest from the Saracens by the Pisans and Genoese.

See PISA: ORIGIN OF THE CITY.

{2804}

SARDINIA: A. D. 1708.

Taken by the Allies.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

SARDINIA: A. D. 1713.

Ceded to the Elector of Bavaria with the title of King.

See UTRECHT: A.D. 1712-1714.

SARDINIA: A. D. 1714.

Exchanged with the emperor for the Upper Palatinate.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SARDINIA: A. D. 1717.

Retaken by Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

SARDINIA: A. D. 1719.

Given up by Spain and acquired by the Duke of Savoy in

exchange for Sicily, giving its name to his kingdom.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;

also ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

----------SARDINIA: End--------

----------SARDINIA (The Kingdom): Start--------

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1742.

The king joins Austria in the War of the Austrian Succession.

See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1743.

Treaty of Worms, with Austria and England.

See ITALY: A. D. 1743.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1743.

The Bourbon Family Compact against the king.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1774.

The War of the Austrian Succession:

French and Spanish invasion of Piedmont.

See ITALY: A. D. 1744.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1745.

The War of the Austrian Succession:

Overwhelming reverses.

See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1746-1747.

The War of the Austrian Succession:

The French and Spaniards driven out.

See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1748.

Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.

See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1792.

Annexation of Savoy and Nice to the French Republic.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1793.

Joined in the Coalition against Revolutionary France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1794.

Passes of the Alps secured by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1795.

French victory at Loano.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1796.

Submission to the French under Bonaparte.

Treaty of peace.

Cession of Savoy to the Republic.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1798.

Piedmont taken by the French.

Its sovereignty relinquished by the king.

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

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1799.

French evacuation of Piedmont.

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

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1800.

Recovery of Piedmont by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1802.

Annexation of part of Piedmont to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1814-1815.

The king recovers his kingdom.

Annexation of Genoa.

Cession of part of Savoy to France.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF:

also FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1815.

Accession to the Holy Alliance.

See HOLY ALLIANCE.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1820-1821.

Abortive revolutionary rising and war with Austria.

The defeat at Novara.

See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1831.

Death of Charles Felix.

Accession of Charles Albert.

See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1848-1849.

Alliance with insurgent Lombardy and Venetia.

War with Austria.

Defeat.

Abdication of Charles Albert.

Accession of Victor Emmanuel II.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1855.

In the Alliance of the Crimean War against Russia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1856-1870.

The great work of Count Cavour and King Victor Emmanuel.

Liberation of the whole Peninsula and

creation of the kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, to 1867-1870.

----------SARDINIA (The Kingdom): End--------

SARDIS.

When Cyrus the Great founded the Persian empire by the

overthrow of that of the Medes, B. C. 558, his first

enterprise of conquest, outside of the Median dominion, was

directed against the kingdom of Lydia, then, under its famous

king Crœsus, dominant in Asia Minor and rapidly increasing in

wealth and power. After an indecisive battle, Crœsus retired

to his capital city, Sardis, which was then the most splendid

city of Asia Minor, and was followed by Cyrus, who captured

and plundered the town, at the end of a siege of only fourteen

days. The fall of Sardis was the fall of the Lydian kingdom,

which was absorbed into the great empire of Persia.

G. Rawlinson,

Five Great Monarchies: Persia,

chapter 7.

Fifty-eight years later (about 500 B. C.) at the beginning of

the Ionian Revolt, when the Greek cities of Asia Minor

attempted to throw off the Persian yoke, Sardis was again

plundered and burned by an invading force of Ionians and

Athenians.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 14.

See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

SARGASSO SEA, The.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.

SARISSA, The.

See PHALANX.

SARK, Battle of (1448).

This was a severe defeat inflicted by the Scots upon an

English force, invading Scottish territory, under Lord Percy.

The English lost 3,000 men and Percy was taken prisoner.

Sir W. Scott,

History of Scotland.

chapter 19.

SARMATIA.

SARMATIANS.

"The Scythians of the time of Herodotus were separated only by

the river Tanais [modern Don] from the Sarmatians, who

occupied the territory for several days' journey north-cast of

the Palus Mæôtis; on the south, they were divided by the

Danube from the section of Thracians called Getæ. Both these

nations were nomadic, analogous to the Scythians in habits,

military efficiency, and fierceness. Indeed, Herodotus and

Hippokrates distinctly intimate that the Sarmatians were

nothing but a branch of Scythians, speaking a Scythian

dialect, and distinguished from their neighbours on the other

side of the Tanais chiefly by this peculiarity,—that the women

among them were warriors hardly less daring and expert than

the men."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 17.

The Sarmatians ultimately gave their name to the whole region

of northeastern Europe, and some writers have considered them

to be, not Scythic or Mongolic in race, but progenitors of the

modern Slavonic family. "By Sarmatia [Tacitus] seems to have

understood what is now Moldavia and Wallachia, and perhaps

part of the south of Russia."

Church and Brodribb,

Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus.

See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

{2805}

SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS.

It was during the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus that the

inroads of the barbarians along the Danubian frontier of the

Roman Empire began to be seriously frequent and bold. "It is

represented as a simultaneous, and even a combined attack, of

all the races on the northern frontier, who may be ranged

under the three national divisions of Germans, Scythians, and

Sarmatians; though we may question the fact of an actual

league among tribes so many, so various, and so distant." The

Marcomanni and the Quadi on the upper Danube, and the

Sarmatian tribes on the lower, were the prominent intruders,

and the campaigns which Aurelius conducted against them, A. D.

167-180, are generally called either the Marcomannian or the

Sarmatian Wars. During these thirteen years, the noblest of

all monarchs surrendered repeatedly the philosophic calm which

he loved so well, and gave himself to the hateful business of

frontier war, vainly striving to arrest in its beginning the

impending flood of barbaric invasion. Repeatedly, he won the

semblance of a peace with the unrelenting foe, and as

repeatedly it was broken. He died in his soldier's harness, at

Vindobona (Vienna), and happily did not live to witness the

peace . which Rome, in the end, stooped to buy from the foes

she had no more strength to overcome.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 68.

ALSO IN:

P. B. Watson,

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,

chapters 4-6.

See, also, THUNDERING LEGION.

SARN HELEN, The.

A Roman road running through Wales, called by the Welsh the

Sarn Helen, or road of Helen, from a notion that the Empress

Helena caused it to be made.

T. Wright,

Celt, Roman and Saxon,

chapter 5.

SARPI, Fra Paolo, and the contest of Venice with the Papacy.

See VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607.

SARRE-LOUIS: A. D. 1680.

The founding of the city.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

SARUS, Battle of the.

One of the victories of the Emperor Heraclius,

A. D. 625, in his war with the Persians.

G. Rawlinson,

Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 24.

SASKATCHEWAN, The district of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

SASSANIAN DYNASTY.

Artaxerxes I., who resurrected the Persian empire, or called a

new Persian empire into existence, A. D. 226, by the overthrow

of the Parthian monarchy and the subjection of its dominions,

founded a dynasty which took the name of the Sassanian, or the

family of the Sassanidæ, from one Sasan, who, according to

some accounts was the father, according to others a remoter

progenitor of Artaxerxes. This second Persian monarchy is,

itself, often called the Sassanian, to distinguish it from the

earlier Achæmenian Persian empire.

G. Rawlinson,

Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy.

See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

SASTEAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SASTEAN FAMILY.

SATOLLI, Apostolic Delegate in America.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1892.

SATRAP.

SATRAPIES.

Darius Hystaspis "has been well called 'the true founder of

the Persian state.' He found the Empire a crude and

heterogeneous mass of ill-assorted elements, hanging loosely

together by the single tie of subjection to a common head; he

left it a compact and regularly organized body, united on a

single well-ordered system, permanently established

everywhere. … It was the first, and probably the best,

instance of that form of government which, taking its name

from the Persian word for provincial ruler, is known generally

as the system of 'satrapial' administration. Its main

principles were, in the first place, the reduction of the

whole Empire to a quasi-uniformity by the substitution of one

mode of governing for several; secondly, the substitution of

fixed and definite burthens on the subject in lieu of variable

and uncertain calls; and thirdly, the establishment of a

variety of checks and counterpoises among the officials to

whom it was necessary that the crown should delegate its

powers. … The authority instituted by Darius was that of his

satraps. He divided the whole Empire into a number of separate

governments—a number which must have varied at different

times, but which seems never to have fallen short of twenty.

Over each government he placed a satrap, or supreme civil

governor, charged with the collection and transmission of the

revenue, the administration of justice, the maintenance of

order, and the general supervision of the territory. These

satraps were nominated by the king at his pleasure from any

class of his subjects, and held office for no definite term,

but simply until recalled, being liable to deprivation or

death at any moment, without other formality than the

presentation of the royal 'firman.' While, however, they

remained in office they were despotic—they represented the

Great King, and were clothed with a portion of his majesty. …

They wielded the power of life and death. They assessed the

tribute on the several towns and villages within their

jurisdiction at their pleasure, and appointed deputies—called

sometimes, like themselves, satraps—over cities or districts

within their province, whose office was regarded as one of

great dignity. … Nothing restrained their tyranny but such

sense of right as they might happen to possess, and the fear

of removal or execution if the voice of complaint reached the

monarch."

G. Rawlinson,

Five Great Monarchies: Persia,

chapter 7.

SATTAGYDÆ, The.

See GEDROSIANS.

SATURNALIA, The Roman.

"The Saturnalia, first celebrated in Rome at the dedication

[of the temple of Saturn, on the southern slope of the

Capitoline Hill] … extended originally over three, but finally

over seven days, during which all social distinctions were

ignored; slaves were admitted to equality with their masters;

and the chains which the emancipated from slavery used to

hang, as thanksgiving, on or below the statue of the god, were

taken down to intimate that perfect freedom had been enjoyed

by all alike under the thrice-happy Saturnian reign. Varro

mentions the practice of sending wax tapers as presents during

this festival; and when we remember the other usage of

suspending wax masks, during the Saturnalia, in a chapel

beside the temple of the beneficent Deity, the analogies

between these equalizing fêtes and the modern Carnival become

more apparent."

C. I. Hemans,

Historic and Monumental Rome,

chapter 6.

SAUCHIE BURN, Battle of (1488).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.

{2806}

SAUCY CASTLE.

See CHÂTEAU GAILLARD.

SAUK, OR SAC, Indians.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS.

SAULCOURT, Battle of (A. D. 881).

A notable defeat inflicted upon the invading Northmen or Danes

in 881 by the French king Louis III., one of the last of the

Carolingian line. The battle is commemorated in a song which

is one of the earliest specimens of Teutonic verse.

Sir F. Palgrave,

History of Normandy and England,

book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

SAULT STE. MARIE, The Jesuit mission at.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

SAULTEUR, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OJIBWAYS.

SAUMUR: Stormed by the Vendeans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE).

SAUROMATÆ, The.

See SCYTHIANS.

SAVAGE STATION, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1732.

The founding of the city.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1775-1776.

Activity of the Liberty Party.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1775-1777.

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1778.

Taken and occupied by the British.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1778-1779 WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH.

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1779.

Unsuccessful attack by the French and Americans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1861.

Threatened by the Union forces, in occupation of the islands

at the mouth of the river.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH

CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1862.

Reduction of Fort Pulaski by the national forces,

and sealing up of the port.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1864.

Confederate evacuation.

Sherman in possession.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

SAVANNAHS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SAVENAY, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER) THE CIVIL WAR.

SAVERNE:

Taken by Duke Bernhard (1636).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

SAVERY, Thomas, and the Steam Engine.

See STEAM ENGINE.

SAVONA, The Pope at.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

SAVONAROLA, in Florence.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT:

The founding of the Burgundian kingdom in Savoy.

See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11th Century.

The founders of the House of Savoy.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11-15th Centuries.

Rise and growth of the dominions of the Savoyard princes,

in Italy and the Burgundian territory.

Creation of the duchy.

Assumption of the title of Princes of Piedmont.

"The cradle of the Savoyard power lay in the Burgundian lands

immediately bordering upon Italy and stretching on both sides

of the Alps. It was to their geographical position, as holding

several great mountain passes, that the Savoyard princes owed

their first importance, succeeding therein in some measure to

the Burgundian kings themselves. The early stages of the

growth of the house are very obscure; and its power does not

seem to have formed itself till after the union of Burgundy

with the Empire. But it seems plain that, at the end of the

11th century, the Counts of Maurienne, which was their

earliest title, held rights of sovereignty in the Burgundian

districts of Maurienne, Savoy strictly so called, Tarantaise,

and Aosta. … The early Savoyard possessions reached to the

Lake of Geneva, and spread on both sides of the inland mouth

of the Rhone. The power of the Savoyard princes in this region

was largely due to their ecclesiastical position as advocates

of the abbey of Saint Maurice. Thus their possessions had a

most irregular outline, nearly surrounding the lands of

Genevois and Faucigny. A state of this shape, like Prussia in

a later age and on a greater scale, was, as it were,

predestined to make further advances. But for some centuries

those advances were made much more largely in Burgundy than in

Italy. The original Italian possessions of the House bordered

on their Burgundian counties of Maurienne and Aosta, taking in

Susa and Turin. This small marchland gave its princes the

sounding title of Marquesses in Italy. … In the 12th and 13th

centuries, the princes of Savoy were still hemmed in, in their

own corner of Italy, by princes of equal or greater power, at

Montferrat, at Saluzzo, at Iverea, and at Biandrate. And it

must be remembered that their position as princes at once

Burgundian and Italian was not peculiar to them. … The Italian

dominions of the family remained for a long while quite

secondary to its Burgundian possessions. … The main object of

Savoyard policy in this region was necessarily the acquisition

of the lands of Faucigny and the Genevois. But the final

incorporation of those lands did not take place till they were

still more completely hemmed in by the Savoyard dominions

through the extension of the Savoyard power to the north of

the Lake. This began early in the 13th century [1207] by a

royal grant of Moudon to Count Thomas of Savoy. Romont was

next won, and became the centre of the Savoyard power north of

the Lake. Soon after, through the conquests of Peter of Savoy

[1263-1268], who was known as the Little Charlemagne and who

plays a part in English as well as in Burgundian history,

these possessions grew into a large dominion, stretching along

a great part of the shores of the Lake of Neufchâtel and

reaching as far north as Murten or Morat. … This new dominion

north of the Lake was, after Peter's reign, held for a short

time by a separate branch of the Savoyard princes as Barons of

Vaud; but in the middle of the 14th century, their barony came

into the direct possession of the elder branch of the house.

The lands of Faucigny and the Genevois were thus altogether

surrounded by the Savoyard territory. Faucigny had passed to

the Dauphins of the Viennois, who were the constant rivals of

the Savoyard counts, down to the time of the practical

transfer of their dauphiny to France. Soon after that

annexation, Savoy obtained Faucigny, with Gex and some other

districts beyond the Rhone, in exchange for some small

Savoyard possessions within the dauphiny.

{2807}

The long struggle for the Genevois, the county of Geneva, was

ended by its purchase in the beginning of the 15th century

[1401]. This left the city of Geneva altogether surrounded by

Savoyard territory, a position which before long altogether

changed the relations between the Savoyard counts and the

city. Hitherto, in the endless struggles between the Genevese

counts, bishops, and citizens, the Savoyard counts … had often

been looked on by the citizens as friends and protectors. Now

that they had become immediate neighbours of the city, they

began before long to be its most dangerous enemies. The

acquisition of the Genevois took place in the reign of the

famous Amadeus, the Eighth, the first Duke of Savoy, who

received that rank by grant of King Siegmund [1417], and who

was afterwards the Anti-pope Felix.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.

In his reign the dominions of Savoy, as a power ruling on both

sides of the Alps, reached their greatest extent. But the

Savoyard power was still pre-eminently Burgundian, and

Chambery was its capital. The continuous Burgundian dominion

of the house now reached from the Alps to the Saône,

surrounding the lake of Geneva and spreading on both sides of

the lake of Neufchâtel. Besides this continuous Burgundian

dominion, the House of Savoy had already become possessed

[1388] of Nizza, by which their dominions reached to the sea.

… After the 15th century, the Burgundian history of that house

consists of the steps spread over more than 300 years by which

this great dominion was lost. The real importance of the house

of Savoy in Italy dates from much the same time as the great

extension of its power in Burgundy. … During the 14th century,

among many struggles with the Marquesses of Montferrat and

Saluzzo, the Angevin counts of Provence, and the lords of

Milan, the Savoyard power in Italy generally increased. …

Before the end of the reign of Amadeus [the Eighth—1391-1451],

the dominions of Savoy stretched as far as the Sesia, taking

in Biella, Santhia and VerceIli. Counting Nizza and Aosta as

Italian, which they now practically were, the Italian

dominions of the House reached from the Alps of Wallis to the

sea. But they were nearly cut in two by the dominions of the

Marquesses of Montferrat, from whom however the Dukes of Savoy

now claimed homage. … Amadeus, the first Duke of Savoy, took

the title of Count of Piedmont, and afterwards that of Prince.

His possessions were now fairly established as a middle state,

Italian and Burgundian, in nearly equal proportions."

E. A. Freeman,

Historical Geography of Europe,

chapter 8, section 7.

ALSO IN:

A. Gallenga,

History of Piedmont,

volume 1, chapters 6-9,

volume 2, chapters 1-6.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1452-1454.

Alliance with Venice and Naples.

War with Milan and Florence.

See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1504-1535.

Struggles with the independent burghers of Geneva.

Loss of the Vidommate.

See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1536-1544.

Conquest by the French and restoration to

the Duke by the Treaty of Crespy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.

End of the French occupation.

Recovery of his dominions by Emanuel Philibert.

His reconstruction of the state.

Treaties with the Swiss.

War with the Waldenses.

Tolerant Treaty of Cavour.

Settlement of government at Turin.

"The history of Piedmont begins where the history of Italy

terminates. At the Peace of Chateau-Cambresis], in 1559,

Piedmont was born again.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

Under Amadeus VIII. Savoy bade fair to become a State of the

very first order. In the course of a century it had sunk to a

third-rate power. … Piedmont, utterly prostrated by

five-and-twenty years of foreign occupation, laid waste by the

trampling of all the armies of Europe, required now the work

of a constructive genius, and Emanuel Philibert was

providentially fitted for the task. No man could better afford

to be pacific than the conqueror of St. Quintin. …

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

After the battle of St. Quintin, Emanuel Philibert had France

at his discretion. Had his counsels been instantly followed,

the Spanish army would have dictated its own terms before or

within the walls of Paris. … The reconciliation of France with

the hero who had alarmed and humbled her seemed, nevertheless,

to be sincere." Under the terms of the treaty, the Duke of

Savoy's dominions, occupied by the French, were to be restored

to him, except that Turin, Chieri, Chivasso, Pinerolo, and

Villanova d' Asti, with part of their territories, "were to be

occupied for three years, or until the settlement of the

differences between the two Courts, chiefly with regard to the

dowry of Louisa of Savoy, mother of Francis I., the original

cause of dispute. … So long as France insisted on keeping the

five above-mentioned places, Spain was also empowered to

retain Asti and Vercelli." Philip II., however, gave up

VerceIli and "contented himself with the occupation of Asti

and Santia." The differences with France proved hard of

settlement, and it was not until 1574 that "Emanuel Philibert

found himself in possession of all his Subalpine dominions. No

words can describe the meanness and arrogance by which the

French aggravated this prolonged usurpation of their

neighbour's territories. … Had Emanuel Philibert put himself

at the head of one of [the factions which fought in France at

this time] … he might have paid back … the indignities he had

had to endure; but his mission was the restoration of his own

State, not the subjugation of his neighbour's. … The same

moderation and longanimity which enabled Emanuel Philibert to

avoid a collision with France, because be deemed it

unreasonable, equally distinguished him in his relations with

his neighbours of Italy. There was now, alas! no Italy; the

country had fallen a prey to the Spanish branch of the House

of Austria, and the very existence of Mantua, Parma, Tuscany,

etc., was at the mercy of Philip II. … This 'most able and

most honest of all the princes of his line' was fully aware of

the importance of his position as the 'bulwark of Italy,' and

felt that on his existence hung the fate of such states in the

Peninsula as still aspired to independence. 'I know full

well,' he said in a moment of cordial expansion, 'that these

foreigners are all bent on the utter destruction of Italy, and

that I may be the first immolated; but my fall can be

indifferent to no Italian state, and least of all to Venice.'

Full of these thoughts, he was unwearied in his endeavours to

secure the friendship of that republic. … The same instinctive

dread of the crushing ascendancy of Spain and France, which

made Emanuel Philibert cling to the Venetian alliance, equally

urged him to settle, no matter at what cost, the differences

with the other old allies of his house—the Swiss. The Pays de

Vaud, Gex, Chablais, and Lower Valais were still in the power

of the confederates.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.

{2808}

It was not without a murmur that the Duke of Savoy could part

with so fair a portion of his forefathers' inheritance; but it

was not long ere he learnt to resign all hope of its recovery.

A new generation had sprung up in those provinces, amongst

whom all loyalty to Savoy had died off. The Bernese had

introduced the Reformation into the conquered lands. …

Political freedom went hand in hand with religious innovation.

… Geneva was the very head-quarters of reform; it was proud of

the appellation of the 'Rome of Calvinism.' … Emanuel

Philibert, ill-supported by Spain and thwarted by France, laid

aside all ideas of an appeal to force, and trusted his cause

to negotiation. There was happily division in the enemy's

camp; religious difference had set the old forest cantons into

opposition with Berne and her Protestant associates. The Duke

of Savoy made a treaty at Lucerne (November 11, 1560) with

Schwytz, Uri, Unterwald, Zug, Lucerne, Soleure, and even

Zurich; and these promised their good offices with their

Protestant brethren in behalf of Savoy. Lengthy and somewhat

stormy conferences ensued, the result of which was the treaty

of Lausanne (October 30, 1564); by the terms of which Berne

retained Vaud, and Friburg Romont, and Savoy only recovered

Gex and Chablais. At a later period (March 4th, 1569) Valais

also came to terms at Thonon; it gave up its own share of

Chablais, but remained in possession of Lower Valais. By the

recovery of Gex and Chablais Savoy now encompassed Geneva on

all sides, and caused that town incessant uneasiness; but the

Duke … was … earnestly bent on peace, and he reassured the

Genevese by new treaties, signed at Berne (May 5th, 1570), by

which he engaged to give no molestation to Geneva. These same

treaties bound Savoy to allow freedom of conscience and

worship to those of her subjects who had embraced

Protestantism during the Swiss occupation; and we hear, in

fact, of no persecutions in the provinces round the Leman in

Emanuel Philibert's lifetime; but it is important to inquire

how that Prince dealt in these matters with his subjects in

general. … We hear from several authorities that 'the

Piedmontese were more than half Protestants.' The Waldensian

ministers reckoned their sectaries at the foot of the Alps at

800,000. … The Waldenses considered the prevalence of the new

tenets as their own triumph. From 1526 to 1530 they entered

into communication with the Reformers, and modified their own

creed and worship in accordance with the new ideas,

identifying themselves especially with the disciples of

Calvin. … Their valleys became a refuge for all persecuted

sectaries, amongst whom there were turbulent spirits, who

stirred up those simple and loyal mountaineers to mutiny and

revolt. Although they thus called down upon themselves the

enmity of all the foes to Protestantism, these valleys

continued nevertheless to be looked upon as a privileged

district, and their brethren of other provinces found there a

safe haven from the storms which drove them from their homes."

In 1559, the Duke issued his edict of Nice, "intended not so

much to suppress heresy as to repress it." The Waldenses

"assumed a mutinous attitude," and "applied for succour to the

Huguenot chiefs of the French provinces." Then the Duke sent

4,000 foot and 200 horse into the valleys, under the Count de

la Trinita, and a fierce and sanguinary war ensued. "Its

horrors were aggravated by foreign combatants, as the ranks of

La Trinita were swelled by both French and Spanish marauders;

and the Huguenots of France, and even some Protestant

volunteers from Germany, fought with the Waldenses. … But it

was not for the interest of the Duke of Savoy that his

subjects should thus tear each other to pieces. After repeated

checks La Trinita met with, … a covenant was signed at Cavour

on the 5th of June, 1561. The Waldenses were allowed full

amnesty and the free exercise of their worship within their

own territory. … Within those same boundaries they consented

to the erection of Catholic churches, and bound themselves to

a reciprocal toleration of Roman rites. … The Treaty of Cavour

satisfied neither party. It exposed the Duke to the loud

reprimands of Rome, France and Spain, no less than to the

bitter invectives of all his clergy …; and, on the other hand

the Waldenses … again and again placed themselves in

opposition to the authorities deputed to rule over them. … In

his leniency towards the sectaries of the valleys, Emanuel

Philibert was actuated by other motives besides the promptings

of a naturally generous soul. … His great schemes for the

regeneration of the country could only find their development

in a few years of profound peace. … Whatever may be thought of

the discontent to which his heavy taxes gave rise among the

people, or his stern manners among the nobles, it is a

beautiful consoling fact that the establishment of despotism

in Piedmont did not cost a single drop of blood, that the

prince subdued and disciplined his people by no other means

than the firmness of his iron will. … The great work for which

Piedmont will be eternally indebted to the memory of this

great prince was the nationalization of the State. He

established the seat of government at Turin, recalled to that

city the senate which had been first convoked at Carignano,

and the university which had been provisionally opened at

Mondovi. Turin, whose bishop had been raised to metropolitan

honours in 1515, had enjoyed comparative security under the

French, who never lost possession of it from 1536 to 1562. It

dates its real greatness and importance from Emanuel

Philibert's reign, when the population … rose to 17,000 souls.

… It was not without great bitterness that the transalpine

provinces of Savoy submitted to the change, and saw the

dignity and ascendancy of a sovereign state depart from them."

Emanuel Philibert died in 1580, and was succeeded by his son,

Charles Emanuel.

A. Gallenga,

History of Piedmont,

volume 3, chapter 1.

{2809}

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1580-1713.

Vicissitudes of a century and a quarter.

Profitable infidelities in war.

The Duke wins Sicily and the title of King.

Emanuel Philibert, by his "well-timed policy of peace, … was

enabled to leave his duchy immensely strengthened to his son

Charles Emanuel (1580-1630). The new duke was much more active

in his policy. His marriage with a daughter of Philip II. bound

him to the side of Spain and he supported the cause of the

League in France. With the help of the Catholic party he

seized the vacant marquisate of Saluzzo, and thus involved

himself in a long quarrel with Henry IV. In 1601 the pence of

Lyons confirmed the duke in the possession of Saluzzo, in

exchange for which he ceded Bresse on the Rhone frontier to

Henry. All attempts made to recover Geneva for Savoy proved

unsuccessful. Before his death the restless Charles Emanuel

brought forward another claim to the marquisate of Montferrat.

This had been held since 1533 by the dukes of Mantua, whose

male line became extinct in 1627. The duke did not live to see

the settlement of the Mantuan succession, but his son, Victor

Amadeus I., obtained great part of Montferrat by the treaty of

Cherasco (1631). Richelieu had now acquired Pinerolo and

Casale for France and this effected a complete change in the

policy of Savoy. Victor Amadeus was married to Christine, a

daughter of Henry IV., and he and his successor remained till

nearly the end of the century as faithful to France as his

predecessors had been to Spain. Charles Emanuel II., who

succeeded as a minor on the early death of his father, was at

first under the guardianship of his mother, and when he came

of age remained in the closest alliance with Louis XIV. His

great object was to secure the Italian position which Savoy

had assumed, by the acquisition of Genoa. But the maritime

republic made a successful resistance both to open attack and

to treacherous plots. Victor Amadeus II., who became duke in

1675, was married to a daughter of Philip of Orleans. But

Louis XIV. had begun to treat Savoy less as an ally than as a

dependency, and the duke, weary of French domination, broke

off the old connexion, and in 1690 joined the League of

Augsburg against Louis. His defection was well-timed and

successful, for the treaty of Ryswick (1697) gave him the

great fortresses of Pinerolo and Casale, which had so long

dominated his duchy. In the war of the Spanish succession he

first supported Louis and afterwards turned against him. His

faithlessness was rewarded in the peace of Utrecht [1713] with

the island of Sicily and the title of king. Within a few

years, however, he was compelled to exchange Sicily for

Sardinia."

R. Lodge,

History of Modern Europe,

chapter 12, section 9.

See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713,

and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1592.

French invasion of the Vaudois.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1597-1598.

Invasion by the French.

Peace with France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1600.

French invasion.

Cession of territory to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1602-1603.

Abortive attempt upon Geneva.

Treaty of St. Julien with that city.

See GENEVA: A. D. 1602-1603.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1620-1626.

The Valtelline War.

Alliance with France.

Unsuccessful attempt against Genoa.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1627-1631.

War over the succession to the duchy of Mantua.

French invasion.

Extension of territory.

See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1635.

Alliance with France against Spain.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1630.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1635-1659.

Alliance with France against Spain.

Civil war and foreign war.-

Sieges of Turin.

Territory restored.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1655.

Second persecution of the Waldenses.

See WALDENSES: A. D. 1655.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1690.

Joins the Grand Alliance against France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1690-1691.

Overrun by the armies of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1691.

Toleration granted to the Vaudois.

See WALDENSES: A. D. 1691.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1693.

French victory at Marsaglia.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (OCTOBER).

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1695-1696.

Desertion of the Grand Alliance by the Duke.

Treaty with France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1713.

Acquisition of Sicily from Spain.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1717-1719.

Sicily exchanged by the Duke for Sardinia,

with the title of King.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;

also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1792.

Savoy annexed to the French Republic.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1796.

Savoy ceded by Sardinia to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1798.

Piedmont taken by the French.

Its sovereignty relinquished by the King of Sardinia.

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

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1815.

Cession of a part of Savoy to France.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1860.

Final cession of Savoy to France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

----------SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: End--------

SAVOY CONFERENCE, The.

See ENGLAND: A: D. 1661 (APRIL-JULY).

SAWÂD, THE.

"The name Sawâd is given by the Arab writers to the whole

fertile tract between the Euphrates and the Desert, from Hit

to the Persian Gulf."

G. Rawlinson,

Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 26, foot-note.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

SAXA RUBRA, Battle of (A. D. 312).

See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

SAXE-COBURG,

SAXE-GOTHA,

SAXE-WEIMAR, etc.

See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553;

and WEIMAR.

SAXON HEPTARCHY.

See ENGLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

SAXON SHORE, Count of the (Comes Littoris Saxonici).

The title of the Roman officer who had military command of the

coast of Britain, between the Wash and the Isle of Wight,

which was most exposed to the ravages of the Saxons.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.

----------SAXONS: Start--------

SAXONS, The.

"In the reign of Caracalla [A. D. 212-217] Rome first heard of

the Goths and Alemanni; a little more than half a century

later the Franks appear; and about the same time the Saxons,

who had been named and placed geographically by Ptolemy [A. D.

130-160], make their first mark in history. They are found

employed in naval and piratical expeditions on the coasts of

Gaul in A. D. 287. Whatever degree of antiquity we may be

inclined to ascribe to the names of these nations, and there

is no need to put a precise limit to it, it can scarcely be

supposed that they sprang from insignificance and obscurity to

strength and power in a moment.

{2810}

It is far more probable that under the names of Frank and

Saxon in the fourth century had been sunk the many better

known earlier names of tribes who occupied the same seats. …

The Cherusci, the Marsi, the Dulgibini and the Chauci may have

been comprehended under the name of Saxons. … Whilst the

nations on the Lower Rhine were all becoming Franks, those

between the Rhine and the Oder were becoming Saxons; the name

implied as yet no common organisation, at the most only an

occasional combination for attack or defence."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 3 (volume 1).

"The hypothesis respecting the Saxons is as follows: The name

Saxon was to the Kelts of Britain what German was to those of

Gaul. Or, if not, what Suevi was—a name somewhat more

specific. It probably applied to the Germans of the sea-coast,

and the water-systems of the Lower Rhine, Weser, Lower Elbe,

and Eyder; to Low Germans on the Rhine, to Frisians and Saxons

on the Elbe, and to North Frisians on the Eyder. All the

Angles were Saxons, but all the Saxons were not Angles. The

reasoning in favour of this view is as follows:—That Saxon was

a Britannic term is undenied. The Welsh and Gaels call us

Saxons at the present moment. The Romans would take their name

for certain Germans as they found it with the Britons. The

Britons and Romans using the same name would be as two to one

in favour of the Keltic name taking ground. It would be Roman

and Keltic against a German name single-handed. The only

question is whether the name Saxon was exclusively Britannic

(Keltic), i. e., not German also. … I think, upon the whole,

that Saxon was a word like 'Greek,' i. e., a term which, in

the language of the Hellenes, was so very special, partial,

and unimportant, as to have been practically a foreign term,

or, at least, anything but a native name; whilst in that of

the Romans it was one of general and widely extended import.

Hence, mutatis mutandis, it is the insignificant Saxones of

the neck of the Cimbric Chersonese, and the three Saxon

islands, first mentioned by Ptolemy, who are the analogues of

the equally unimportant Græci of Epirus; and these it was

whose name eventually comprised populations as different as

the Angles, and the Saxons of Saxony, even as the name Græcus

in the mouth of a Roman comprised Dorians, Æolians,

Macedonians, Athenians, Rhodians, &c. In this way the name was

German; but its extended import was Keltic and Roman."

R. G. Latham,

The Germany of Tacitus: Epilegomena,

section 48.

See, also, GERMANY: THE NATIONAL NAMES;

and ANGLES AND JUTES.

SAXONS:

The sea-rovers of the 5th century.

"At the end of a long letter, written by Sidonius [Apolinaris,

Bishop, at Clermont, in Auvergne, A. D. 471-488] to his friend

Nammatius [an officer of the Channel fleet of the Romans, then

chiefly occupied in watching and warding off the Saxon

pirates], after dull compliments and duller banter, we

suddenly find flashed upon us this life-like picture, by a

contemporary hand, of the brothers and cousins of the men, if

not of the very men themselves who had fought at Aylesford

under Hengest and Horsa, or who were slowly winning the

kingdom of the South Saxons: 'Behold, when I was on the point

of concluding this epistle in which I have already chattered

on too long, a messenger has suddenly arrived from Saintonge

with whom I have spent some hours in conversing about you and

your doings, and who constantly affirms that you have just

sounded your trumpet on board the fleet, and that with the

duties of a sailor and a soldier combined you are roaming

along the winding shores of the Ocean, looking out for the

curved pinnaces of the Saxons. When you see the rowers of that

nation you may at once make up your mind that everyone of them

is an arch-pirate, with such wonderful unanimity do all at

once command, obey, teach, and learn their one chosen business

of brigandage. For this reason I ought to warn you to be more

than ever on your guard in this warfare. Your enemy is the

most truculent of all enemies. Unexpectedly he attacks, when

expected he escapes, he despises those who seek to block his

path, he overthrows those who are off their guard, he always

succeeds in cutting off the enemy whom he follows, while he

never fails when he desires to effect his own escape.

Moreover, to these men a shipwreck is capital practice rather

than an object of terror. The dangers of the deep are to them,

not casual acquaintances, but intimate friends. For since a

tempest throws the invaded off their guard, and prevents the

invaders from being descried from afar, they hail with joy the

crash of waves on the rocks, which gives them their best

chance of escaping from other enemies than the elements. Then

again, before they raise the deep-biting anchor from the

hostile soil, and set sail from the Continent for their own

country, their custom is to collect the crowd of their

prisoners together, by a mockery of equity to make them cast

lots which of them shall undergo the iniquitous sentence of

death, and then at the moment of departure to slay every tenth

man so selected by crucifixion, a practice which is the more

lamentable because it arises from a superstitious notion that

they will thus ensure for themselves a safe return. Purifying

themselves as they consider by such sacrifices, polluting

themselves as we deem by such deeds of sacrilege, they think

the foul murders they thus commit are acts of worship to their

gods, and they glory in extorting cries of agony instead of

ransoms from these doomed victims.'"

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 3, chapter 3.

SAXONS: A. D. 451.

At the Battle of Chalons.

In the allied army of Romans and barbarians which count Aetius

brought together to encounter the Hun, Attila, on the great

and terrible battlefield of Chalons, July, 451, there is

mention of the "Saxones." "How came our fathers thither; they,

whose homes were in the long sandy levels of Holstein? As has

been already pointed out, the national migration of the Angles

and Saxons to our own island had already commenced, perhaps in

part determined by the impulse northward of Attila's own

subjects. Possibly, like the Northmen, their successors, the

Saxons may have invaded both sides of the English Channel at

once, and may on this occasion have been standing in arms to

defend against their old foe some newly-won possessions in

Normandy or Picardy."

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 2, chapter 3.

SAXONS: A. D. 477-527.

Conquests in Britain.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

SAXONS: A. D. 528-729.

Struggles against the Frank dominion, before Charlemagne.

See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

{2811}

SAXONS: A. D. 772-804.

Conquest by Charlemagne.

"In the time of Charlemagne, the possessions of this great

league [the Saxons] were very extensive, stretching, at one

point, from the banks of the Rhine nearly to the Oder, and on

the other hand, from the North Sea to the confines of Hesse

and Thuringia. Warlike in their habits, vigorous in body,

active and impatient in mind, their geographical situation,

operating together with their state of barbarism, rendered

them pirates, extending the predatory excursions, common to

all the northern tribes, to the sea as well as to the land. …

They held, from an early period, greater part of the islands

scattered round the mouths of the German rivers; and, soon

beginning to extend their dominion, they captured, at

different times, all those on the coast of France and in the

British sea. Not contented, however, with this peculiar and

more appropriate mode of warfare, the Saxons who remained on

land, while their fellow-countrymen were sweeping the ocean,

constantly turned their arms against the adjacent continental

countries, especially after the conquest of Britain had, in a

manner, separated their people, and satisfied to the utmost

their maritime cupidity in that direction. Surpassing all

nations, except the early Huns, in fierceness, idolaters of

the most bloody rites, insatiable of plunder, and persevering

in the purpose of rapine to a degree which no other nation

ever knew, they were the pest and scourge of the north.

Happily for Europe, their government consisted of a multitude

of chiefs, and their society of a multitude of independent

tribes, linked together by some bond that we do not at present

know, but which was not strong enough to produce unity and

continuity of design. Thus they had proceeded from age to age,

accomplishing great things by desultory and individual

efforts; but up to the time of Charlemagne, no vast and

comprehensive mind, like that of Attila, had arisen amongst

them, to combine all the tribes under the sway of one monarch,

and to direct all their energies to one great object. It was

for neighbouring kings, however, to remember that such a chief

might every day appear. … Such was the state of the Saxons at

the reunion of the French [or Frank] monarchy under

Charlemagne; and it would seem that the first step he proposed

to himself, as an opening to all his great designs, was

completely to subdue a people which every day ravaged his

frontier provinces, and continually threatened the very

existence of the nations around."

G. P. R. James,

History of Charlemagne,

book 3.

For generations before Charlemagne—from the period, in fact,

of the sons of Clovis, early in the sixth century—the Frank

kings had claimed supremacy over the Saxons and counted them

among the tributaries of their Austrasian or German monarchy.

Repeatedly, too, the Saxons had been forced to submit

themselves and acknowledge the yoke, in terms, while they

repudiated it in fact. When Charlemagne took in hand the

conquest of this stubborn and barbarous people, he seems to

have found the task as arduous as though nothing had been done

in it before him. His first expedition into their country was

undertaken in 772, when he advanced with fire and sword from

the Rhine at Mayence to the Diemel in the Hessian country. It

was on this occasion that he destroyed, near the head-waters

of the Lippe, the famous national idol and fane of the Saxons

called the Irminsul or Herminsaule supposed to be connected

with the memory of Hermann, the Cheruscan patriot chief who

destroyed the Roman legions of Varus. The campaign resulted in

the submission of the Saxons, with a surrender of hostages to

guarantee it. But in 774 they were again in arms, and the next

summer Charlemagne swept their country to beyond the Weser

with the besom of destruction. Once more they yielded and

gave hostages, who were taken to Frank monasteries and made

Christians of. But the peace did not last a twelvemonth, and

there was another great campaign in 776, which so terrified

the turbulent heathen that they accepted baptism in large

numbers, and a wholesale conversion took place at Paderborn in

May, 777. But a chief had risen at last among the Saxons who

could unite them, and who would not kneel to Charlemagne nor

bow his head to the waters of baptism. This was Wittekind, a

Westphalian, brother-in-law of the king of the Danes and

friend of the Frisian king, Ratbod. While Charlemagne was in

Spain, in 778, Wittekind roused his countrymen to a rising

which cleared their land of crosses, churches, priests and

Frank castles at one sweep. From that time until 785 there

were campaigns every year, with terrible carnage and

destruction in the Saxon country and industrious baptising of

the submissive. At Badenfield, at Bockholz, near Zutphen, and

at Detmold, there were fierce battles in which the Saxons

suffered most; but; at Sonnethal, on the Weser (the

Dachtelfield), in 782, the Franks were fearfully beaten and

slaughtered. Charlemagne took a barbarous vengeance for this

reverse by beheading no less than 4,500 Saxon prisoners at

Verden, on the Aller. Three years later, the country of the

Saxons having been made, for the most part, a famine-smitten

desert, they gave up the struggle. Even Wittekind accepted

Christianity, became a monk—a missionary—a canonized saint—

and disappeared otherwise from history. According to legend,

the blood of more than 200,000 Saxons had "changed the very

color of the soil, and the brown clay of the Saxon period gave

way to the red earth of Westphalia." For seven years the

Saxons were submissive and fought in Charlemagne's armies

against other foes. Then there was a last despairing attempt

to break the conqueror's yoke, and another long war of twelve

years' duration. It ended in the practical annihilation of the

Saxons as a distinct people in Germany. Many thousands of them

were transplanted to other regions in Gaul and elsewhere;

others escaped to Denmark and were absorbed into the great

rising naval and military power of the Northmen. The survivors

on their own soil were stripped of their possessions. "The

Saxon war was conducted with almost unparalleled ferocity."

J. I. Mombert,

History of' Charles the Great,

book 2, chapters 3-4.

ALSO IN:

P. Godwin,

History of France: Ancient Gaul,

chapters 16-17.

----------SAXONS: End--------

{2812}

SAXONS OF BAYEUX.

"The district of Bayeux, occupied by a Saxon colony in the

latest days of the old Roman Empire, occupied again by a

Scandinavian colony as the result of its conquest by Rolf [or

Rollo, the Northman], has retained to this day a character

which distinguishes it from every other Romance-speaking

portion of the Continent. The Saxons of Bayeux preserved their

name and their distinct existence under the Frankish dominion;

we can hardly doubt that the Scandinavian settlers found some

parts at least of the district still Teutonic, and that

nearness of blood and speech exercised over them the same

influence which the same causes exercised over the

Scandinavian settlers in England. Danes and Saxons coalesced

into one Teutonic people, and they retained their Teutonic

language and character long after Rouen had become, in speech

at least, no less French than Paris. With their old Teutonic

speech, the second body of settlers seem to have largely

retained their old Teutonic religion, and we shall presently

find Bayeux the centre of a heathen and Danish party in the

Duchy, in opposition to Rouen, the centre of the new speech

and the new creed. The blood of the inhabitants of the Bessin

must be composed of nearly the same elements, mingled in

nearly the same proportions, as the blood of the inhabitants

of the Danish districts of England."

E. A. Freeman,

History of the Norman Conquest of England,

chapter 4.

----------SAXONY: Start--------

SAXONY:

The old Duchy.

"The great duchy of Saxony [as it existed under the

Carolingian empire and after the separation of Germany from

France] consisted of three main divisions, Westfalia, Engern

or Angria, and Eastfalia. Thuringia to the south-east, and the

Frisian lands to the north-west, may be looked on as in some

sort appendages to the Saxon duchy. The duchy was also capable

of any amount of extension towards the east, and the lands

gradually won from the Wends on this side were all looked on

as additions made to the Saxon territory. But the great Saxon

duchy was broken up at the fall of Henry the Lion [A. D.

1191]. The archiepiscopal Electors of Köln received the title

of Dukes of Westfalia and Engern. But in the greater part of

those districts the grant remained merely nominal, though the

ducal title, with a small actual Westfalian duchy, remained to

the electorate till the end. From these lands the Saxon name

may be looked on as having altogether passed away. The name of

Saxony, as a geographical expression, clave to the Eastfalian

remnant of the old duchy, and to Thuringia and the Slavonic

conquests to the east. In the later division of Germany these

lands formed the two circles of Upper and Lower Saxony; and it

was within their limits that the various states arose which

have kept on the Saxon name to our own time. From the

descendants of Henry the Lion himself, and from the allodial

lands which they kept, the Saxon name passed away, except so

far as they became part of the Lower-Saxon circle. They held

their place as princes of the Empire, no longer as Dukes of

Saxony, but as Dukes of Brunswick, a house which gave Rome one

Emperor and England a dynasty of kings. After some of the

usual divisions, two Brunswick principalities finally took

their place on the map, those of Lüneburg and Wolfenbüttel,

the latter having the town of Brunswick for its capital. The

Lüneburg duchy grew. Late in the seventeenth century it was

raised to the electoral rank, and early in the next century it

was finally enlarged by the acquisition of the bishoprics of

Bremen and Verden. Thus was formed the Electorate, and

afterwards Kingdom, of Hannover, while the simple ducal title

remained with the Brunswick princes of the other line."

E. A. Freeman,

History Geography of Europe,

chapter 8, section 1.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

SAXONY: A. D. 911-1024.

The Imperial House.

See GERMANY: A. D. 911-936; 936-973; and 973-1122.

SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075.

Revolt against Henry IV.

The Saxons were still unreconciled to the transfer of the

imperial dignity from their own ducal family to the House of

Franconia, when the third of the Franconian emperors, Henry

IV., came to the throne while still a boy. His long minority

encouraged them to a habit of independent feeling, while his

rash and injudicious measures when he grew to manhood provoked

their raging enmity. They were still a turbulent, wild people,

and he undertook to force the yoke of the empire on their

necks, by means of garrisoned fortresses and castles,

distributed through their land. The garrisons were insolent,

the people were not meek, and in 1073 a furious revolt broke

out. "'All Saxony,' says a chronicler, 'revolted, as one man,

from the king,' and marched, 80,000 strong, to the Hartzburg,

a stately citadel near Goslar, which the king had built for a

residence upon a commanding height. After useless

negotiations, Henry made a narrow escape by flight. When he

then summoned his princes around him, no one came; and here

and there it began to be said that he must be entirely

abandoned and another monarch chosen. In this extremity, the

cities alone remained faithful to the emperor, who for some

time lay sick almost to death in his loyal city of Worms."

Henry's energy, and the great abilities which he possessed,

enabled him to recover his command of resources and to bring a

strong army into the field against the Saxons, in the early

summer of 1075. They offered submission and he might have

restored peace to his country in an honorable way; but his

headstrong passions demanded revenge. "After a march of

extraordinary rapidity, he fell suddenly upon the Saxons and

their allies, the Thuringians, on the meadows of the Unstrutt,

at Langensalza, near Hohenburg. His army drawn up in an order

resembling that which Otto the Great had formed on the Lech

[against the Hungarians], obtained, after a fierce

hand-to-hand fight of nine hours, a bloody victory. When the

Saxons finally yielded and fled, the battle became a massacre.

… It is asserted that of the foot-soldiers, who composed the

mass of the Saxon army of 60,000, hardly any escaped; though

of the noblemen, who had swift horses, few were slain. But it

was a battle of Germans with Germans, and on the very evening

of the struggle, the lamentations over so many slain by

kindred hands could not be suppressed in the emperor's own

camp. Yet for the time the spirit of Saxon independence was

crushed. Henry was really master of all Germany, and seemed to

have established the imperial throne again." But little more

than a year afterwards, Henry, under the ban of the great Pope

Gregory VII., with whom he had quarrelled, was again deserted

by his subjects. Again he recovered his footing and maintained

a civil war until his own son deposed him, in 1105. The next

year he died.

C. T. Lewis,

History of Germany,

book 2, chapter 7, sections 13-20.

ALSO IN:

W. Menzel,

History of Germany,

chapter 142.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

SAXONY: A. D. 1125-1152.

The origin of the electorate.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

{2813}

SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

The dissolution of the old duchy.

In an account given elsewhere of the origin of the Guelf and

Ghibelline parties and their names (see GUELFS AND

GHIBELLINES), the circumstances under which Henry the Proud,

in 1138, was stripped of the duchy of Saxony, and the duchy of

Bavaria, have been briefly related. This Duke Henry the Proud

died soon after that event, leaving a son who acquired the

name of Henry the Lion. The Emperor Conrad, whose hostility to

the father had been the cause of his ruin, now restored to the

son, Henry the Lion, his duchy of Saxony, but required him to

renounce the Bavarian duchy. But Conrad, dying in 1152, was

succeeded on the imperial throne by his nephew, Frederick

Barbarossa, who entertained a friendly feeling for the young

Duke of Saxony, and who restored to him, in 1156, the whole of

his father's forfeited possessions, Bavaria included. By his

own warlike energies, Henry the Lion extended his dominions

still further, making a conquest of the Obotrites, one of the

tribes of heathen Slaves or Wends who occupied the Mecklenburg

region on the Baltic. He was, now, the most powerful of the

princes of the Germanic empire, and one of the most powerful

in Europe. But he used his power haughtily and arbitrarily and

raised up many enemies against himself. At length there arose

a quarrel between the Emperor and Duke Henry, which the latter

embittered by abruptly quitting the emperor's army, in Italy,

with all his troops, at a time when (A. D. 1175) the latter

was almost ruined by the desertion. From that moment Henry the

Lion was marked, as his father had been, for ruin. Accusations

were brought against him in the diet; he was repeatedly

summoned to appear and meet them, and he obstinately refused

to obey the summons. At length, A. D. 1178, he was formally

declared to be a rebel to the state, and the "imperial ban"

was solemnly pronounced against him. "This sentence placed

Henry without the pale of the laws, and his person and his

states were at the mercy of everyone who had the power of

injuring them. The archbishop of Cologne, his ancient enemy,

had the ban promulgated throughout Saxony, and at his command

Godfrey, Duke of Brabant; Philip, Count of Flanders; Otho,

Count of Guelders; Thierry, Lord of Cleves; William of

Juliers, with the Lords of Bonn Senef, Berg, and many others,

levied forces, and joining the archbishop, entered Westphalia,

which they overran and laid waste, before he was aware of

their intentions." This was the beginning of a long struggle,

in which Henry made a gallant resistance; but the odds were

too heavily against him. His friends and supporters gradually

fell away, his dominions were lost, one by one, and in 1183 he

took refuge in England, at the court of Henry II., whose

daughter Matilda he had married. After an exile of three years

he was permitted to return to Germany and his alodial estates

in Saxony were restored to him. The imperial fiefs were

divided. The archbishop of Cologne received the greater part

of Westphalia, and Angria. Bernard, Count of Anhalt, got the

remainder of the old Saxon duchy, with its ducal title. When

Henry the Lion died, in 1195, the alodial possessions that he

had recovered were divided between his three sons.

Sir A. Halliday,

Annals of the House of Hanover,

book 4 (volume 1).

Fifty years afterwards these were converted into imperial

fiefs and became the two duchies of the house of Brunswick,

—Lüneburg and Wolfenbüttel, afterwards Hanover and

Brunswick—the princes of which represented the old house of

Saxony and inherited the name of Guelf.

ALSO IN:

H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 5.

See, also,

SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY; GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;

ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.

SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.

The later Duchy and Electorate.

The House of Wettin.

Its Ernestine and Albertine lines, and their many branches.

"When Henry the Lion was deprived of the Duchy of Saxony in

1180, it [reduced to a small district around Lauenberg] was

given to Bernhard, the youngest son of Albert the Bear,

Elector of Brandenburg, and it continued with his descendants

in the male line till 1422, when it was sold by the Emperor

Sigismond to Frederick, surnamed the Warlike, Margrave of

Misnia, descended in the female line from the Landgraves of

Thuringen."

Sir A. Halliday,

Annals of the House of Hanover,

volume 1, page 426.

This line has been known as the House of Wettin, taking that

name from Dedo, count of Wettin, who was the first margrave of

Misnia, or Meissen; being invested with the dignity in 1048.

"The Wettin line of Saxon princes, the same that yet endures

[1855], known by sight to every English creature (for the high

individual, Prince Albert, is of it), had been lucky enough to

combine in itself, by inheritance, by good management, chiefly

by inheritance and mere force of survival, all the Three

separate portions and divided dignities of that country: the

Thüringen Landgraviate, the Meissen Markgraviate, and the

ancient Duchy and Electorate of Saxony; and to become very

great among the Princes of the German Empire. … Through the

earlier portion of the 15th century, this Saxon House might

fairly reckon itself the greatest in Germany, till Austria,

till Brandenburg gradually rose to overshadow it. Law of

primogeniture could never be accepted in that country; nothing

but divisions, redivisions, coalescings, splittings, and

never-ending readjustments and collisions were prevalent in

consequence; to which cause, first of all, the loss of the

race by Saxony may be ascribed." In 1464, Frederick II. was

succeeded by his two sons, Ernest and Albert. These princes

governed their country conjointly for upwards of 20 years, but

then made a partition from which began the separation of the

Ernestine and Albertine lines that continued ever afterwards

in the House of Saxony. "Ernest, the elder of those two …

boys, became Kurfürst (Elector); and got for inheritance,

besides the 'inalienable properties' which lie round

Wittenberg, … the better or Thuringian side of the Saxon

country—that is, the Weimar, Gotha, Altenburg, &c.

Principalities: —while the other youth, Albert, had to take

the 'Osterland (Easternland), with part of Meissen,' what we

may in general imagine to be (for no German Dryasdust will do

you the kindness to say precisely) the eastern region of what

is Saxony in our day. These Albertines, with an inferior

territory, had, as their main towns, Leipzig and Dresden, a

Residenz-Schloss (or sublime enough Ducal Palace) in each

city, Leipzig as yet the grander and more common one. There,

at Leipzig chiefly, I say, lived the august younger or

Albertine Line. …

{2814}

As for Ernst, the elder, he and his lived chiefly at

Wittenberg, as I perceive; there or in the neighbourhood was

their high Schloss; distinguished among palaces. But they had

Weimar, they had Altenburg, Gotha, Coburg,—above all, they had

the Wartburg, one of the most distinguished Strong Houses any

Duke could live in, if he were of frugal and heroic turn. …

Ernst's son was Frederick the Wise, successor in the Kur

(Electorship) and paternal lands; which, as Frederick did not

marry and there was only one other brother, were not further

divided on this occasion. Frederick the Wise, born in 1463,

was that ever-memorable Kurfürst who saved Luther from the

Diet of Worms in 1521.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1522.

He died in 1525, and was succeeded by his brother, John the

Steadfast. … He also was a wise and eminently Protestant man.

He struggled very faithfully for the good Cause, during his

term of sovereignty; died in 1532 (14 years before Luther),

having held the Electorate only seven years. … His son was

Johann Friedrich, the Magnanimous by epithet (der

Grossmüthige), under whom the Line underwent sad destinies;

lost the Electorship, lost much; and split itself after him

into innumerable branches, who are all of a small type ever

since." In the Albertine Line, Albert's eldest son, "successor

in the eastern properties and residences, was Duke George of

Saxony,—called 'of Saxony,' as all those Dukes, big and

little, were and still are,—Herzog Georg von Sachsen: of whom,

to make him memorable, it is enough to say that he was

Luther's Duke George! Yes, this is he with whom Luther had

such wrangling and jangling. … He was strong for the old

religion, while his cousins went so valiantly ahead for the

new. … George's brother, Henry, succeeded; lived only for two

years; in which time all went to Protestantism in the eastern

parts of Saxony, as in the western. This Henry's eldest son,

and first successor, was Moritz, the 'Maurice' known in

English Protestant books; who, in the Schmalkaldic League and

War, played such a questionable game with his Protestant

cousin, of the elder or Ernestine Line,—quite ousting said

cousin, by superior jockeyship, and reducing his Line and him

to the second rank ever since.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

This cousin was Johann Friedrich the Magnanimous … whom we

left above waiting for that catastrophe. … Duke Moritz got the

Electorship transferred to himself; Electorship, with

Wittenberg and the 'inalienable lands and dignities.' … Moritz

kept his Electorship, and, by cunning jockeying, his

Protestantism too; got his Albertine or junior Line pushed

into the place of the Ernestine or first; in which

dishonourably acquired position it continues to this day

[1855]; performing ever since the chief part in Saxony, as

Electors, and now as Kings of Saxony. … The Ernestine, or

honourable Protestant line is ever since in a secondary,

diminished, and as it were, disintegrated state, a Line broken

small; nothing now but a series of small Dukes, Weimar, Gotha,

Coburg, and the like, in the Thuringian region, who, on mere

genealogical grounds, put Sachsen to their name:

Sachsen-Coburg, Sachsen-Weimar, &c. [Anglicised, Saxe-Coburg,

etc.]."

T. Carlyle,

The Prinzenraub

(Essays, volume 6).

ALSO IN:

F. Shoberl,

Historical Account of the House of Saxony.

SAXONY: A. D. 1500-1512.

Formation of the Circles of Saxony and Upper Saxony.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

SAXONY: A. D. 1516-1546.

The Reformation.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, to 1517-1521,

1521-1522, 1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531;

also, GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532, and after.

SAXONY: A. D. 1525.

The Lutheran doctrines and system formally established

in the electorate.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

SAXONY: A. D. 1539.

Succession GERMANY of a Protestant prince.

See: A. D. 1533-1546.

SAXONY: A. D. 1546-1547.

Treachery of Maurice of Saxony.

Transfer of the electorate to him.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

SAXONY: A. D. 1619.

Adhesion of the Elector to the Emperor Ferdinand,

against Frederick of Bohemia and the Evangelical Union.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

SAXONY: A. D. 1631.

Ignoble trepidations of the Elector.

His final alliance with Gustavus Adolphus.

The battle of Breitenfeld.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

SAXONY: A. D. 1631-1632.

The Elector and his army in Bohemia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

SAXONY: A. D. 1633.

Standing aloof from the Union of Heilbronn.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

SAXONY: A. D. 1634.

Desertion of the Protestant cause.

The Elector's alliance with the Emperor.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

SAXONY: A. D. 1645.

Forced to a treaty of neutrality with the Swedes and French.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

SAXONY: A. D. 1648.

The Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

SAXONY: A. D. 1686.

The League of Augsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

SAXONY: A. D. 1697-1698.

The crown of Poland secured by the Elector.

See POLAND: A. D. 1696-1698.

SAXONY: A. D. 1706.

Invasion by Charles XII. of Sweden.

Renunciation of the Polish crown, by the Elector Augustus.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

SAXONY: A. D. 1733.

Election of Augustus III. to the Polish throne,

enforced by Russia and Austria.

See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.

SAXONY: A. D. 1740.

The War of the Austrian Succession:

Claims of the Elector upon Austrian territory.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (OCTOBER).

SAXONY: A. D. 1741.

The War of the Austrian Succession:

Alliance against Austria.

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

SAXONY: A. D. 1745.

The War of the Austrian Succession: Alliance with Austria.

Subjugation by Prussia.

The Peace of Dresden.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

SAXONY: A. D. 1755.

Intrigues with Austria and Russia against Prussia.

Causes of the Seven Years War.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756.

SAXONY: A. D. 1756.

Swift subjugation by Frederick of Prussia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

SAXONY: A. D. 1759-1760.

Occupied by the Austrians.

Mostly recovered by Frederick.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER); and 1760.

SAXONY: A. D. 1763.

The end and results of the Seven Years War.

The electorate restored.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

{2815}

SAXONY: A. D. 1806.

The Elector, deserting Prussia, becomes the subject-ally of

Napoleon, and is made a king.

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

SAXONY: A. D. 1807.

Acquisition by the king of the grand duchy of Warsaw.

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

SAXONY: A. D. 1809.

Risings against the French.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).

SAXONY: A. D. 1813.

Occupied by the Allies.

Regained by the French.

Humiliating submission of the king to Napoleon.

French victory at Dresden and defeat at Leipsic.

Desertion from Napoleon's army by the Saxons.

The king a prisoner in the hands of the Allies.

French surrender of Dresden.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813,

to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

SAXONY: A. D. 1814-1815.

The Saxon question in the Congress of Vienna.

The king restored, with half of his dominions lost.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

SAXONY: A. D. 1817.

Accession to the Holy Alliance.

See HOLY ALLIANCE.

SAXONY: A. D. 1848 (March).

Revolutionary outbreak.

Concessions to the people.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH).

SAXONY: A. D. 1849.

Insurrection suppressed by Prussian troops.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.

SAXONY: A. D. 1866.

The Seven Weeks War.

Indemnity to Prussia.

Union with the North German Confederation.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

SAXONY: A. D. 1870-1871.

Embraced in the new German Empire.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);

1871 (JANUARY); and 1871 (APRIL).

----------SAXONY: End--------

SAXONY, The English titular Dukedom of.

See WALES, PRINCE OF.

SCALDIS, The.

The ancient name of the river Scheldt.

SCALDS, OR SKALDS, The.

"Before the introduction or general diffusion of writing, it

is evident that a class of men whose sole occupation was to

commit to memory and preserve the laws, usages, precedents,

and details of all those civil affairs and rights, and to

whose fidelity in relating former transactions implicit

confidence could be given, must of necessity have existed in

society—must have been in every locality. … This class [among

the Scandinavian peoples of the North of Europe] were the

Scalds—the men who were the living books, to be referred to in

every case of law or property in which the past had to be

applied to the present. Before the introduction of

Christianity, and with Christianity the use of written

documents, and the diffusion, by the church establishment, of

writing in every locality, the scald must have been among the

pagan landowners what the parish priest and his written record

were in the older Christianised countries of Europe. … The

scalds in these Christianised countries were merely a class of

wandering troubadours, poets, story-tellers, minnesingers. …

The scalds of the north disappeared at once when Christian

priests were established through the country. They were

superseded in their utility by men of education, who knew the

art of writing; and the country had no feudal barons to

maintain such a class for amusement only. We hear little of

the scalds after the first half of the 12th century."

S. Laing,

The Heimskringla: Preliminary Dissertation,

chapter 1.

"At the dawn of historical times we find the skalds practising

their art everywhere in the North. … The oldest Norwegian

skalds, like 'Starkad' and 'Brage the Old,' are enveloped in

mythic darkness, but already, in the time of Harald Fairhair

(872-930), the song-smiths of the Scandinavian North appear as

thoroughly historical personages. In Iceland the art of poetry

was held in high honor, and it was cultivated not only by the

professional skalds, but also by others when the occasion

presented itself. … When the Icelander had arrived at the age

of maturity, he longed to travel in foreign lands. As a skald

he would then visit foreign kings and other noblemen, where he

would receive a most hearty welcome. … These Icelandic skalds

became a very significant factor in the literary development

of the North during the greater part of the middle ages."

F. W. Horn,

History of the Literature of the Scandinavian North,

part 1, chapter 1.

SCALIGERI, The, or Della Scala Family.

See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338;

also, MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

SCAMANDER, The.

See TROJA.

SCANDERBEG'S WAR WITH THE TURKS.

See ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.

----------SCANDINAVIAN STATES: Start--------

SCANDINAVIAN STATES:

Early history.

"Those who lean implicitly on the chief props supplied by the

Old Norse literature for the early history and genealogy of

the North lean on very unsafe supports. The fact is, we must

treat these genealogies and these continuous histories as

compilations made up from isolated and detached

traditions—epics in which some individual or some battle was

described, and in which the links and the connections between

the pieces have been supplied according to the ingenuity of

the compilers; in which the arrangement and chronology are to

a large extent arbitrary; and in which it has been a great

temptation to transfer the deeds of one hero to another of the

same name. Under these circumstances what is a modern

historian to do? In the first place he must take the

contemporary chronicles—Frank, English, and Irish—as his

supreme guides, and not allow their statements to be perverted

by the false or delusive testimony of the sagas, and where the

two are at issue, sacrifice the latter without scruple, while

in those cases where we have no contemporary and independent

evidence then to construct as best we can our story from the

glimmers of light that have reached us."

H. H. Howorth,

Early History of Sweden

(Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 9).

{2816}

SCANDINAVIAN STATES:

Their relationships in language and blood.

"Scandinavia is not a very convenient word. Norway and Sweden

it suits; because, in Norway and Sweden, the geographical

boundaries coincide with the phenomena of language and blood.

But Denmark is not only divided from them by water, but is in

actual contact with Germany. More than this, it is connected

with the Empire: Holstein being German and Imperial, Sleswick

partly German though not Imperial. … Generically, a

Scandinavian is a German. Of the great German stock there are

two divisions—the Scandinavian or Norse, and the Teutonic or

German Proper. Of the Germans Proper, the nearest congeners to

the Scandinavians are the Frisians; and, after them, the

Saxons. … At present the languages of Sweden and Denmark,

though mutually intelligible, are treated as distinct: the

real differences being exaggerated by differences of

orthography, and by the use on the part of the Swedes of the

ordinary Italian alphabet, whilst the Danes prefer the old

German black-letter. The literary Norwegian is Danish rather

than Swedish. Meanwhile, the old language, the mother-tongue,

is the common property of all, and so is the old literature

with its Edda and Sagas; though … the Norwegians are the chief

heroes of it. The language in which it is embodied is

preserved with but little alteration in Iceland; so that it

may fairly be called Icelandic, though the Norwegians

denominate it Old Norse. …

See NORMANS—NORTHMEN. A. D. 960-1100.

The histories of the three countries are alike in their

general character though different in detail. Denmark when we

have got away from the heroic age into the dawn of the true

historical period, is definitely separated from Germany in the

parts about the Eyder—perhaps by the river itself. It is Pagan

and Anti-Imperial; the Danes being, in the eyes of the

Carlovingians, little better than the hated Saxons. Nor is it

ever an integral part of the Empire; though Danish and German

alliances are common. They end in Holstein being Danish, and

in its encroaching on Sleswick and largely influencing the

kingdom in general. As being most in contact with the

civilization of the South, Denmark encroaches on Sweden, and,

for a long time, holds Skaane and other Swedish districts.

Indeed, it is always a check upon the ambition of its northern

neighbour. Before, then, that Sweden becomes one and

indivisible, the Danes have to be ejected from its southern

provinces. Norway, too, when dynastic alliances begin and when

kingdoms become consolidated, is united with Denmark. … In

the way of language the Scandinavians are Germans—the term

being taken in its wider and more general sense. Whether the

blood coincide with the language is another question; nor is

it an easy one. The one point upon which most ethnologists

agree, is the doctrine that, in Norway and Sweden (at least),

or in the parts north of the Baltic, the Germans are by no

means aboriginal; the real aborigines having been congeners of

either the Laps or the Fins; who, at a time anterior to the

German immigrations, covered the whole land from the North

Cape to the Naze in Norway, and from Tornea to Ystadt in

Sweden. Towards these aborigines the newer occupants comported

themselves much as the Angles of England comported themselves

towards the Britons. At the same time, in both Britain and

Scandinavia the extent to which the two populations

intermarried or kept separate is doubtful. It may be added

that, in both countries, there are extreme opinions on each

side of the question."

R. G. Latham,

The Nationalities of Europe,

volume 2, chapter 37.

See, also,

GOTHS, ORIGIN OF THE.

ALSO IN:

A. Lefèvre,

Race and Language,

page 236.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 8-9th Centuries.

Explorations, ravages and conquests of the Vikings.

See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 8-11th Centuries.

Formation of the Three Kingdoms.

"At the end of the 8th century, … within the two Scandinavian

peninsulas, the three Scandinavian nations were fast forming.

A number of kindred tribes were settling down into the

kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, which, sometimes

separate, sometimes united, have existed ever since. Of these

three, Denmark, the only one which had a frontier towards the

Empire, was naturally the first to play a part in general

European history. In the course of the 10th century, under the

half-mythical Gorm, and his successors Harold and Sven, the

Danish kingdom itself, as distinguished from other lands held

in aftertimes by its kings, reached nearly its full historical

extent in the two peninsulas and the islands between them.

Halland and Skane or Scania, it must always be remembered, are

from the beginning at least as Danish as Zealand and Jutland.

The Eider remained the frontier towards the Empire, save

during part of the 10th and 11th centuries, when the Danish

frontier withdrew to the Dannewerk, and the laud between the

two boundaries formed the Danish March of the Empire. Under

Cnut the old frontier was restored. The name of Northmen,

which the Franks used in a laxer way for the Scandinavian

nations generally, was confined to the people of Norway. These

were formed into a single kingdom under Harold Harfraga late

in the 9th century. The Norwegian realm of that day stretched

far beyond the bounds of the later Norway, having an

indefinite extension over tributary Finnish tribes as far as

the White Sea. The central part of the eastern side of the

northern peninsula, between Denmark to the south and the

Finnish nations to the north, was held by two Scandinavian

settlements which grew into the Swedish kingdom. These were

those of the Swedes strictly so called, and of the Geatas or

Gauts. This last name has naturally been confounded with that

of the Goths, and has given the title of 'King of the Goths'

to the princes of Sweden. Gothland, east and west, lay on each

side of Lake Wettern. Swithiod or Svealand, Sweden proper, lay

on both sides of the great arm of the sea whose entrance is

guarded by the modern capital. The union of Svealand and

Gothland made up the kingdom of Sweden. Its early boundaries

towards both Denmark and Norway were fluctuating. Wermeland,

immediately to the north of Lake Wenern, and Jamteland farther

to the north, were long a debatable land. At the beginning of

the 12th century Wermeland passed finally to Sweden, and

Jamteland for several ages to Norway. Bleking again, at the

southeast corner of the Peninsula, was a debatable land

between Sweden and Denmark which passed to Denmark. For a land

thus bounded the natural course of extension by land lay to

the north, along the west coast of the Gulf of Bothnia. In the

course of the 11th century at the latest, Sweden began to

spread itself in that direction over Helsingland. Sweden had

thus a better opportunity than Denmark and Norway for

extension of her own borders by land. Meanwhile Denmark and

Norway, looking to the west, had their great time of Oceanic

conquest and colonization in the 9th and 10th centuries."

E. A. Freeman,

Historical Geography of Europe,

chapter 11, section 1.

{2817}

"Till about the year of Grace 860 there were no kings in

Norway, nothing but numerous jarls,—essentially kinglets,—each

presiding over a kind of republican or parliamentary little

territory; generally striving each to be on some terms of

human neighbourhood with those about him, but, in spite of

'Fylke Things' (Folk Things)—little parish parliaments —and

small combinations of these, which had gradually formed

themselves, often reduced to the unhappy state of quarrel with

them. Harald Haarfagr was the first to put an end to this

state of things, and become memorable and profitable to his

country by uniting it under one head and making a kingdom of

it; which it has continued to be ever since. His father,

Halfdan the Black, had already begun this rough but salutary

process, … but it was Harald the Fairhaired, his son, who

conspicuously carried it on and completed it. Harald's

birth-year, death-year, and chronology in general, are known

only by inference and computation; but, by the latest

reckoning, he died about the year 933 of our era, a man of 83.

The business of conquest lasted Harald about twelve years (A.

D. 860-872?), in which he subdued also the Vikings of the

out-islands, Orkneys, Shetlands, Hebrides, and Man. Sixty more

years were given him to consolidate and regulate what he had

conquered, which he did with great judgment, industry, and

success. His reign altogether is counted to have been of over

70 years. … These were the times of Norse colonization; proud

Norsemen flying into other lands, to freer scenes,—to Iceland,

to the Faroe Islands, which were hitherto quite vacant

(tenanted only by some mournful hermit, Irish Christian fakir,

or so); still more copiously to the Orkney and Shetland Isles,

the Hebrides and other countries where Norse squatters and

settlers already were. Settlement of Iceland, we say,

settlement of the Faroe Islands, and, by far the notablest of

all, settlement of Normandy by Rolf the Ganger (A. D. 876?)."

T. Carlyle,

The Early Kings of Norway,

chapter 1.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 9th Century.

Introduction of Christianity.

See CHRISTIANITY: 9-11TH CENTURIES.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.

The empire of Canute and its dissolution.

Disturbed state of the Three Kingdoms.

The Folkungas in Sweden.

Rise of Denmark.

The reign of Queen Margaret and the Union of Calmar.

"A Northern Empire … for a time seemed possible when Canute

the Great arose. King by inheritance of England and of

Denmark, he was able by successful war to add almost the whole

of Norway to his dominions.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016, and 1016-1042

The definite incorporation of Sleswig under treaty with the

Emperor Conrad, and the submission of the Wendish tribes,

appeared to open for him a way on to the continent. … Had men

with like capacity succeeded to his throne, the world might

have beheld an Empire of the North as well as of the East and

West. But the kingdoms of the great Danish monarch fell

asunder on his death and his successors sink again into

insignificance. Another century passes before a bright page

illumines their obscure annals. The names of Waldemar the

Great [1157-1182], of Canute VI. [1182-1202] and Waldemar the

Victorious [1202-1241] his sons, are then found attracting the

attention of Europe. Again their kingdom seemed about to raise

itself to be a continental power. They sallied forth from

their peninsula, they again conquered the Wends; the southern

shores of the Baltic, even as far as Courland and Esthonia,

were made to tremble at the Danish arms. … But the greatness

was again but temporary. Waldemar the Victorious, surprised

and made a prisoner in Germany, beheld his empire returning to

its fragments. Regaining his liberty he tried to regain his

power, but a disastrous battle at Bornhoved in 1227 gave a

death-blow to his ambition. An alliance of the petty princes

who feared his greatness prevailed against him, and Denmark

relapsed again into decline. Many causes now contributed to

the downfall of the kingdom. By the fatal policy of Waldemar

it was divided among his sons. … While anarchy increased

within the country, new enemies arose around it. The

Norwegians in a war that lasted for long years harassed it.

The necessities of Christopher obliged him to pledge Scania,

Halland, and Bleking to Sweden. A formidable foe too was now

appearing in the Hanseatic League [see HANSA TOWNS], whose

rise had followed upon the fall of Waldemar's power. The rich

cities of Lubeck and Hamburg had seized the opportunity to

assert their freedom. … Harassed by foreign enemies and by

strife with his own nobles, Christopher [the Second, who came

to the throne in 1319] at last was driven from his kingdom. A

count of Holstein, known as the Black Geert, became for

fourteen years the virtual sovereign, and imposed upon the

country his nephew, Waldemar III., the heir of the rebellious

house of Sleswig, as a titular King. Dismembered and in

anarchy, the country had sunk low, and it was not until the

assassination of Black Geert, in 1340, that any hope appeared

of its recovery." In Sweden the national history had its real

beginning, perhaps, in the days of St. Eric, who reigned from

1155 to 1160. "In this reign the spread of Christianity became

the spread of power. Eric … earned his title from his definite

establishment of the new faith. … The remaining sovereigns of

his line can hardly be said to have contributed much towards

the advancement of their country, and it was reserved for a

new dynasty to carry on the work of the earlier kings. A

powerful family had risen near the throne, and, retaining the

old tribal rank of Jarls, had filled almost the position of

mayors of the palace. The death of Eric Ericson without

children removed the last obstacle to their ambition. The

infant son of Birger Jarl was elected to the vacant throne,

and the transfer of the royal title to the family [known as

the Folkungas] that had long held royal power seemed as

natural to the Swedes as it had done earlier to the Franks. As

regent for his child, Birger upheld and added to the greatness

of his country; he became the conspicuous figure of the 13th

century in the North; he is the founder of Stockholm, the

conqueror of the Finns, the protector of the exiled princes of

Russia, the mediator in differences between Norway and

Denmark. His sceptred descendants however did not equal their

unsceptred sire. The conquest of Finland was indeed completed

by Torkel Knutson at the close of the 13th century, and shed

some lustre upon the reign of King Birger, but the quarrels of

succeeding princes among themselves disgraced and distracted

the country."

{2818}

In Norway, "the conquests of Harold Harfager had secured the

crown to a long line of his descendants; but the strife of

these descendants among themselves, and the contests which

were provoked by the attempts of successive sovereigns, with

imprudent zeal, to enforce the doctrines of Christianity upon

unwilling subjects, distracted and weakened the kingdom. A

prey to anarchy, it fell also a prey to its neighbours. In the

10th century it belonged for a time to Denmark; Sweden joined

later in dismembering it; and Canute the Great was able to

call himself its King. These were times indeed in which

conquests and annexations were often more rapid than lasting,

and a King of Norway soon reigned in his turn over Denmark.

Yet there is no doubt that the Norwegians suffered more than

they inflicted, and were from the first the weakest of the

three nations. … Wars, foreign and domestic, that have now no

interest, exhausted the country; the plague of 1348 deprived

it of at least one half its population. Its decline had been

marked, upon the extinction of its royal dynasty in 1319, by

the election of Swedish princes to fill its throne; and after

the reign of two stranger Kings it sank forever from the list

of independent kingdoms. Drifting through anarchy and discord

the three kingdoms had sunk low. Denmark was first to raise

herself from the abasement, and the reign of a fourth Waldemar

not only restored her strength but gave her a pre-eminence

which she retained until the days of Gustavus Adolphus. The

new sovereign, a younger son of Christopher II., was raised to

the throne in 1340, and no competitor, now that Black Geert

was dead, appeared to dispute it with him." Waldemar gave up,

on the one hand, his claims to Scania, Halland, and Bleking

(which he afterwards reclaimed and repossessed), as well as

the distant possessions in Esthonia, while he bought back

Jutland and the Isles, on the other. "The isle of Gothland,

and Wisby its rich capital, the centre of the Hanseatic trade

within the Baltic, were plundered and annexed [1361], giving

the title thenceforward of King of the Goths to the Danish

monarchs. This success indeed was paid for by the bitter

enmity of the Hansa, and by a war in which the pride of

Denmark was humbled to the dust beneath the power of the

combined cities. Copenhagen was pillaged [1362]; and peace was

only made by a treaty [1363] which confirmed all former

privileges to the conquerors, which gave them for fifteen

years possession of the better part of Scania and its

revenues, and which humbly promised that the election of all

sovereigns of Denmark should thenceforth he submitted for

their approval. Yet Waldemar has left behind him the

reputation of a prudent and successful prince, and his policy

prepared the way for the greatness of his successors. At his

death in 1375 two daughters, on behalf of their children,

became claimants for his throne. The youngest, Margaret, had

married Hako, King of Norway, the son of a deposed King of

Sweden [the last of the Folkungas, or Folkungers]; and the

attractive prospect of a union between the two kingdoms,

supported by her own prudent and conciliatory measures,

secured the election of her son Olaf. As regent for her child,

who soon by the death of his father became King of Norway as

well as of Denmark, she showed the wisdom of a ruler, and won

the affections of her subjects; and when the death of Olaf

himself occurred in 1387 she was rewarded in both kingdoms by

the formal possession of the sceptres which she had already

shown herself well able to hold. Mistress in Denmark and in

Norway, she prepared to add Sweden to her dominions. Since the

banishment of the Folkungas, Albert Duke of Mecklenburg had

reigned as King." But Sweden preferred Margaret, and she

easily expelled Albert from the throne, defeating him and

making him a prisoner, in 1389. A few years later, "her

nephew, Eric, long since accepted in Denmark and in Norway as

her successor, and titularly King, was now [1397] at a solemn

meeting of the states at Calmar crowned Sovereign of the Three

Kingdoms. At a later meeting the Union, since known as that of

Calmar, was formally voted, and the great work of her life was

achieved."

C. F. Johnstone,

Historical Abstracts,

chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

E. G. Geijer,

History of the Swedes,

volume 1, chapters 3-5.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 14-15th Centuries.

Power and influence of the Hanseatic League.

See HANSA TOWNS.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

Under the Union of Calmar until its dissolution.

The brutality of Christian II. and his overthrow.

Gustavus Vasa and his elevation to the throne of Sweden.

The introduction of the Reformation.

The most noteworthy articles of the Union of Calmar, by which

Norway, Sweden and Denmark were united together, in 1397,

under the Danish queen Margaret, were the following: "That the

right of electing a sovereign should be exercised in common by

the three kingdoms; that a son of the reigning king, if there

were any, should be preferred; that each kingdom should be

governed by its own laws; and that all should combine for the

common defence. But this confederacy, which seemed calculated

to promote the power and tranquility of Scandinavia, proved

the source of much discontent and jealousy and of several

bloody wars. Margaret was succeeded on her death in 1412 by

Eric of Pomerania, the son of her niece. … Eric's reign was

turbulent. In 1438 the Danes, and in the following year the

Swedes, renounced their allegiance; and Eric fled to the

island of Gothland, where he exercised piracy till his death.

The Danes elected in Eric's stead Christopher of Bavaria, son

of his sister Catharine; … but after Christopher's death in

1448 the union was dissolved. The Danes now elected for their

king Count Christian of Oldenburg; while the Swedes chose

Charles Knutson. But in the following year Charles was

compelled to resign Norway to Denmark, and in 1457 he lost

Sweden itself through an insurrection led by the Archbishop of

Upsala. Christian I. of Denmark was chosen in his place and

crowned at Upsala, June 19th; and in the following year all

the councillors of the three kingdoms, assembled at Skarn,

recognised Christian's son John as his successor. Christian I.

became a powerful monarch by inheriting Schleswic and Holstein

from his uncle. He had, however, to contend for a long period

with Charles Knutson for the throne of Sweden, and after

Charles's death in 1470, with Sten Sture, of a noble family in

Dalecarlia, to whom Charles, with the approbation of the

Swedes, had left the administration of the kingdom. In October

1471 a battle was fought on the Brunkeberg, a height now

enclosed in the city of Stockholm, in which the Danish King

was defeated, though he continued to hold the southern

provinces of Sweden.

{2819}

Christian died in 1481 and was succeeded by his son John. The

Swedes in 1483 acknowledged the supremacy of Denmark by

renewing the Union of Calmar; yet … John could never firmly

establish himself in that country. … King John of Denmark died

in 1513. … It was during the reign of Christian II. [his son

and successor] that Denmark first began to have any extensive

connections with the rest of Europe. In the year of his

accession, he allied himself with the Wendish, or northeastern

towns of the Hanseatic League, whose metropolis was Lübeck;

and he subsequently formed alliances with Russia, France,

England, and Scotland, with the view of obtaining their aid in

his contemplated reduction of Sweden. … In 1517 Trolle

[Archbishop of Upsala] had levied open war against the

administrator, Sten Sture, in which Christian supported him

with his fleet; but Sten Sture succeeded in capturing Trolle.

… In the next year (1518) Christian again appeared near

Stockholm with a fleet and army, in which were 2,000 French

sent by Francis I. Christian was defeated by Sten Sture in a

battle near Bränkirka. … The Archbishop of Upsala having

proceeded to Rome to complain of Sten Sture, the Pope erected

in Denmark an ecclesiastical tribunal, which deposed the

administrator and his party, and laid all Sweden under an

interdict. This proceeding, however, served to pave the way

for the acceptance in Sweden of the Lutheran reformation;

though it afforded Christian II. a pretence for getting up a

sort of crusade against that country. … Early in 1520 … Sture

was defeated and wounded in a battle fought on the ice of Lake

Asunden, near Bogesund in West Gothland. … Sten Sture, in

spite of his wound, hastened to the defence of Stockholm, but

expired on the way in his sledge on Malar Lake, February 3rd

1520. The Swedes were defeated in a second battle near Upsala,

after which a treaty was concluded to the effect that

Christian should reign in Sweden, agreeably to the Union of

Calmar, but on condition of' granting an entire amnesty.

Christian now proceeded to Stockholm, and in October was

admitted into that city by Sture's widow, who held the

command. Christian at first behaved in the most friendly

manner …; yet he had no sooner received the crown than he

took the most inhuman vengeance on his confiding subjects. …

The city was abandoned to be plundered by the soldiers like a

place taken by storm. Orders were despatched to Finland to

proceed in a similar manner; while the King's progress through

the southern provinces was everywhere marked by the erection

of gallowses. These cruelties … occasioned insurrections in

all his dominions. That in Sweden was led by Gustavus Ericson,

… a young man remarkable alike by his origin, connections,

talent and courage; whose family, for what reason is unknown,

afterwards assumed the name of Vasa, which was borne neither

by himself nor by his forefathers." Gustavus, who had been a

hostage in Christian's hands; had escaped from his captivity,

in 1519, taking refuge at Lübeck. In May, 1520, he secretly

entered Sweden, remaining in concealment. A few months later

his father perished, among the victims of the Danish tyrant,

and Gustavus fled to Dalecarlia, "a district noted for its

love of freedom and hatred of the Danes. Here he worked in

peasant's clothes, for daily wages, in hourly danger from his

pursuers, from whom he had many narrow escapes. … The news of

Christian's inhumanity procured Gustavus Vasa many followers;

he was elected as their leader by a great assembly of the

people at Mora, and found himself at the head of 5,000 men,"

out of whom he made good soldiers, although they were

wretchedly armed. "In June, 1521, he invested Stockholm; but

the siege, for want of proper artillery and engineering skill,

was protracted two years. During this period his command was

legally confirmed in a Herrendag, or assembly of the nobles,

at Wadstena, "August 24th 1521; the crown was proffered to

him, which he declined, but accepted the office of Regent. The

Danes were now by degrees almost entirely expelled from

Sweden; and Christian II., so far from being able to relieve

Stockholm, found himself in danger of losing the Danish

crown," which he did, in fact, in 1523, through a revolution

that placed on the throne his uncle, Duke Frederick of

Holstein. "The Union of Calmar was now entirely dissolved. The

Norwegians claimed to exercise the right of election like the

Danes; and when Frederick called upon the Swedish States to

recognise his title in conformity with the Union, they replied

that it was their intention to elect Gustavus Ericson for

their king; which was accordingly done at the Diet of

Strengnäs, June 7th 1523. Three weeks after Stockholm

surrendered to Gustavus." The dethroned Christian II. escaped

to the Netherlands, where he found means to equip an

expedition with which he invaded Norway, in 1531. It left him

a prisoner in the hands of the Danes, who locked him up in the

castle of Sonderburg until his death, which did not occur

until 1559. "Meanwhile, in Sweden, Gustavus was consolidating

his power, partly by moderation and mildness, partly by

examples of necessary severity. He put himself at the head of

the Reformation, as Frederick I. also did in Denmark. …

Luther's doctrines had been first introduced into Sweden in

1519, by two brothers, Olaus and Lawrence Petri, who had

studied under the great apostle of reform at Wittenberg. The

Petris soon attracted the attention of Gustavus, who gave them

his protection, and entered himself into correspondence with

Luther. … As in other parts of Europe, the nobles were induced

to join the movement from the prospect of sharing the spoils

of the church; and in a great Diet at Westeräs in 1527, the

Reformation was introduced.

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

P. B. Watson,

The Swedish Revolution under Gustavus Vasa.

A. Alberg,

Gustavus Vasa and his Stirring Times.

{2820}

SCANDINAVIAN STATES:

(Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1523.

Accession of Frederick I.

(Sweden): A. D. 1523-1604.

The reigns of Gustavus Vasa and his sons.

Wars with Russia and Denmark.

The Baltic question.

Prince Sigismund elected king of Poland and

his consequent loss of the Swedish crown,

Resulting hostilities.

"Gustavus Vasa, the founder of his dynasty, was not a very

religious man. He had determined to make Sweden a Lutheran

country for two main reasons: first, because he wanted the

lands of the Church, both in order to enrich the crown and

also to attach the nobles to his cause; secondly, because, as

he said, the 'priests were all unionists in Sweden'—that is,

they all wished to maintain the union of the three

Scandinavian kingdoms which he had broken, and they were,

therefore, irreconcilably hostile to his dynasty. Three other

great services were rendered to Sweden by Gustavus I.:

(1) at the Diet of Westeräs, in 1544, the hereditary character

of the monarchy was definitely declared. This was a great

victory over the nobles, who in nearly all the Northern and

Eastern Kingdoms of Europe—and in Sweden itself at a later

time—succeeded in erecting an oligarchy, which oppressed the

peasants and crippled the activity of the State.

(2) Again, by his consistent favouring of the middle classes,

and his conclusion of commercial treaties with Russia, France,

and the Netherlands, he became the founder of Swedish

commerce, and dealt a serious blow at the Baltic supremacy of

the Hanseatic League.

(3) And lastly, he appears as the founder of that policy of

territorial aggression (toward the South and East), which,

however we may judge of its morality in this age of peace, was

certainly looked upon then as the prime duty of all Kings, and

which in the case of Sweden was the direct path toward the

great part which she was destined to play in the 17th century.

His first enemy was Russia, a recently consolidated State,

already bordering on the half-Polish province of Livonia and

the Swedish province of Finland; already extending her flanks

to the Caucasus and the Don on the south and to the White Sea

on the north. … The wars of Ivan the Terrible (1534-84) for

Finland and Livonia were unsuccessful, and the chief interest

which they possess for us is that in 1561, the year after the

death of Gustavus I., his son Eric acquired for Sweden the

province of Esthonia, which appears to have previously

fluctuated between dependence on Denmark and on Russia. This

was the first of the so-called 'Baltic provinces' of Sweden;

herewith began the exclusion of Russia from the 'Dominium

Maris Baltici.' But this possession brought Eric face to face

with Poland, a country which was disputing with Russia the

possession of Livonia. Poland, under the last of the great

Jaghellon line, was already displaying the fatal tendency to

anarchy which at last devoured her. … Poland turned for help

to the King of Denmark, in whom Eric, with keen insight,

recognised the most dangerous foe for Sweden. In 1563 Eric

concluded peace with Russia, and the nations of the North

began to assume their natural relation to each other. The

Baltic question rapidly became an European one. English

sympathies were with Sweden and Russia; Spain and the Emperor

as naturally took the other side, and suggested to the King of

Denmark, Frederick II. (1559-1588), that he should ask for the

hand of Mary Stuart; to counteract which King Eric indulged in

an elaborate flirtation with Elizabeth. The powers of North

Germany took sides in the war (1565), but the war itself

produced but little result. The able Eric displayed symptoms

of insanity and was extremely unpopular with the Swedish

nobles, and Denmark was as yet too powerful an enemy for

Sweden to overthrow. In 1567 Eric was deposed by a revolution,

the fruit of which was reaped by his brother John. When the

great Gustavus I. was dying, and could no longer speak, he

made a sign that he wished to write, and wrote half a sentence

of warning to his people: 'Rather die a hundred times than

abandon the Gospel. …' Then his hand failed, and he dropped

back dead. He was not, I have said, a particularly religious

man, but he marked out the true path for Sweden. Now in 1567 a

certain reaction set in: many of the nobles, who had felt the

yoke of Gustavus heavy and of Eric heavier, seemed ready to

drift back to Catholicism, and John's reign (1567-1590) was

one of reaction in many ways. John never openly went over to

Catholicism, but he cast off all the Lutheranism that he dared

to cast off. He made peace with Denmark and war with Russia;

thereby he allowed the former country to develop her trade and

foreign relations enormously and rapidly, and made the task of

his successors doubly hard. Above all, he originated, by his

marriage with Catherine Jaghellon, the disastrous connexion

with Poland. That unhappy country, 'the fatal byword for all

years to come' of genuine anarchy, had just closed its period

of prosperity. The last of the Jaghellon Kings died in 1572,

and the elected King, Stephen Bathori, died in 1586. Ivan the

Terrible sought the crown of Poland. … John of Sweden, on the

other hand, saw an opening for the House of Vasa. His son

Sigismund was, by dint of bribes and intrigue, elected King of

Poland. But he had to become a Catholic. … The union of Sweden

with Poland, which would necessarily follow, if Sigismund

succeeded his father on the Swedish throne, would be almost

certainly a Catholic union. … Sweden was still a free country,

in the sense of being governed in a parliamentary way with the

consent of the four estates, Nobles, Clergy, Citizens, and

Peasants. Whatever the Riddarhus might think upon the subject,

the three non-noble estates were red-hot Protestants and would

have no Catholic king. Even the nobles were only induced to

consent to Sigismund becoming King of Poland without

forfeiting his right to succeed in Sweden, by the grant of

extravagant privileges, practically so great, had they been

observed, as to emasculate the Vasa monarchy. Luckily the

people had a deliverer at hand. Charles, Duke of Sudermania,

the youngest of the sons of Gustavus I., lived wholly in the

best traditions of his father's policy. He might be relied

upon to head an insurrection, if necessary. Even before John's

death in 1590 murmurs began to be heard that he had been an

usurper—was his son necessarily the heir? These murmurs

increased, when in 1593, after waiting three years, Sigismund

came home to claim his kingdom, with a present of 20,000

crowns from the Pope in his pocket, 'to defray the cost of the

restoration of Catholicism in Sweden.' Duke Charles had

already prepared his plans when the King arrived; there seems

little doubt that he was playing a game, and for the crown. We

are not concerned with his motives, it is sufficient to know

that they corresponded with the interests of his country. In

1593, just before Sigismund had landed, Charles had been

chosen Regent and President of the Council of State. … When

Sigismund went back to Poland at the end of the year 1594, he

could not prevent Charles being chosen to administer the

kingdom in his absence, and Diet after Diet subsequently

confirmed the power of the Regent.

{2821}

The peasants of Dalecarlia, the great province of the centre,

which had first come forward to the support of Gustavus I. in

1520, sent up a petition to the effect that there ought to be

only one king in Sweden, and that Sigismund had forfeited the

crown. Charles himself had been unwilling to lead a

revolution, until it became apparent that Sigismund was

massing troops and raising money in Poland for an attack upon

his native land. In 1597 the civil war may be said to have

begun; in the following year Sigismund landed (with only 5,000

Polish troops) and was utterly defeated near Linköping (on

September 25, 1598). On the next day a treaty was concluded by

which Sigismund was acknowledged as King, but promised to send

away his foreign troops and maintain Protestantism. It was

obviously a mere effort to gain time, and in the following

year on failing to keep the condition, which he never had the

remotest intention of keeping, he was formally deposed (July,

1599). The contest, however, was by no means over, and it led

to that perpetual hostility between Sweden and Poland which

played such an important part in the history of Northern

Europe in the 17th century. … In 1604 Charles was solemnly

crowned King; that was the second birthday of the Vasa

monarchy; the crown was entailed upon his eldest son, Gustavus

Adolphus, and his descendants, being Protestants, and the

descendants of Sigismund were forever excluded. 'Every prince

who should deviate from the Confession of Augsburg should ipso

facto lose the crown. Anyone who should attempt to effect any

change of religion should be declared an enemy and a traitor.

Sweden should never be united with another kingdom under one

crown; the King must live in Sweden.'"

C. R. L. Fletcher,

Gustavus Adolphus,

introduction.

ALSO IN:

E. G. Geijer,

History of the Swedes,

volume 1, chapters 9-14.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1534.

Accession of Christian III.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1559.

Accession of Frederick II.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1588.

Accession of Christian IV.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1611.

Accession of Gustavus Adolphus.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1611-1629.

The Danish, Russian and Polish wars of Gustavus Adolphus.

On the death of Charles in 1611 his son, Gustavus Adolphus,

did not immediately assume the title of king. "Sweden remained

without a sovereign for two months; for, according to the will

of the deceased king, the queen and his nephew (Duke John),

with six councillors of state, were to rule till the wishes of

the people could be made known in the customary manner. After

an interregnum of two months, the Diet opened at Nyköping. …

Duke John was the son of Sigismund, King of Poland, had been

brought up in Sweden, and might be considered as having some

just claim to the throne. The queen-mother and Duke John laid

down the tutelage and the regency. … Nine days later the young

king, in the presence of the representatives of the estates of

Sweden, received the reins of government. … He was then in the

first month of his 18th year. He took charge of the kingdom

when it was in a critical condition. Since the death of

Gustavus Vasa, his grandfather, a period of more than 50

years, Sweden had not enjoyed a single year of peace. In that

long space of time, there had been constant dissensions and

violence. … Sweden was much constrained and embarrassed by her

boundaries, and by the jealousies and hostile feelings of her

neighbours on the north and the south. Denmark and Norway were

united in a kind of dual government under the same king; and

both alike were opposed to the growth of Swedish power, and

were in continual dispute with her in respect to territory, as

well as to the naval and commercial uses of the adjacent seas.

Those provinces in the south which are now the most productive

and valuable of Sweden, then belonged to Denmark, or were in

dispute between the two countries. On the east, Russia and

Poland embarrassed and threatened her." During the first year

of his reign Gustavus devoted his energies to the war with

Denmark. He fought at a disadvantage. His resources were

unequal to those of the Danes. His capital, Stockholm, was

once attacked by a Danish fleet and in serious peril. But he

secured an advantageous peace in the spring of 1613. "Sweden

renounced some of its conquests and pretensions, and the Danes

gave up to Sweden the city of Calmar on the Baltic, and at the

end of six years were to surrender to Sweden its city of

Elfsborg on the North Sea; the latter agreeing to pay to the

Danes 1,000,000 thalers for the surrender. … At the death of

Charles IX., and the ascension of Gustavus to the throne,

Sweden was in a state of war with Russia, and was so to

continue for several years; though hostilities were not all

the time prosecuted with vigor, and were some of the time

practically suspended. … The Swedes held possession of a large

area of what is now Russian territory, as well as important

towns and fortresses. The extensive country of Finland, which

makes to-day so important a province of Russia, had been

united with Sweden nearly five centuries, as it continued to

be nearly two hundred years longer. But towns and territory,

also a long distance within the lines of the Russian

population, were then in the power of the Swedish forces. The

troubles and dissensions relative to the succession, and

extreme dislike to the Poles, had caused a numerous party to

seek a Swedish prince for its sovereign, and to this end had

sent an embassy to Stockholm near the date of the death of

Charles IX. Finding that the young Gustavus had acceded to the

crown of his father, this Russian party desired to secure for

the Russian throne Charles Philip, a younger brother of

Gustavus. The Swedish king did not show eagerness to bring

this plan to success; but, the war being terminated with

Denmark, he was resolved to draw what advantage he could from

the weakened condition of Russia, to the advancement and

security of the interests of Sweden. In July, 1613, the

Russians chose for czar Michael Romanoff, then sixteen years

of age. … Gustavus proceeded to push military operations with

as much vigor as possible. … For four years more the war

between these two countries continued; … the advantages being

generally on the side of the Swedes, though they were not

always successful in important sieges." Finally, through the

mediation of English agents, terms of peace were agreed upon.

"The treaty was signed February, 1617. Russia yielded to

Sweden a large breadth of territory, shutting herself out from

the Baltic; the land where St. Petersburg now stands becoming

Swedish territory. …

{2822}

The next important work in hand was to deal with Poland. … At

the death of Charles IX. an armistice had been signed, which

was to continue until July, 1612. This was thrice extended,

the last time to January, 1616. The latter date had not been

reached when the Polish partisans began to intrigue actively

in Sweden, and those Swedes who still adhered to the religion

and the dynastic rights of Sigismund could not be otherwise

than secretly or openly stirred. Sigismund was not only

supported by the power of Poland, and by his strong show of

legal title to the Swedish crown, but there were strong

influences on his side in European high political and

religious quarters. He was united to the house of Hapsburg by

the bonds of relationship ns well as of theology. Philip III.

of Spain, and he who afterwards became Ferdinand II. of

Austria, were his brothers-in-law. … Sigismund came then to

the resolution to make war for the possession of Sweden. He

was promised enrolment of troops in Germany, the Spaniards had

engaged to arm a fleet in his support, and the estates of

Poland were to furnish their quota. … Efforts were made to

stir up revolt against Gustavus in his own kingdom," and he

promptly declared war. "During the year 1617 hostilities were

prosecuted on both sides with much vigor, and loss of life.

Towns and strong positions were taken, and invasions and

sudden attacks were made on both sides; the advantages being

generally with the Swedes, though not decisive. During the

winter of 1618 the Poles invaded Livonia and Esthonia,

carrying pillage and fire in their march, and then retiring."

Gustavus would not allow his generals to retaliate. "'We wish

not,' he said, 'to war against the peasant, whom we had rather

protect than ruin.'" In 1618 there was an armistice, with

peace negotiations which failed, and the war began anew. In

August, 1621, Gustavus laid siege to Riga with a strong fleet

and army, and met with an obstinate resistance; but the place

was surrendered to him at the end of nearly six weeks. Again

the belligerents agreed to an armistice, and "the year 1624 is

declared by the Swedish historians to have been the only one

in which Gustavus Adolphus was able to devote all his labors

and cares to the interior administration of his country. In

the following year the war was renewed. The third campaign of

the Swedish king against Poland was terminated by the

completion of the conquest of Livonia; and the possession of

Courland assured to him Riga, the object of his special care."

The decisive battle of the campaign was fought at Wallhof,

January 7, 1626. The king of Sweden then "resolved to

transport the theatre of war from the banks of the Duna to

those of the Vistula, to attack Poland at the heart, and

approach Germany. Here commences that part of the war of

Poland which is called also the war of Prussia. … He

[Gustavus] realized the need of a port in Eastern Prussia; and

the elector of Brandenburg, his brother-in-law, was invested,

with that duchy under the suzerainty of Poland. Gustavus did

not allow these considerations to arrest his course. … June 26

the king arrived before Pillau, and possessed himself of that

city without much resistance, the garrison being small. …

Braunsberg capitulated June 30. July I, Flanenberg

surrendered, and Elbing on the 6th, which was followed by

Marienberg on the 8th; the last a well-fortified city. Many

towns of less importance were likewise soon captured. Gustavus

rapidly pushed aside all resistance, and soon reached the

frontiers of Pomerania." In the engagements of the campaign of

1627 the king was twice wounded—once by a musket-ball in the

groin, and the second time by a ball that entered near the

neck and lodged at the upper corner of the right

shoulder-blade. In June, 1629, "there was a heated engagement

at Stum, in which Gustavus ran great danger, his force being

inferior to the enemy." In September of that year "an

armistice was concluded for six years between the belligerent

kingdoms. Five cities which had been conquered by Swedish arms

were given up to Poland, and three others delivered to the

elector of Brandenburg, to be held during the armistice.

Gustavus was to continue to occupy Pillau and three other

towns of some importance. Liberty of conscience was to be

accorded to Protestants and Catholics, and commerce was

declared free between the two nations."

J. L. Stevens,

History of Gustavus Adolphus,

chapters 3 and 7.

ALSO IN:

B. Chapman,

History of Gustavus Adolphus,

chapters 2-4.

See, also, POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1625-1630.

The Protestant Alliance.

Engagement of King Christian IV. in the Thirty Years War.

The Treaty of Lübeck.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626; and 1627-1629.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1627.

The country overrun by Wallenstein.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1628.

Gustavus Adolphus' first interference in the war in Germany.

The relief of Stralsund.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1630-1632.

The campaigns of Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.

His death.

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

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1631.

Treaty of Barwalde with France.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631 (JANUARY).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1632.

Full powers given to Oxenstiern in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1638-1640.

The planting of a colony in America, on the Delaware.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1640-1645.

Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1643-1645.

War between Sweden and Denmark.

Torstenson's conquest of Holstein and Schleswig.

The Peace of Bromsebro.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1644-1697.

Reign and abdication of Queen Christina.

Wars of Charles X. and Charles XI. with Poland

and Denmark and in Germany.

Establishment of absolutism.

"Christina, the only child and successor of Gustavus Adolphus,

had been brought up by her aunt, Katerina, the Princess

Palatine, until the death of the latter in 1639, and in the

year 1644, when she reached the age of eighteen, the regency

was absolved, and she began to rule in her own name. She had

inherited much of her father's talent, and was perhaps the

most learned and accomplished woman of her time.

{2823}

She had received the education of a man. … She had great taste

for the fine arts and for the pursuits of science; but while

she encouraged scientific men at her court, she also spent

money too recklessly in rewarding artistic merit of all kinds.

… As a dangerous drawback to her many splendid qualities, she

had all the waywardness, caprice, restlessness of mind,

fickleness and love of display for which her beautiful mother,

Maria Eleanora of Brandenburg, had been noted. She lavished

crown lands and the money of the state upon favourites. … In

the meanwhile the national Estates had been split up into

parties, the aristocrats being led by Axel Oxenstjerna, and

the democrats, with whom the queen sided, by Johan Skytte. The

clergy struggled to maintain their independence under the

oppressive patronage of the nobles, and the peasants agitated

to recover some of the power which the great Gustavus Vasa had

granted them, but which his successors had by degrees taken

from them. The kingdom was in a ferment, and a civil war

seemed to be unavoidable. The council urged upon the queen to

marry, and her cousin, Karl Gustaf of the Palatinate,

entreated her to fulfil the promise which she had given him in

earlier years of choosing him for her husband. At length … she

proposed him for her successor. … After much opposition, Karl

Gustaf was declared successor to the throne in the event of

the queen having no children of her own. … The few years of

Christina's reign after her solemn coronation were disquieted

by continued dissensions in the diet, attempts at revolts, and

by a general distress, which was greatly increased by her

profuse wastefulness and her reckless squandering of the

property of the crown. As ear]y as the year 1648 she had

conceived the idea of abdicating, but, being hindered by her

old friends and councillors, she deferred carrying out her

wishes till 1654." In that year the abdication was formally

accomplished, and she left the country at once, travelling

through Europe. In 1655 she renounced Protestantism and

entered the Roman Catholic Church. "At the death [1660] of her

cousin and successor, Karl X. Gustaf, as he was called by the

Swedes, and who is known to us as Charles X., she returned to

Sweden and claimed the crown for herself; but neither then,

nor in 1667, when she renewed her pretensions, would the

council encourage her hopes, and, after a final attempt to

gain the vacant throne of Poland in 1668, she gave up all

schemes of ever reigning again, and retired to Rome, where she

died in 1689 at the age of sixty-three. … The short reign of

Charles X., from 1655 to 1660, was a time of great disorder

and unquiet in Sweden. … He resolved to engage the people in

active war. … The ill-timed demand of the Polish king, Johan

Kasimir, to be proclaimed the true heir to Christina's throne,

drew the first attack upon Poland. Charles X. was born to be a

soldier and a conqueror, and the success and rapidity with

which he overran all Poland, and crushed the Polish army in a

three days' engagement at Warsaw in 1656, showed that he was a

worthy pupil and successor of his uncle, the great Gustavus

Adolphus. But it was easier for him to make conquests than to

keep them, and when the Russians, in their jealousy of the

increasing power of Sweden, took part in the war, and began to

attack Livonia and Esthonia, while an imperial army advanced

into Poland to assist the Poles, who, infuriated at the

excesses of the Swedish soldiers, had risen en masse against

them, Charles saw the expediency of retreating; and, leaving

only a few detachments of troops to watch his enemies, he

turned upon Denmark. This war, which was closed by the peace

signed at Roeskilde in 1658, enriched Sweden at the expense of

Denmark, and gave to the former the old provinces of Skaania,

Halland and Bleking, by which the Swedish monarchy obtained

natural and well-defined boundaries. The success of this first

Danish war, in which Denmark for a time lay crushed under the

power of the Swedish king, emboldened him to renew his

attacks, and between 1658 and 1660 Charles X. made war five

times on the Danish monarch; more than once laid siege to

Copenhagen; and, under his able captain, Wrangel, nearly

destroyed the Danish fleet. At the close of 1659, when it

seemed as if Denmark must be wholly subjugated by Sweden, the

English and Dutch, alarmed at the ambition of the Swedish

king, sent an allied fleet into the Cattegat to operate with

the Danes." Charles, checked in his operations, was preparing

to carry the war into Norway, when he died suddenly, in the

winter of 1660, and peace was made by the treaty of Oliva. "By

the early death of Charles X., Sweden was again brought under

the rule of a regency, for his son and successor, Charles XI.,

was only four years old when he became king. … Every

department of the government was left to suffer from

mismanagement, the army and navy were neglected, the defences

of the frontiers fell into decay, and the public servants were

unable to procure their pay. To relieve the great want of

money, the regency accepted subsidies, or payments of money

from foreign states to maintain peace towards them, and hired

out troops to serve in other countries. In this state of

things the young king grew up without receiving any very

careful education. … Charles was declared of age in his 18th

year. … He was not left long in the enjoyment of mere

exercises of amusement, for in 1674 Louis XIV. of France, in

conformity with the treaty which the regents had concluded

with him, called upon the young Swedish king to help him in

the war which he was carrying on against the German princes.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1674-1678.

Charles sent an army into Germany, which advanced without

opposition into the heart of Brandenburg, but before these

forces could form a junction with the French troops then

encamped in the Rhinelands, the Elector came upon them

unawares at Fehrbellin [June 18, 1675] and defeated them. The

losses of the Swedes on this occasion were not great, but the

result of their defeat was to give encouragement to the old

rivals of Sweden; and early in 1675 both Holland and Denmark

declared war against the Swedish king, who, finding that he

had been left by the regency almost without army, navy, or

money, resolved for the future to take the management of

public affairs entirely into his own hands." When he "began

the war by a sea engagement with the enemy off Oeland, he

found that his ships of war had suffered as much as the

land-defences from the long-continued neglect of his regents.

The Danes, under their great admiral, Niels Juel, and

supported by a Dutch squadron, beat the Swedish fleet, many of

whose ships were burnt or sunk.

{2824}

This defeat was atoned for by a victory on land, gained by

Charles himself in 1676, over the Danes on the snow-covered

hills around the town of Lund. Success was not won without

heavy cost, for after a most sanguinary fight, continued from

daybreak till night, King Charles, although master of the

field, found that more than half his men had been killed. The

Danes, who had suffered fully as much, were forced to retreat,

leaving Lund in the hands of the Swedes; and although they

several times repeated the attempt, they failed in recovering

the province of Skaania, which was the great object of their

ambition. In Germany the fortune of war did not favor the

Swedes, although they fought gallantly under their general,

Otto Königsmark; [Stettin was surrendered after a long siege

in 1677, and Stralsund in 1678] and Charles XI. was glad to

enter into negotiations for taking part in the general peace

which France was urging upon all the leading powers of Europe,

and which was signed at the palace of St. Germains, in 1679,

by the representatives of the respective princes. Sweden

recovered the whole of Pomerania, which had been occupied

during the war by Austria and Brandenburg, and all Swedish and

Danish conquests were mutually renounced. … At the close of

this war Charles XI. began in good earnest to put his kingdom

in order." By sternly reclaiming crown-lands which had been

wantonly alienated by former rulers, and by compelling other

restitutions, Charles broke the power of the nobles, and so

humbled the National Estates that they "proclaimed him, in a

diet held in 1693, to be an absolute sovereign king, 'who had

the power and right to rule his kingdom as he pleased.'" He

attained an absolutism, in fact, which was practically

unlimited. He died in 1697, leaving three children, the eldest

of whom, who succeeded him, was the extraordinary Charles XII.

E. C. Otté,

Scandinavian History,

chapter 21.

ALSO IN:

H. Tuttle,

History of Prussia to 1740,

chapter 5.

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 5, chapters 2 and 4 (volume 3).

G. B. Malleson,

Battle-Fields of Germany,

chapter 8.

See, also, BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1646-1648.

Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1648.

Accession of Frederick III.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1648.

The Peace of Westphalia.

Acquisition of part of Pomerania and other German territory.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1655.

Conquest of the Delaware colony by the Dutch.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1656.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1668.

Triple Alliance with Holland and England against Louis XIV.

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

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1670.

Accession of Christian V.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1674-1679.

In the coalition to resist Louis XIV.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND):

A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;

also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1686.

The League of Augsburg against Louis XIV.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1697.

Accession of Charles XII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1697.

The Peace of Ryswick.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1697-1700.

The conspiracy of three sovereigns against Charles XII.

and how he met it

First campaigns of the young king, in Denmark and Russia.

"Charles XII, at his accession to the throne, found himself

the absolute and undisturbed master, not only of Sweden and

Finland, but also of Livonia, Carelia, Ingria, Wismar, Viborg,

the Islands of Rügen and Oesel, and the finest part of

Pomerania, together with the duchy of Bremen and Verden,—all

of them the conquests of his ancestors. … The beginning of the

king's reign gave no very favorable idea of his character. It

was imagined that he had been more ambitious of obtaining the

supreme power than worthy of possessing it. True it is, he had

no dangerous passion; but his conduct discovered nothing but

the sallies of youth and the freaks of obstinacy. He seemed to

be equally proud and lazy. The ambassadors who resided at his

court took him even for a person of mean capacity, and

represented him as such to their respective masters. The

Swedes entertained the same opinion of him: nobody knew his

real character: he did not even know it himself, until the

storm that suddenly arose in the North gave him an opportunity

of displaying his great talents, which had hitherto lain

concealed. Three powerful princes, taking the advantage of his

youth, conspired his ruin almost at the same time. The first

was his own cousin, Frederick IV, king of Denmark: the second,

Augustus, elector of Saxony and King of Poland; Peter the

Great, czar of Muscovy, was the third, and most dangerous. …

The founder of the Russian empire was ambitious of being a

conqueror. … Besides, he wanted a port on the east side of the

Baltic, to facilitate the execution of all his schemes. He

wanted the province of Ingria, which lies to the northeast of

Livonia. The Swedes were in possession of it, and from them he

resolved to take it by force. His predecessors had had claims

upon Ingria, Esthonia, and Livonia; and the present seemed a

favorable opportunity for reviving these claims, which had

lain buried for a hundred years, and had been cancelled by the

sanction of treaties. He therefore made a league with the King

of Poland, to wrest from young Charles XII all the territories

that are bounded by the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea,

Poland, and Muscovy. The news of these preparations struck the

Swedes with consternation, and alarmed the council." But the

effect on the young King was instantly and strangely sobering.

He assumed the responsibilities of the situation at once, and

took into his own hands the preparations for war. From that

moment "he entered on a new course of life, from which he

never afterwards deviated in one single instance. Full of the

idea of Alexander and Cæsar, he proposed to imitate those two

conquerors in every thing but their vices. No longer did he

indulge himself in magnificence, sports, and recreations: he

reduced his table to the most rigid frugality. He had formerly

been fond of gayety and dress; but from that time he was never

clad otherwise than as a common soldier. He was supposed to

have entertained a passion for a lady of his court: whether

there was any foundation for this supposition does not appear;

certain it is, he ever after renounced all commerce with women,

not only for fear of being governed by them, but likewise to

set an example of continence to his soldiers. …

{2825}

He likewise determined to abstain from wine during the rest of

his life. … He began by assuring the Duke of Holstein, his

brother-in-law, of a speedy assistance. Eight thousand men

were immediately sent into Pomerania, a province bordering

upon Holstein, in order to enable the duke to make head

against the Danes. The duke indeed had need of them. His

dominions were already laid waste, the castle of Gottorp

taken, and the city of Tönningen pressed by an obstinate

siege, to which the King of Denmark had come in person. … This

spark began to throw the empire into a flame. On the one side,

the Saxon troops of the King of Poland, those of Brandenburg

Wolfenbüttel, and Hesse Cassel, advanced to join the Danes. On

the other, the King of Sweden's 8,000 men, the troops of

Hanover and Zell, and three Dutch regiments, came to the

assistance of the duke. While the little country of Holstein

was thus the theatre of war, two squadrons, the one from

England and the other from Holland, appeared in the Baltic. …

They joined the young King of Sweden, who seemed to be in

danger of being crushed. … Charles set out for his first

campaign on the 8th day of May, new style, in the year 1700,

and left Stockholm, whither he never returned. … His fleet

consisted of three-and-forty vessels. … He joined the

squadrons of the allies," and made a descent upon Copenhagen.

The city surrendered to escape bombardment, and in less than

six weeks Charles had extorted from the Danish King a treaty

of peace, negotiated at Travendahl, which indemnified the Duke

of Holstein for all the expenses of the war and delivered him

from oppression. For himself, Charles asked nothing. "Exactly

at the same time, the King of Poland invested Riga, the

capital of Livonia; and the czar was advancing on the east at

the head of nearly 100,000 men." Riga was defended with great

skill and determination, and Augustus was easily persuaded to

abandon the siege on the remonstrance of the Dutch, who had

much merchandise in the town. "The only thing that Charles had

now to do towards the finishing of his first campaign, was to

march against his rival in glory, Peter Alexiovitch." Peter

had appeared before Narva on the 1st of October, at the head

of 80,000 men, mostly undisciplined barbarians, "some armed

with arrows, and others with clubs. Few of them had guns; none

of them had ever seen a regular siege; and there was not one

good cannoneer in the whole army. … Narva was almost without

fortifications: Baron Horn, who commanded there, had not 1,000

regular troops; and yet this immense army could not reduce it

in six weeks. It was now the 15th of November, when the czar

learned that the King of Sweden had crossed the sea with 200

transports, and was advancing to the relief of Narva. The

Swedes were not above 20,000 strong." But the czar was not

confident. He had another army marching to his support, and he

left the camp at Narva to hasten its movements. Charles'

motions were too quick for him. He reached Narva on the 30th

of November, after a forced march, with a vanguard of only

8,000 men, and at once, without waiting for the remainder of

his army to come up, he stormed the Russian intrenchments.

"The Swedes advanced with fixed bayonets, having a furious

shower of snow on their backs, which drove full in the face of

the enemy." The victory was complete. "The Swedes had not lost

above 600 men. Eight thousand Muscovites had been killed in

their intrenchments: many were drowned; many had crossed the

river," and 30,000 who held a part of the camp at nightfall,

surrendered next morning. When czar Peter, who was pressing

the march of his 40,000 men, received news of the disaster at

Narva, he turned homeward, and set himself seriously to the

work of drilling and disciplining his troops. "The Swedes," he

said phlegmatically, "will teach us to beat them."

Voltaire,

History of Charles XII., King of Sweden,

books 1-2.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1699.

Accession of Frederick IV.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1701-1707.

Invasion and subjugation of Poland and Saxony by Charles XII.

Deposition of Augustus from the Polish throne.

Charles at the summit of his career.

"Whilst Peter, abandoning all the provinces he had invaded,

retreated to his own dominions, and employed himself in

training his undisciplined serfs, Charles prepared to take the

field against his only remaining adversary, the King of

Poland. Leaving Narva, where he passed the winter, he entered

Livonia, and appeared in the neighbourhood of Riga, the very

place which the Poles and Saxons had in vain besieged.

Dreading the storm that now approached, Augustus had entered

into a closer alliance with the czar; and at an interview

which took place at Birsen, a small town in Lithuania, it was

agreed that each should furnish the other with a body of

50,000 mercenaries, to be paid by Russia. … The Saxon army,

having failed in their attempt on Riga, endeavoured to prevent

the Swedes from crossing the Dwina; but the passage was

effected under cover of a thick cloud of smoke from the

burning of wet straw, and by means of large boats with high

wooden parapets along the sides, to protect the soldiers from

the fire of the enemy, who were driven from their

intrenchments with the loss of 2,000 killed and 1,500

prisoners. Charles immediately advanced to Mittau, the capital

of Courland, the garrison of which, with all the other towns

and forts in the duchy, surrendered at discretion. He next

passed into Lithuania, conquering wherever he came, and

driving 20,000 Russians before him with the utmost

precipitation. On reaching Birsen, it gave him no little

satisfaction, as he himself confessed, to enter in triumph the

very town where, only a few months before, Augustus and the

czar had plotted his destruction. It was here that he formed

the daring project of dethroning the King of Poland by means

of his own subjects, whose notions of liberty could not

tolerate the measures of a despotic government. … The fate of

Augustus, already desperate, was here consummated by the

treachery of the primate Radziewiski, who caused it to be

immediately notified to all the palatines, that no alternative

remained but to submit to the will of the conqueror. The

deserted monarch resolved to defend his crown by force of

arms; the two kings met near Clissau (July 13, 1702), where

after a bloody battle fortune again declared for the Swedes.

Charles halted not a moment on the field of victory, but

marched rapidly to Cracow in pursuit of his antagonist.

{2826}

That city was taken without firing a shot, and taxed with a

contribution of 100,000 rix-dollars. The fugitive prince

obtained an unexpected respite of six weeks, his indefatigable

rival having had his thigh-bone fractured by an accidental

fall from his horse. The interval was spent in hostile

preparations, but the recovery of Charles overturned all the

schemes of his enemies, and the decisive battle of Pultusk

(May 1, 1703) completed the humiliation of the unfortunate

Augustus. At the instigation of the faithless cardinal, the

diet at Warsaw declared (February 14, 1704) that the Elector of

Saxony was incapable of wearing the crown, which was soon

after bestowed on Stanislaus Leczinski, the young palatine of

Posnania. Count Piper strongly urged his royal master to

assume the sovereignty himself. … But the splendours of a

diadem had few charms in the eyes of a conqueror who confessed

that he felt much more pleasure in bestowing thrones upon

others than in winning them for himself. Having thus succeeded

in his favourite project, Charles resumed his march to

complete the entire conquest of the kingdom. Every where had

fortune crowned the bold expeditions of this adventurous

prince. Whilst his generals and armies were pursuing their

career from province to province, he had himself opened a

passage for his victorious troops into Saxony and the imperial

dominions. His ships, now masters of the Baltic, were employed

in transporting to Sweden the prisoners taken in the wars.

Denmark, bound up by the treaty of Travendhal, was prevented

from offering any active interference; the Russians were kept

in check towards the east by a detachment of 30,000 Swedes; so

that the whole region was kept in awe by the sword of the

conqueror, from the German Ocean almost to the mouth of the

Borysthenes, and even to the gates of Moscow. The Czar Peter

in the mean time, having carried Narva by assault, and

captured several towns and fortresses in Livonia, held a

conference with Augustus at Grodno, where the two sovereigns

concerted their plans for attacking the Scandinavian invaders

in their new conquests, with a combined army of 60,000 men,

under Prince Menzikoff and General Schullemberg. Had the fate

of the contest depended on numerical superiority alone,

Charles must have been crushed before the overwhelming power

of his enemies; but his courage and good fortune prevailed

over every disadvantage. The scattered hordes of Muscovy were

overthrown with so great celerity, that one detachment after

another was routed before they learned the defeat of their

companions. Schullemberg, with all his experience and

reputation, was not more successful, having been completely

beaten by Renschild, the Parmenio of the northern Alexander,

in a sanguinary action (February 12, 1706), at the small town

of Travenstadt, near Punitz, a place already fatal to the

cause of Augustus. … The reduction of Saxony, which Charles

next invaded, obliged Augustus to implore peace on any terms.

The conditions exacted by the victor were, that he should

renounce for ever the crown of Poland; acknowledge Stanislaus

as lawful king; and dissolve his treaty of alliance with

Russia. The inflexible temper of Charles was not likely to

mitigate the severity of these demands, but their rigour was

increased in consequence of the defeat of General Meyerfeld,

near Kalisch, by Prince Menzikoff—the first advantage which

the Muscovites had gained over the Swedes in a pitched battle.

… The numerous victories of Charles, and the arbitrary manner

in which he had deposed the King of Poland, filled all Europe

with astonishment. Some states entertained apprehensions of

his power, while others prepared to solicit his friendship.

France, harassed by expensive wars in Spain, Italy, and the

Netherlands, courted his alliance with an ardour proportioned

to the distressing state of her affairs. Offended at the

declaration issued against him by the diet of Ratisbon, and

resenting an indignity offered to Baron de Stralheim, his

envoy at Vienna, he magnified these trivial affronts into an

occasion of quarrelling with the emperor, who was obliged to

succumb, and among other mortifying concessions, to grant his

Lutheran subjects in Silesia the free exercise of their

religious liberties as secured by the treaties of Westphalia.

… The ambitious prince was now in the zenith of his glory; he

had experienced no reverse, nor met with any interruption to

his victories. The romantic extravagance of his views

increased with his success. One year, he thought, will suffice

for the conquest of Russia. The court of Rome was next to feel

his vengeance, as the pope had dared to oppose the concession

of religious liberty to the Silesian Protestants. No

enterprise at that time appeared impossible to him."

A. Crichton,

Scandinavia, Ancient and Modern,

volume 2, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

S. A. Dunham,

History of Poland,

pages 219-221.

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 5, chapter 5 (volume 3).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1707-1718.

Charles XII. in Russia.

His ruinous defeat at Pultowa.

His refuge among the Turks.

His fruitless intrigues.

His return to Sweden.

His death.

"From Saxony, Charles marched back into Poland [September,

1707], where Peter was making some ineffectual efforts to

revive the party of Augustus. Peter retired before his rival,

who had, however, the satisfaction of defeating an army of

20,000 Russians [at Golowstschin, in the spring of 1708],

strongly intrenched. Intoxicated by success, he rejected the

czar's offers of peace, declaring that he would treat at

Moscow; and without forming any systematic plan of operations,

he crossed the frontiers, resolved on the destruction of that

ancient city. Peter prevented the advance of the Swedes, on

the direct line, by destroying the roads and desolating the

country; Charles, after having endured great privations,

turned off towards the Ukraine, whither he had been invited by

Mazeppa, the chief of the Cossacks, who, disgusted by the

conduct of the czar, had resolved to throw off his allegiance.

In spite of all the obstacles that nature and the enemy could

throw in his way, Charles reached the place of rendezvous; but

he had the mortification to find Mazeppa appear in his camp as

a fugitive rather than an ally, for the czar had discovered

his treason, and disconcerted his schemes by the punishment of

his associates. A still greater misfortune to the Swedes was

the loss of the convoy and the ruin of the reinforcement they

had expected from Livonia, General Lewenhaupt, to whose care

it was entrusted, had been forced into three general

engagements by the Russians; and though he had eminently

distinguished himself by his courage and conduct, he was

forced to set fire to his wagons to prevent their falling into

the hands of the enemy.

{2827}

Undaunted by these misfortunes, Charles continued the campaign

even in the depth of a winter so severe that 2,000 men were at

once frozen to death almost in his presence. At length he laid

siege to Pultowa, a fortified city on the frontiers of the

Ukraine, which contained one of the czar's principal

magazines. The garrison was numerous and the resistance

obstinate; Charles himself was dangerously wounded in the heel

whilst viewing the works; and while he was still confined to

his tent he learned that Peter was advancing with a numerous

army to raise the siege. Leaving 7,000 men to guard the works,

Charles ordered his soldiers to march and meet the enemy,

while he accompanied them in a litter (July 8, 1709). The

desperate charge of the Swedes broke the Russian cavalry, but

the infantry stood firm, and gave the horse an opportunity of

rallying in the rear. In the meantime the czar's artillery

made dreadful havoc in the Swedish line; and Charles, who had

been forced to abandon his cannon in his forced marches, in

vain contended against this formidable disadvantage. After a

dreadful combat of more than two hours' duration, the Swedish

army was irretrievably ruined; 8,000 of their best troops were

left dead on the field, 6,000 were taken prisoners, and about

12,000 of the fugitives were soon after forced to surrender on

the banks of the Dnieper, from want of boats to cross the

river. Charles, accompanied by about 300 of his guards,

escaped to Bender, a Turkish town in Bessarabia, abandoning

all his treasures to his rival, including the rich spoils of

Poland and Saxony. Few victories have ever had such important

consequences as that which the czar won at Pultowa; in one

fatal day Charles lost the fruits of nine years' victories;

the veteran army that had been the terror of Europe was

completely ruined; those who escaped from the fatal field were

taken prisoners, but they found a fate scarcely better than

death; for they were transported by the czar to colonize the

wilds of Siberia; the elector of Saxony re-entered Poland and

drove Stanislaus from the throne; the kings of Denmark and

Prussia revived old claims on the Swedish provinces, while the

victorious Peter invaded not only Livonia and Ingria, but a

great part of Finland. Indeed, but for the interference of the

German emperor and the maritime powers, the Swedish monarchy

would have been rent in pieces. Charles, in his exile, formed

a new plan for the destruction of his hated rival; he

instigated the Turks to attempt the conquest of Russia, and

flattered himself that he might yet enter Moscow at the head

of a Mohammedan army. The bribes which Peter lavishly bestowed

on the counsellors of the sultan, for a time frustrated these

intrigues; but Charles, through his friend Poniatowski,

informed the sultan of his vizier's corruption, and procured

the deposition of that minister. … The czar made the most

vigorous preparations for the new war by which he was menaced

(A. D. 1711). The Turkish vizier, on the other hand, assembled

all the forces of the Ottoman Empire in the plains of

Adrianople. Demetrius Cantemir, the hospodar of Moldavia,

believing that a favourable opportunity presented itself for

delivering his country from the Mohammedan yoke, invited the

czar to his aid; and the Russians, rapidly advancing, reached

the northern banks of the Pruth, near Yassi, the Moldavian

capital. Here the Russians found that the promises of Prince

Cantemir were illusory," and they were soon so enveloped by

the forces of the Turks that there seemed to be no escape for

them. But the czarina, Catherine —the Livonian peasant woman

whom Peter had made his wife—gathered up her jewels and all

the money she could find in camp, and sent them as a gift to

the vizier, whereby he was induced to open negotiations. "A

treaty [known as the Treaty of the Pruth] was concluded on

terms which, though severe [requiring the Russians to give up

Azof], were more favourable than Peter, under the

circumstances, could reasonably have hoped; the Russians

retired in safety, and Charles reached the Turkish camp, only

to learn the downfall of all his expectations. A new series of

intrigues in the court of Constantinople led to the

appointment of a new vizier; but this minister was little

inclined to gratify the king of Sweden; on the contrary,

warned by the fate of his predecessors, he resolved to remove

him from the Ottoman empire (A. D. 1713). Charles continued to

linger; even after he had received a letter of dismissal from

the sultan's own hand, he resolved to remain, and when a

resolution was taken to send him away by force, he determined,

with his few attendants, to dare the whole strength of the

Turkish empire. After a fierce resistance, he was captured and

conveyed a prisoner to Adrianople. … Another revolution in the

divan revived the hopes of Charles, and induced him to remain

in Turkey, when his return to the North would probably have

restored him to his former eminence. The Swedes, under General

Steenbock, gained one of the most brilliant victories that had

been obtained during the war, over the united forces of the

Danes and Saxons, at Gadebusch [November 20, 1712], in the

duchy of Mecklenburg; but the conqueror sullied his fame by

burning the defenceless town of Altona [January 19, 1713] an

outrage which excited the indignation of all Europe." He soon

after met with reverses and was compelled to surrender his

whole army. "The czar in the meantime pushed forward his

conquests on the side of Finland; and the glory of his reign

appeared to be consummated by a naval victory obtained over

the Swedes near the island of Oeland. … Charles heard of his

rival's progress unmoved; but when he learned that the Swedish

senate intended to make his sister regent and to make peace

with Russia and Denmark, he announced his intention of

returning home." He traversed Europe incognito, making the

journey of 1,100 miles, mostly on horseback, in seventeen

days, "and towards the close of the year [1714] reached

Stralsund, the capital of Swedish Pomerania. Charles, at the

opening of the next campaign, found himself surrounded with

enemies (A. D. 1715). Stralsund itself was besieged by the

united armies of the Prussians, Danes, and Saxons, while the

Russian fleet, which now rode triumphant in the Baltic,

threatened a descent upon Sweden. After an obstinate defence,

in which the Swedish monarch displayed all his accustomed

bravery, Stralsund was forced to capitulate, Charles having

previously escaped in a small vessel to his native shores. All

Europe believed the Swedish monarch undone; it was supposed he

could no longer defend his own dominions, when, to the

inexpressible astonishment of everyone, it was announced that

he had invaded Norway.

{2828}

His attention, however, was less engaged by the war than by

the gigantic intrigues of his new favourite, Goertz, who,

taking advantage of a coolness between the Russians and the

other enemies of Sweden, proposed that Peter and Charles

should unite in strict amity, and dictate the law to Europe. …

While the negotiations were yet in progress, Charles invaded

Norway a second time, and invested the castle of

Frederickshall in the very depth of winter. But while engaged

in viewing the works he was struck by a cannon-ball, and was

dead before any of his attendants came to his assistance

[December 11, 1718]. The Swedish senate showed little grief

for the loss

W. C. Taylor,

Student's Manual of Modern History,

chapter 7, section 6.

ALSO IN:

E. Schuyler,

Peter the Great,

chapters 53-56 and 61-66 (volume 2).

Sir E. S. Creasy,

History of the Ottoman Turks,

chapter 18.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1719.

Accession of Ulrica Eleonora.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1719-1721.

Constitutional changes.

Treaties of Peace ending the Great Northern War.

Swedish cessions of Territory.

"An assembly of the States was summoned in February [1719],

and completely altered the constitution. Sweden was declared

an elective kingdom, and the government was vested in a

council of 24 members, divided into eight colleges, who were

invested with a power so absolute that their elected queen was

reduced to a mere shadow. In short, the ancient oligarchy was

restored, and Sweden became the prey of a few noble families.

… In November a treaty was signed at Stockholm between Sweden

and Great Britain, by which the Duchies of Bremen and Verden

were ceded to George I. [as Elector of Hanover] in

consideration of a payment of one million rix-dollars. By

another treaty in January 1720, George engaged to support

Sweden against Denmark and Russia, and to pay a yearly subsidy

of $300,000 during the war. About the same time an armistice

was concluded with Poland till a definitive treaty should be

arranged on the basis of the Peace of Oliva. Augustus was to

be recognised as King of Poland; but Stanislaus was to retain

the royal title during his life, and to receive from Augustus

a million rix-dollars. Both parties were to unite to check the

preponderance of the Czar, whose troops excited great

discontent and suspicion by their continued presence in

Poland. On February 1st a peace was concluded with Prussia

under the mediation of France and Great Britain. The principal

articles of this treaty were that Sweden ceded to Prussia,

Stettin, the Islands of Wollin and Usedom, and all the tract

between the Oder and Peene, together with the towns of Damm

and Golnau beyond the Oder. The King of Prussia, on his side,

engaged not to assist the Czar, and to pay two million

rix-dollars to the Queen of Sweden. The terms of a peace

between Sweden and Denmark were more difficult of arrangement.

… By the Treaty of Stockholm, June 12th 1720, the King of

Denmark restored to Sweden, Wismar, Stralsund, Rügen, and all

that he held in Pomerania; Sweden paying 600,000 rix-dollars

and renouncing the freedom of the Sound. Thus the only

territorial acquisition that Denmark made by the war was the

greater part of the Duchy of Schleswig, the possession of

which was guaranteed to her by England and France. Sweden and

Russia were now the only Powers that remained at war. … At

length, through the mediation of France, conferences were

opened in May 1721, and the Peace of Nystad was signed,

September 10th. … The only portion of his conquests that

[Peter] relinquished was Finnland, with the exception of a

part of Carelia; but as, by his treaty with Augustus II., at

the beginning of the war, he had promised to restore Livonia

to Poland if he conquered it, he paid the Crown of Sweden

$2,000,000 in order to evade this engagement by alleging that

he had purchased that province."

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 5, chapter 7 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

F. C. Schlosser,

History of the 18th Century,

period 1, division 1, chapter 2, section 3.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1720.

Accession of Frederick of Hesse-Cassel,

husband of Ulrica Eleonora.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1720-1792.

Wars with Russia and Prussia.

Humiliating powerlessness of the king.

The parties of the Hats and the Caps.

A constitutional Revolution.

Assassination of Gustavus III.

Ulrica Eleonora, the sister of Charles XII., resigned the

crown in 1720, in favor of her husband, Prince of Hesse, who

became king under the title of Frederick I. His reign

witnessed the conquest of Finland and the cession (1743) of a

part of that province to Russia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.

On his death in 1751, Adolphus Frederick, bishop of Lubeck,

and administrator of Holstein, was raised to the throne.

"Though his personal qualities commanded respect, his reign

was a disastrous one. He had the folly to join the coalition

of Russia, Poland, Austria, and France against the king of

Prussia. Twenty thousand Swedes were marched into Pomerania,

on the pretext of enforcing the conditions of the treaty of

Westphalia, but with the view of recovering the districts

which had been ceded to Prussia after the death of Charles

XII. They reduced Usedom and Wollin, with the fortresses on

the coast; but this success was owing to the absence of the

Prussians. When, in 1758, Schwald, the general of Frederic the

Great, was at liberty to march with 30,000 men into Pomerania,

he recovered the places which had been lost, and forced the

invaders to retire under the cannon of Stralsund. The

accession of the tsar Peter was still more favourable to

Frederic. An enthusiastic admirer of that prince, he soon

concluded a treaty with him. Sweden was forced to follow the

example; and things remained, at the peace of Hubertsburg, in

the same condition as before the war. Scarcely was Sweden at

harmony with her formidable enemy, when she became agitated by

internal commotions. We have alluded to the limitations set to

the royal authority after the death of Charles XII., and to

the discontent it engendered in the breasts of the Swedish

monarchs. While they strove to emancipate themselves from the

shackles imposed upon them, the diet was no less anxious to

render them more enslaved. That diet, consisting of four

orders, the nobles, the clergy, the burghers, and the

peasants, was often the scene of tumultuous proceedings: it

was rarely tranquil; yet it enjoyed the supreme legislative

authority.

{2829}

It was also corrupt; for impoverished nobles and needy

tradesmen had a voice, no less than the wealthiest members.

All new laws, all ordinances, were signed by the king; yet he

had no power of refusal; he was the mere registrar-general. …

The king had sometimes refused to sign ordinances which he

judged dangerous to the common weal: in 1756 an act was

passed, that in future a stamp might be used in lieu of the

sign-manual, whenever he should again refuse. More intolerable

than all this was the manner in which the diet insisted on

regulating the most trifling details of the royal household.

This interference was resented by some of the members,

belonging to what was called the 'Hat' party, who may be

termed the tories of Sweden. Opposed to these were the 'Caps,'

who were for shackling the crown with new restrictions, and of

whom the leaders were undoubtedly in the pay of Russia. … As

Russia was the secret soul of the Caps, so France endeavoured

to support the Hats, whenever the courts of St. Petersburgh

and St. Germains were hostile to each other. Stockholm

therefore was an arena in which the two powers struggled for

the ascendancy." Gustavus III., who succeeded his father

Adolphus Frederic in 1771, was able with the help of French

money and influence, and by winning to his support the burgher

cavalry of the capital, to overawe the party of the Caps, and

to impose a new constitution upon the country. The new

constitution "conferred considerable powers on the sovereign;

enabled him to make peace, or declare war, without the consent

of the diet; but he could make no new law, or alter any

already made, without its concurrence; and he was bound to

ask, though not always to follow, the advice of his senate in

matters of graver import. The form of the constitution was not

much altered; and the four orders of deputies still remained.

On the whole, it was a liberal constitution. If this

revolution was agreeable to the Swedes themselves, it was

odious to Catherine II., who saw Russian influence annihilated

by it." The bad feeling between the two governments which

followed led to war, in 1787, when Russia was engaged at the

same time in hostilities with the Turks. The war was unpopular

in Sweden, and Gustavus was frustrated in his ambitious

designs on Finland. Peace was made in 1790, each party

restoring its conquests, "so that things remained exactly as

they were before the war." On the 16th March, 1792, Gustavus

III. was assassinated, being shot at a masquerade ball, by one

Ankerstrom, whose motives have remained always a mystery.

Suspicion attached to others, the king's brother included, but

nothing to justify it is proved. The murdered king was

succeeded by his son Gustavus IV., who had but just passed the

age of three years.

S. A. Dunham,

History of Denmark, Sweden and Norway,

book 3, chapter 4 (volume 3).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1730.

Accession of Christian VI.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1746.

Accession of Frederick V.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1751.

Accession of Adolphus Frederick.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1766.

Accession of Christian VII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1771.

Accession of Gustavus Ill.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1792.

Accession of Gustavus Adolphus.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1795.

Peace with France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1801-1802.

The Northern Maritime League.

English bombardment of Copenhagen

and summary extortion of peace.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1805.

Joined in the Third Coalition against France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1806.

In the Russo-Prussian alliance against Napoleon.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

Northern fruits of the conspiracy of the two Emperors at Tilsit.

Bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of

the Danish Fleet by the English.

War of Russia and Denmark with Sweden,

and conquest of Finland.

Deposition of the Swedish king.

On the 7th of July, 1807, Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia,

meeting on a raft, moored in the river Nieman, arranged the

terms of the famous Treaty of Tilsit.

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

"There were Secret Articles in this Treaty of Tilsit in which

England had a vital interest. These secret articles are not to

be found in any collection of State Papers; but Napoleon's

diplomatists have given a sufficient account of them to enable

us to speak of them with assurance. Napoleon would not part

with Constantinople; but he not only gave up Turkey as a whole

to be dealt with as Alexander pleased, but agreed to unite his

efforts with Alexander to wrest from the Porte all its

provinces but Roumelia, if within three months she had not

made terms satisfactory to Alexander. In requital for this, if

England did not before the 1st of November make terms

satisfactory to Napoleon, on the requisition of Russia, the

two Emperors were to require of Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal,

to close their ports against the English, and were to unite

their forces in war against Great Britain. … In the month of

May, the Duke of Portland had had an audience of the Prince of

Wales at Carlton House, at which he had heard a piece of news

from the Prince which it deeply concerned him, as Prime

Minister, to know. The Prince Regent of Portugal had sent

secret information that Napoleon wanted to invade our shores

with the Portuguese and Danish fleets. The Portuguese had been

refused. It was for us to see to the Danish. Mr. Canning lost

no time in seeing to it: and while the Emperors were

consulting at Tilsit, he was actively engaged in disabling

Denmark from injuring us. When he had confidential information

of the secret articles of the Tilsit Treaty, his proceedings

were hastened, and they were made as peremptory as the

occasion required. He endured great blame for a long time on

account of this peremptoriness; and he could not justify

himself because the government were pledged to secrecy. … Mr.

Jackson, who had been for some years our envoy at the Court of

Berlin, was sent to Kiel, to require of the Crown Prince (then

at Kiel), who was known to be under intimidation by Napoleon,

that the Danish navy should be delivered over to England, to

be taken care of in British ports, and restored at the end of

the war. The Crown Prince refused, with the indignation which

was to be expected. … Mr. Jackson had been escorted, when he

went forth on his mission, by 20 ships of the line, 40

frigates and other assistant vessels, and a fleet of

transports, conveying 27,000 land troops.

{2830}

Admiral Gambier commanded the naval, and Lord Cathcart the

military expedition. These forces had been got ready within a

month, with great ability, and under perfect secrecy; and

before the final orders were given, ministers had such

information of the secret articles of the Treaty of Tilsit as

left them no hesitation whatever about seizing the Danish

fleet, if it was not lent quietly. … When, therefore, Mr.

Jackson was indignantly dismissed by the Crown Prince, no time

was to be lost in seizing the fleet. … On the 15th [of August]

the forces were landed at Wedbeck, for their march upon

Copenhagen, and the fleet worked up before the city. Once

more, an attempt was made to avoid extremities. … The Crown

Prince replied by a proclamation, amounting to a declaration

of war. … And now the affair was decided. There could be no

doubt as to what the end must be. … By the 1st of September,

however, Stralsund was occupied by the French; and part of the

British force was detached to watch them; and this proved that

it would have been fatal to lose time. By the 8th of

September, all was over; the Danish navy and arsenal were

surrendered. One fourth of the buildings of the city were by

that time destroyed; and In one street 500 persons were killed

by the bombardment. … Efforts were made to conciliate the

Danes after all was over; but, as was very natural, in vain. …

Almost as soon as the news of the achievement reached England,

the victors brought the Danish fleet into Portsmouth harbour.

One of the most painful features of the case is the

confiscation which ensued, because the surrender was not made

quietly. At the moment of the attack, there were Danish

merchantmen in our waters, with cargoes worth £2,000,000.

These we took possession of; and, of course, of the navy which

we had carried off."

H. Martineau,

History of England, 1800-1815,

book 2, chapter 1.

In fulfilment of the agreements of the Treaty of Tilsit, early

in August, 1807, "a show was made by Russia of offering her

mediation to Great Britain for the conclusion of a general

peace; but as Mr. Canning required, as a pledge of the

sincerity of the Czar, a frank communication of the secret

articles at Tilsit, the proposal fell to the ground." Its

failure was made certain by the action of England in taking

possession by force of the Danish fleet. On the 5th of

November, upon the peremptory demand of Napoleon, war was

accordingly declared against Great Britain by the Czar.

"Denmark had concluded (October 16) an alliance, offensive and

defensive, with France, and Sweden was now summoned by Russia

to join the Continental League. But the King, faithful to his

engagements [with England], resolutely refused submission; on

which war was declared against him early in 1808, and an

overwhelming force poured into Finland, the seizure of which

by Russia had been agreed on at Tilsit."

Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,

sections 455-456

(chapter 51, volume. 11, of complete work).

In November, 1808, Finland was virtually given up to

Alexander; and Sweden was thus deprived of her great granary,

and destined to ruin. England had of late aided her

vigourously, driving the Russian navy into port, and

blockading them there; and sending Sir John Moore, with 10,000

men, in May, when France, Russia, and Denmark, were all

advancing to crush the gallant Swedes. Sir John Moore found

the King in what he thought a very wild state of mind,

proposing conquests, when he had not forces enough for

defensive operations. All agreement in their views was found

to be impossible: the King resented the Englishman's caution;

Sir John Moore thought the King so nearly mad that he made off

in disguise from Stockholm, and brought back his troops, which

had never been landed. … After the relinquishment of Finland,

the Swedish people found they could endure no more. Besides

Finland, they had lost Pomerania: they were reduced to want;

they were thinned by pestilence as well as by war; but the

King's ruling idea was to continue the conflict to the last. …

As the only way to preserve their existence, his subjects

gently deposed him, and put the administration of affairs into

the hands of his aged uncle, the Duke of Sudermania. The poor

King was arrested on the 13th of March, 1809, as he was

setting out for his country seat, … and placed in imprisonment

for a short time. His uncle, at first called Regent, was soon

made King. … Peace was made with Russia in September, 1809,

and with France in the following January. Pomerania was

restored to Sweden, but not Finland; and she had to make great

sacrifices. … She was compelled to bear her part in the

Continental System of Napoleon, and to shut her ports against

all communications with England."

H. Martineau,

History of England, 1800-1815,

book 2, chapter 1.

"The invasion by the Tzar Alexander I. in 1808 led to the

complete separation of Finland and the other Swedish lands

east of the gulf of Bothnia from the Swedish crown. Finland

was conquered and annexed by the conqueror; but it was annexed

after a fashion in which one may suppose that no other

conquered land ever was annexed. In fact one may doubt whether

'annexed' is the right word. Since 1809 the crowns of Russia

and Finland are necessarily, worn by the same person; the

Russian and the Finnish nation have necessarily the same

sovereign. But Finland is not incorporated with Russia; in

everything but the common sovereign Russia and Finland are

countries foreign to one another. And when we speak of the

crown and the nation of Finland, we speak of a crown and a

nation which were called into being by the will of the

conqueror himself. … The conqueror had possession of part of

the Swedish dominions, and he called on the people of that

part to meet him in a separate Parliament, but one chosen in

exactly the same way as the existing law prescribed for the

common Parliament of the whole. … In his new character of

Grand Duke of Finland, the Tzar Alexander came to Borga, and

there on March 27th, 1809, fully confirmed the existing

constitution, laws, and religion of his new State. The

position of that State is best described in his own words.

Speaking neither Swedish nor Finnish, and speaking to hearers

who understood no Russian, the new Grand Duke used the French

tongue. Finland was 'Placé désormais au rang des nations'; it

was a 'Nation, tranquille au dehors, libre dans l'intérieur.'

[Finland was 'Placed henceforth in the rank of the nations; it

was a Nation tranquil without, free within.'] And it was a

nation of his own founding.

{2831}

The people of Finland had ceased to be a part of

the Swedish nation; they had not become a part of the

Russian nation; they had become a nation by themselves.

All this, be it remembered, happened before the formal cession

of the lost lands by Sweden to Russia. This was not made till

the Peace of Frederikshamn on September 17th of the same year.

The treaty contained no stipulation for the political rights

of Finland; their full confirmation by the new sovereign was

held to be enough. Two years later, in 1811, the boundary of

the new State was enlarged. Alexander, Emperor of all the

Russias and Grand Duke of Finland, cut off from his empire,

and added to his grand duchy, the Finnish districts which had

been ceded by Sweden to Russia sixty years before. The

boundary of his constitutional grand duchy was brought very

near indeed to the capital of his despotic empire."

E. A. Freeman,

Finland

(Macmillan's Magazine, March, 1892).

ALSO IN:

General Monteith, editor,

Narrative of the Conquest of Finland,

by a Russian Officer (with appended documents).

C. Joyneville,

Life and Times of Alexander I.,

volume 2, chapter 2.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1808.

Accession of Frederick VI.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1809.

Accession of Charles XIII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1809.

Granting of the Constitution.

See CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1810.

Election of Bernadotte to be Crown Prince

and successor to the throne.

The new king, lately called to the throne, being aged, "the

eyes of the people were fixed on the successor, or Crown

Prince, who took upon himself the chief labour of the

government, and appears to have given satisfaction to the

nation. But his government was of short duration. On the 28th

of .May 1810, while reviewing some troops, he suddenly fell

from his horse and expired on the spot, leaving Sweden again

without any head excepting the old King. This event agitated

the whole nation, and various candidates were proposed for the

succession of the kingdom. Among these was the King of

Denmark, who, after the sacrifices he had made for Buonaparte,

had some right to expect his support. The son of the late

unfortunate monarch, rightful heir of the crown, and named

like him Gustavus, was also proposed as a candidate. The Duke

of Oldenburg, brother-in-law of the Emperor of Russia, had

partizans. To each of these candidates there lay practical

objections. To have followed the line of lawful succession,

and called Gustavus to the throne, (which could not be

forfeited by his father's infirmity, so far as he was

concerned,) would have been to place a child at the head of

the state, and must have inferred, amid this most arduous

crisis, all the doubts and difficulties of choosing a regent.

Such choice might, too, be the means, at a future time, of

reviving his father's claim to the crown. The countries of

Denmark and Sweden had been too long rivals, for the Swedes to

subject themselves to the yoke of the King of Denmark; and to

choose the Duke of Oldenburg would have been, in effect, to

submit themselves to Russia, of whose last behaviour towards

her Sweden had considerable reason to complain. In this

embarrassment they were thought to start a happy idea, who

proposed to conciliate Napoleon by bestowing the ancient crown

of the Goths upon one of his own Field Marshals, and a high

noble of his empire, namely, John Julian Baptiste Bernadotte,

Prince of Ponte Corvo. This distinguished officer was married

to a sister of Joseph Buonaparte's wife, (daughter of a

wealthy and respectable individual, named Clary,) through whom

he had the advantage of an alliance with the Imperial family

of Napoleon, and he had acquired a high reputation in the

north of Europe, both when governor of Hanover, and

administrator of Swedish Pomerania. On the latter occasion,

Bernadotte was said to have shown himself in a particular

manner the friend and protector of the Swedish nation; and it

was even insinuated that he would not be averse to exchange

the errors of Popery for the reformed tenets of Luther. The

Swedish nation fell very generally into the line of policy

which prompted this choice. … It was a choice, sure, as they

thought, to be agreeable to him upon whose nod the world

seemed to depend. Yet, there is the best reason to doubt,

whether, in preferring Bernadotte to their vacant throne, the

Swedes did a thing which was gratifying to Napoleon. The name

of the Crown Prince of Sweden elect, had been known in the

wars of the Revolution, before that of Buonaparte had been

heard of. Bernadotte had been the older, therefore, though

certainly not the better soldier. On the 18th Brumaire, he was

so far from joining Buonaparte in his enterprise against the

Council of Five Hundred, notwithstanding all advances made to

him, that he was on the spot at St. Cloud armed and prepared,

had circumstances permitted, to place himself at the head of

any part of the military, who might be brought to declare for

the Directory. And although, like everyone else, Bernadotte

submitted to the Consular system, and held the government of

Holland under Buonaparte, yet then, as well as under the

empire, he was always understood to belong to a class of

officers, whom Napoleon employed indeed, and rewarded, but

without loving them, or perhaps relying on them more than he

was compelled to do, although their character was in most

instances a warrant for their fidelity. These officers formed

a comparatively small class, yet comprehending some of the

most distinguished names in the French army. … Reconciled by

necessity to a state of servitude which they could not avoid,

this party considered themselves as the soldiers of France,

not of Napoleon, and followed the banner of their country

rather than the fortunes of the Emperor. Without being

personally Napoleon's enemies, they were not the friends of

his despotic power. … Besides the suspicion entertained by

Napoleon of Bernadotte's political opinions, subjects of

positive discord had recently arisen between them. … But while

such were the bad terms betwixt the Emperor and his general,

the Swedes, unsuspicious of the true state of the case,

imagined, that in choosing Bernadotte for successor to their

throne, they were paying to Buonaparte the most acceptable

tribute. And, notwithstanding that Napoleon was actually at

variance with Bernadotte, and although, in a political view,

he would much rather have given his aid to the pretensions of

the King of Denmark, he was under the necessity of reflecting,

that Sweden retained a certain degree of independence; that

the sea separated her shores from his armies; and that,

however willing to conciliate him, the Swedes were not in a

condition absolutely to be compelled to receive laws at his

hand.

{2832}

It was necessary to acquiesce in their choice, since he could

not dictate to them; and by doing so he might at the same time

exhibit another splendid example of the height to which his

service conducted his generals. … We have, however, been

favoured with some manuscript observations … which prove

distinctly, that while Napoleon treated the Crown Prince Elect

of Sweden with fair language, he endeavoured by underhand

intrigues to prevent the accomplishment of his hopes. The

Swedes, however, remained fixed in their choice,

notwithstanding the insinuations of Desaugier, the French

envoy, whom Napoleon afterwards affected to disown and recall,

for supporting in the diet of Orebro the interest of the King

of Denmark, instead of that of Bernadotte. Napoleon's cold

assent, or rather an assurance that he would not dissent,

being thus wrung reluctantly from him, Bernadotte, owing to

his excellent character among the Swedes, and their opinion of

his interest with Napoleon, was chosen Crown Prince of Sweden

by the States of that kingdom, 21st August 1810."

Sir W. Scott,

Life of Napoleon,

volume 2, chapter 12.

ALSO IN:

M. de Bourrienne,

Private Memoirs of Napoleon,

volume 4, chapter 7.

Lady Bloomfield,

Memoirs of Lord Bloomfield,

volume 1, pages 17-34.

W. G. Meredith,

Memorials of Charles John, King of Sweden and Norway.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1810.

Alliance with Russia against France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1813.

Joined with the new Coalition against Napoleon.

Participation in the War of Liberation.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813 to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1813-1814.

The Peace of Kiel.

Cession of Norway to Sweden and

of Swedish Pomerania to Denmark.

"The Danes, having been driven out of Holstein by Bernadotte

[see GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER)], concluded an

armistice December 18th, and, finally, the Peace of Kiel,

January 14th 1814, by which Frederick VI. ceded Norway to

Sweden; reserving, however, Greenland, the Ferroe Isles, and

Iceland, which were regarded as dependencies of Norway.

Norway, which was anciently governed by its own kings, had

remained united with Denmark ever since the death of Olaf V.

in 1387. Charles XIII., on his side, ceded to Denmark Swedish

Pomerania and the Isle of Rugen. This treaty founded the

present system of the North. Sweden withdrew entirely from her

connection with Germany, and became a purely Scandinavian

Power. The Norwegians, who detested the Swedes, made an

attempt to assert their independence under the conduct of

Prince Christian Frederick, cousin-german and heir of

Frederick VI. of Denmark. Christian Frederick was proclaimed

King of Norway; but the movement was opposed by Great Britain

and the Allied Powers from considerations of policy rather

than justice; and the Norwegians found themselves compelled to

decree the union of Norway and Sweden in a storting, or Diet,

assembled at Christiania, November 4th 1814. Frederick VI.

also signed a peace with Great Britain at Kiel, January 14th

1814. All the Danish colonies, except Heligoland, which had

been taken by the English, were restored."

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 7, chapter 16 (volume 4).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1814.

The Allies in France and in possession of Paris.

Fall of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH),

and (MARCH-APRIL).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Norway): A. D. 1814-1815.

The Norwegian constitution under the union with Sweden.

"When, by the treaty of Kiel in 1814, Norway was taken from

Denmark, and handed over to Sweden, the Norwegians roused

them·selves to once more assert their nationality. The Swedes

appeared in force, by land and sea, upon the frontiers of

Norway. It was not, however, until the latter country had been

guaranteed complete national independence that she consented

to a union of the countries under the one crown. The agreement

was made, and the constitution of Norway granted on the 17th

of May 1814, at which date the contemporary history of Norway

begins. … 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. The Act of Union with Sweden is dated the

6th of August 1815. The union of the two states is a union of

the crown alone. … Sweden and Norway form, like Great Britain,

a hereditary limited monarchy. One of the clauses in the Act

of Union provides that the king of the joint countries must

reside for a certain part of the year in Norway. But, as a

matter of fact, this period is a short one. In his absence,

the king is represented by the Council of State (Statsraad),

which must be composed entirely of Norwegians, and consist of

two Ministers of State (Cabinet Ministers), and nine other

Councillors of State. As with us, the king personally can do

no wrong; the responsibility for his acts rests with his

ministers. Of the State Council, or Privy Council (above

spoken of), three members, one a Cabinet Minister, and two

ordinary members of the Privy Council, are always in

attendance upon the king, whether he is residing in Norway or

Sweden. The rest of the Council forms the Norwegian Government

resident in the country. All functionaries are appointed by

the king, with the ad·vice of this Council of State. The

officials, who form what we should call the Government (as

distinguished from what we should call the Civil Service),

together with the préfets (Amtmen) and the higher grades of

the army are, nominally, removable by the king; but, If

removed, they continue to draw two-thirds of their salary

until their case has come before Parliament (the Stor-thing,

Great Thing), which decides upon their pensions. … In 1876 the

number of electors to the Storthing were under 140,000, not

more than 7.7 per cent. of the whole population. So that the

franchise was by no means a very wide one. … In foreign

affairs only does Norway not act as an independent nation.

There is a single foreign minister for the two countries and

he is usually a Swede. For the purposes of internal

administration, Norway is divided into twenty districts,

called Amter—which we may best translate 'Prefectures.' Of

these, the two chief towns of the country, Christiania (with

its population of 150,000) and Bergen (population about

50,000) form each a separate Amt."

C. F. Keary,

Norway and the Norwegians,

chapter 13.

See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1815.

Swedish Pomerania sold to Prussia.

See VIENNA, CONGRESS.

{2833}

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1818.

Accession of Charles XIV. (Bernadotte).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1839.

Accession of Christian VIII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1844.

Accession of Oscar I.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1848.

Accession of Frederick VII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1848-1862.

The Schleswig-Holstein question.

First war with Prussia.

"The two Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein lie to the south of

modern Denmark. Holstein, the more southern of the two, is

exclusively German in its population. Schleswig, the more

northern, contains a mixed population of Danes and Germans. In

the course of the 14th century Schleswig was conquered by

Denmark, but ceded to Count Gerard of Holstein—the

Constitution of Waldemar providing that the two Duchies should

be under one Lord, but that they should never be united to

Denmark. This is the first fact to realise in the complex

history of the Schleswig-Holstein question. The line of Gerard

of Holstein expired in 1375. It was succeeded by a branch of

the house of Oldenburg. In 1448 a member of this house, the

nephew of the reigning Duke, was elected to the throne of

Denmark. The reigning Duke procured in that year a

confirmation of the compact that Schleswig should never be

united with Denmark. Dying without issue in 1459, the Duke was

succeeded, by the election of the Estates, by his nephew

Christian I. of Denmark. In electing Christian, however, the

Estates compelled him in 1460 to renew the compact confirmed

in 1448. And, though Duchies and Crown were thenceforward

united, the only link between them was the sovereign. Even

this link could possibly be severed. For the succession in the

Duchy was secured to the male heir in direct contradiction of

the law of Denmark. … It would complicate this narrative if

stress were laid on the various changes in the relations

between Kingdom and Duchies which were consequent on the

unsettled state of Europe during the three succeeding

centuries. It is sufficient to say that, by a treaty made in

1773, the arrangements concluded more than 300 years before

were confirmed. Schleswig-Holstein reverted once more to the

King of Denmark under exactly the same conditions as in the

time of Christian I., who had expressly recognised that he

governed them as Duke, that is, by virtue of their own law of

succession. Such an arrangement was not likely to be respected

amidst the convulsions which affected Europe in the

commencement of the present century. In 1806 Christian VII.

took advantage of the disruption of the German Empire formally

to incorporate the Duchies into his Kingdom. No one was in a

position to dispute the act of the monarch. In 1815, however,

the King of Denmark, by virtue of his rights in Holstein and

Lauenburg, joined the Confederation of the Rhine; and the

nobility of Holstein, brought in this way into fresh

connection with Germany, appealed to the German Diet. But the

Diet, in the first quarter of the 19th century, was subject to

influences opposed to the rights of nationalities. It declined

to interfere, and the union of Duchies and Kingdom was

maintained. Christian VII. was succeeded in 1808 by his son

Frederick VI., who was followed in 1839 by his cousin

Christian VIII. The latter monarch had only one son,

afterwards Frederick VII., who, though twice married, had no

children. On his death, if no alteration had been made, the

crown of Denmark would have passed to the female line—the

present reigning dynasty —while the Duchies, by the old

undisputed law, would have reverted to a younger branch, which

descended through males to the house of Augustenburg. With

this prospect before them it became very desirable for the

Danes to amalgamate the Duchies; and in the year 1844 the

Danish Estates almost unanimously adopted a motion that the

King should proclaim Denmark, Schleswig, Holstein, and

Lauenburg one indivisible State. In 1846 the King put forth a

declaration that there was no doubt that the Danish law of

succession prevailed in Schleswig. He admitted that there was

more doubt respecting Holstein. But he promised to use his

endeavours to obtain the recognition of the integrity of

Denmark as a collective State. Powerless alone against the

Danes and their sovereign, Holstein appealed to the Diet; and

the Diet took up the quarrel, and reserved the right of

enforcing its legitimate authority in case of need. Christian

VIII. died in .January 1848. His son, Frederick VII., the last

of his line, grasped the tiller of the State at a critical

moment. Crowns, before a month was over, were tumbling off the

heads of half the sovereigns of Europe; and Denmark, shaken by

these events, felt the full force of the revolutionary

movement. Face to face with revolution at home and Germany

across the frontier, the new King tried to cut instead of

untying the Gordian knot. He separated Holstein from

Schleswig, incorporating the latter in Denmark but allowing

the former under its own constitution to form part of the

German Confederation. Frederick VII. probably hoped that the

German Diet would be content with the half-loaf which he

offered it. The Diet., however, replied to the challenge by

formally incorporating Schleswig in Germany, and by committing

to Prussia the office of mediation.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

War broke out, but the arms of Prussia were crippled by the

revolution which shook her throne. The sword of Denmark, under

these circumstances, proved victorious; and the Duchies were

ultimately compelled to submit to the decision which force had

pronounced. These events gave rise to the famous protocol

which was signed in London, in August 1850, by England,

France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark. This document

settled the question, so far as diplomacy could determine it,

in the interests of Denmark. The unity of Denmark, Schleswig,

Holstein and Lauenburg was secured by a uniform law of

succession, and their internal affairs were placed, as far as

practicable, under a common administration. The protocol of

1850 was signed by Lord Palmerston during the Russell

Administration. It was succeeded by the treaty of 1852, which

was concluded by Lord Malmesbury. This treaty, to which all

the great powers were parties, was the logical consequence of

the protocol. Under it the succession to Kingdom and Duchies

was assigned to Prince Christian of Glücksburg, the present

reigning King of Denmark. The integrity of the whole Danish

Monarchy was declared permanent; but the rights of the German

Confederation with respect to Holstein and Schleswig were

reserved.

{2834}

The declaration was made in accordance with the views of

Russia, England, and France; the reservation was inserted in

the interests of the German powers; and in a manifesto, which

was communicated to the German Courts, the King of Denmark

laid down elaborate rules for the treatment and government of

the Duchies. Thus, while the succession to the Danish throne

and the integrity of Denmark had been secured by the protocol

of 1850 and the treaty of 1852, the elaborate promises of the

Danish King, formally communicated to the German powers, had

given the latter a pretext for contending that these pledges

were at least as sacred as the treaty. And the next ten years

made the pretext much more formidable than it seemed in 1852.

… The Danes endeavoured to extricate themselves from a

constantly growing embarrassment by repeating the policy of

1848, by granting, under what was known as the Constitution of

1855, autonomous institutions to Holstein, by consolidating

the purely Danish portions of the Monarchy, and by

incorporating Schleswig, which was partly Danish and partly

German, in Denmark. But the German inhabitants of Schleswig

resented this arrangement. They complained of the suppression

of their language and the employment of Danish functionaries,

and they argued that, under the engagements which had been

contracted between 1851 and 1852, Holstein had a voice in

constitutional changes of this character. This argument added

heat to a dispute already acute. For it was now plain that,

while the German Diet claimed the right to interfere in

Holstein, Holstein asserted her claim to be heard on the

affairs of the entire Kingdom."

S. Walpole,

Life of Lord John Russell,

chapter 30 (volume 2).

In the first period of the war of 1848-9, the only important

battle was fought at Duppeln, June 5, 1848. The Prussians were

superior in land forces, but the Danes were able to make use

of a flotilla of gunboats in defending their strong position.

"After a useless slaughter, both parties remained nearly in

the same position as they had occupied at the commencement of

the conflict." The war was suspended in August by an

armistice—that of Malmö—but was renewed in the April

following. "On the 20th April [1849] the Prussians invaded

Jutland with 48 battalions, 48 guns, and 2,000 horse; and the

Danish generals, unable to make head against such a crusade,

retired through the town of Kolding, which was fortified and

commanded an important bridge that was abandoned to the

invaders. The Danes, however, returned, and after a bloody

combat dislodged the Prussians, but were finally obliged to

evacuate it by the fire of the German mortars, which reduced

the town to ashes. On the 3d May the Danes had their revenge,

in the defeat of a large body of the Schleswig insurgents by a

Danish corps near the fortress of Fredericia, with the loss of

340 men. A more important advantage was gained by them on the

6th July," over the Germans who were besieging Fredericia.

"The loss of the Germans in this disastrous affair was 96

officers and 3,250 men killed and wounded, with their whole

siege-artillery and stores. … This brilliant victory was

immediately followed by the retreat of the Germans from nearly

the whole of Jutland. A convention was soon after concluded at

Berlin, which established an armistice for six months," and

which was followed by the negotiations and treaties described

above. But hostilities were not yet at an end; for the

insurgents of Schleswig and Holstein remained in arms, and

were said to receive almost open encouragement and aid from

Prussia. Their army, 32,000 strong, occupied Idstedt and

Wedelspang. They were attacked at the former place, on the

25th of July, 1850, by the Danes, and defeated after a bloody

conflict. "The loss on both sides amounted to nearly 8,000

men, or about one in eight of the troops engaged; a prodigious

slaughter, unexampled in European war since the battle of

Waterloo. Of these, nearly 3,000, including 85 officers, were

killed or wounded on the side of the Danes, and 5,000 on that

of the insurgents, whose loss in officers was peculiarly

severe."

Sir A. Alison,

History of Europe, 1815-1852,

chapter 53.

From 1855 to 1862 the history of Denmark was uneventful. But

in the next year King Frederick VII. died, and the Treaty of

London, which had settled the succession upon Prince Christian

of Glücksburg, failed to prevent the reopening of the

Schleswig-Holstein question.

ALSO IN:

C. A. Gosch,

Denmark and Germany since 1815,

chapters 3-9.

A Forgotten War

(Spectator, September 22, 1894, reviewing Count von

Moltke's "Geschichte des Krieges gegen Dänemark, 1848-49 ").

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark-Iceland): A. D. 1849-1874.

The Danish constitution.

Relations of Iceland to Denmark.

Denmark became a constitutional monarchy in 1849. The

principal provisions of the Constitution are these: Every king

of Denmark, before he can assume the government of the

monarchy, must deliver a written oath that he will observe the

constitution. He alone is invested with the executive power,

but the legislative he exercises conjointly with the Assembly

(Rigsdag). He can declare war and make peace, enter and

renounce alliances. But he cannot, without the consent of the

Assembly, sign away any of the possessions of the kingdom or

encumber it with any State obligations. … The king's person is

sacred and inviolable; he is exempt from all responsibility.

The ministers form the Council of State, of which the king is

the president, and where, by right, the heir-apparent has a

seat. The king has an absolute veto. The Rigsdag (Assembly)

meets every year, and cannot be prorogued till the session has

lasted for two months at least. It consists of two

Chambers—the Upper Chamber, 'Landsting,' and the Lower

Chamber, 'Folketing.' The Upper Chamber consists of 66

members, twelve of which are Crown-elects for life, seven

chosen by Copenhagen, and one by the so-called Lagting of

Faro. The 46 remaining members are voted in by ten electoral

districts, each of which comprises from one to three Amts, or

rural governorships, with the towns situated within each of

them included. The elections are arranged on the proportional

or minority system. In Copenhagen and in the other towns one

moiety of electors is chosen out of those who possess the

franchise for the Lower House, the other moiety is selected

from among those who pay the highest municipal rates. In every

rural commune one elector is chosen by all the enfranchised

members of the community. … The Lower House is elected for

three years, and consists of 102 members; consequently there

are 102 electorates or electoral districts. … The Lower House

is elected by manhood suffrage.

{2835}

Every man thirty years old has a vote, provided there be no

stain on his character, and that he possesses the birthright

of a citizen within his district, and has been domiciled for a

year within it before exercising his right of voting, and does

not stand in such a subordinate relation of service to private

persons as not to have a home of his own. … The two Chambers

of the Rigsdag stand, as legislative bodies, on an equal

footing, both having the right to propose and to alter laws. …

At present [1891] this very Liberal Constitution is not

working smoothly. As was to be expected, two parties have

gradually come into existence—a Conservative and a Liberal,

or, as they are termed after French fashion, the Right and the

Left. The country is governed at present arbitrarily against

an opposition in overwhelming majority in the Lower House. The

dispute between the Left and the Ministry does not really turn

so much upon conflicting views with regard to great public

interests, as upon the question whether Denmark has, or has

not, to have parliamentary government. … The Right represents

chiefly the educated and the wealthy classes; the Left the

mass of the people, and is looked down upon by the Right. … I

said in the beginning that I would tell you how the

constitutional principle has been applied to Iceland. I have

only time briefly to touch upon that matter. In 1800 the old

Althing (All Men's Assembly, General Diet), which had existed

from 930, came to an end. Forty-five years later it was

re-established by King Christian VIII. in the character of a

consultative assembly. … The Althing at once began to direct

its attention to the question—What Iceland's proper position

should be in the Danish monarchy when eventually its

anticipated constitution should be carried out. The country

had always been governed by its special laws; it had a code of

laws of its own, and it had never been ruled, in

administrative sense, as a province of Denmark. Every

successive king had, on his accession to the throne, issued a

proclamation guaranteeing to Iceland due observance of the

country's laws and traditional privileges. Hence it was found

entirely impracticable to include Iceland under the provisions

of the charter for Denmark; and a royal rescript of September

23, 1848, announced that with regard to Iceland no measures

for settling the constitutional relation of that part of the

monarchy would be adopted until a constitutive assembly in the

country itself 'had been heard' on the subject. Unfortunately,

the revolt of the duchies intervened between this declaration

and the date of the constitutive assembly which was fixed for

1851. The Government took fright, being unfortunately quite in

the dark about the real state of public opinion in the distant

dependency. … The Icelanders only wanted to abide by their

laws, and to have the management of their own home affairs,

but the so-called National-Liberal Government wanted to

incorporate the country as a province in the kingdom of

Denmark proper. This idea the Icelanders really never could

understand as seriously meant. … The constitutive assembly was

brusquely dissolved by the Royal Commissary when he saw that

it meant to insist on autonomy for the Icelanders in their own

home affairs. And from 1851 to 1874 every successive Althing

(but one) persisted in calling on the Government to fulfil the

royal promise of 1848. It was no doubt due to the very loyal,

quiet, and able manner in which the Icelanders pursued their

case, under the leadership of the trusted patriot, Jon

Sigurdsson, that in 1874 the Government at last agreed to give

Iceland the constitution it demanded. But instead of frankly

meeting the Icelandic demands in full, they were only

partially complied with, and from the first the charter met

with but scanty popularity."

E. Magnusson,

Denmark and Iceland

(National Life and Thought, chapter 12).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1855.

In the alliance against Russia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1859.

Accession of Charles XV.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1863.

Accession of Christian IX.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1864.

Reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question.

Austro-Prussian invasion and conquest of the duchies.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1872.

Accession of Oscar II.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1890.

Population.

By a census taken, at the close of 1890, the population of

Sweden was found to be 4,784,981, and that of Norway

2,000,917. The population of Denmark, according to a census

taken in February, 1890, was 2,185,335.

Statesman's Year-Book, 1894.

----------SCANDINAVIAN STATES: End--------

SCANZIA, Island of.

The peninsula of Sweden and Norway was so called by some

ancient writers.

See GOTHS, ORIGIN OF THE.

SCHAH,

SHAH.

See BEY.

SCHAMYL'S WAR WITH THE RUSSIANS.

See CAUCASUS.

SCHARNHORST'S MILITARY REFORMS IN PRUSSIA.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.

SCHELLENBERG, or

HERMANSTADT, Battle of (1599).

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:

14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).

SCHENECTADY: A. D. 1690.

Massacre and Destruction by French and Indians.

See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690;

also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

SCHEPENS.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

SCHILL'S RISING.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).

SCHISM, The Great.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417, and 1414-1418;

also, ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414.

SCHISM ACT.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.

SCHKIPETARS, Albanian.

See ILLYRIANS.

SCHLESWIG, and the Schleswig-Holstein question.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862,

and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866, and 1866.

SCHMALKALDIC LEAGUE, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

SCHŒNE, The.

An ancient Egyptian measure of length which is supposed, as in

the case of the Persian parasang, to have been fixed by no

standard, but to have been merely a rude estimate of distance.

See PARASANG.

{2836}

SCHOFIELD, General J. M.

Campaign in Missouri and Arkansas.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS),

and (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

The Atlanta Campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA),

to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

Campaign against Hood.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),

and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

SCHOLARII.

The household troops or imperial life-guards of the Eastern

Roman Empire.

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 5, chapter 20.

SCHOLASTICISM.

SCHOOLMEN.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM.

SCHOOL OF THE PALACE, Charlemagne's.

"Charlemagne took great care to attract distinguished

foreigners into his states, and … among those who helped to

second intellectual development in Frankish Gaul, many came

from abroad. … He not only strove to attract distinguished men

into his states, but he protected and encouraged them wherever

he discovered them. More than one Anglo-Saxon abbey shared his

liberality; and learned men who, after following him into

Gaul, wished to return to their country, in no way became

strangers to him. … Alcuin fixed himself there permanently. He

was born in England, at York, about 735. The intellectual

state of Ireland and England was then superior to that of the

continent; letters and schools prospered there more than

anywhere else. … The schools of England, and particularly that

of York, were superior to those of the continent. That of York

possessed a rich library, where many of the works of pagan

antiquity were found; among others, those of Aristotle, which

it is a mistake to say were first introduced to the knowledge

of modern Europe by the Arabians, and the Arabians only; for

from the fifth to the tenth century, there is no epoch in

which we do not find them mentioned in some library, in which

they were not known and studied by some men of letters. … In

780, on the death of archbishop Ælbert, and the accession of

his successor, Eanbald, Alcuin received from him the mission

to proceed to Rome for the purpose of obtaining from the pope

and bringing to him the 'pallium.' In returning from Rome, he

came to Parma, where he found Charlemagne. … The emperor at

once pressed him to take up his abode in France. After some

hesitation, Alcuin accepted the invitation, subject to the

permission of his bishop, and of his own sovereign. The

permission was obtained, and in 782 we find him established in

the court of Charlemagne, who at once gave him three abbeys,

those of Ferrieres in Gatanois, of St. Loup at Troyes, and of

St. Josse in the county of Ponthieu. From this time forth,

Alcuin was the confidant, the councillor, the intellectual

prime minister, so to speak, of Charlemagne. … From 782 to

796, the period of his residence in the court of Charlemagne,

Alcuin presided over a private school, called 'The School of

the Palace,' which accompanied Charlemagne wherever he went,

and at which were regularly present all those who were with

the emperor. … It is difficult to say what could have been the

course of instruction pursued in this school; I am disposed to

believe that to such auditors Alcuin addressed himself

generally upon all sorts of topics as they occurred; that in

the 'Ecole du Palais,' in fact, it was conversation rather

than teaching, especially so called, that went on; that

movement given to mind, curiosity constantly excited and

satisfied, was its chief merit."

F. Guizot,

History of Civilization,

lecture 22 (volume 3).

See, also, EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

ALSO IN:

A. F. West,

Alcuin and the Rise of the Christian Schools.

SCHOOLS.

See EDUCATION.

SCHÖNBRUNN,

Treaty of (1806).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

Treaty of (1809).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

SCHOUT AND SCHEPENS.

The chief magistrate and aldermen of the chartered towns of

Holland were called the Schout and the Schepens.

J. L. Motley,

Rise of the Dutch Republic,

introduction, section 6.

"In every tribunal there is a Schout or sheriff, who convenes

the judges, and demands from them justice for the litigating

parties; for the word 'schout' is derived from 'schuld,' debt,

and he is so denominated because he is the person who recovers

or demands common debts, according to Grotius."

Van Leeuwen,

Commentaries on Roman Dutch Law,

quoted in O'Callaghan's History of New Netherland,

volume 1, page 101, foot-note,

and volume 2, page 212.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

SCHUMLA, Siege of (1828).

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

SCHUYLER, General Philip, and the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST); 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

SCHUYLER, Fort (Late Fort Stanwix): A. D. 1777.

Defense against the British and Indians under St. Leger.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

SCHWECHAT, Battle of (1848).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

SCHWEIDNITZ, Battle of (1642).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

SCHWEIDNITZ:

Captured and recaptured.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

SCINDE,

SINDH.

"Sindh is the Sanskrit word Sindh or Sindhu, a river or ocean.

It was applied to the river Indus, the first great body of

water encountered by the Aryan invaders. … Sindh, which is

part of the Bombay Presidency, is bounded on the north and

west by the territories of the khan of Khelat, in Beluchistan;

the Punjab and the Bahawalpur State lie on the north-east. …

Three-fourths of the people are Muhammadans and the remainder

Hindus." Sindh was included in the Indian conquests of Mahmud

of Ghazni, Akbar, and Nadir Shah.

See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290; 1399-1605; and 1662-1748).

"In 1748 the country became an appanage of Kabul, as part of

the dowry bestowed by the reigning emperor upon Timur, son of

Ahmed Shah Durani, who founded the kingdom of Afghanistan. …

The connection of the British government with Sindh had its

origin in A. D. 1758, when Ghulam Shah Kalhora … granted a

'purwanah,' or permit, to an officer in the East India

Company's service for the establishment of a factory in the

province. … In their relations with the British government the

Amirs throughout displayed much jealousy of foreign

interference. Several treaties were made with them from time

to time.

{2837}

In 1836, owing to the designs of Ranjit Singh on Sindh, which,

however, were not carried out because of the interposition of

the British government, more intimate connection with the

Amirs was sought. Colonel Pottinger visited them to negotiate

for this purpose. It was not, however, till 1838 that a short

treaty was concluded, in which it was stipulated that a

British minister should reside at Haidarabad. At this time the

friendly alliance of the Amirs was deemed necessary in the

contemplated war with Afghanistan which the British government

was about to undertake, to place a friendly ruler on the

Afghan throne. The events that followed led to the occupation

of Karachi by the British, and placed the Amirs in subsidiary

dependence on the British government. New treaties became

necessary, and Sir Charles Napier was sent to Haidarabad to

negotiate. The Beluchis were infuriated at this proceeding,

and openly insulted the officer, Sir James Outram, at the

Residency at Haidarabad. Sir Charles Napier thereupon attacked

the Amir's forces at Meanee, on 17th February, 1843, with

2,800 men, and twelve pieces of artillery, and succeeded in

gaining a complete victory over 22,000 Beluchis, with the

result that the whole of Sindh was annexed to British India."

D. Ross,

The Land of the Five Rivers and Sindh,

pages 1-6.

ALSO IN:

Mohan Lal,

Life of Amir Dost Mohammed Khan,

chapter 14 (volume 2).

See INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.

SCIO.

See CHIOS.

SCIPIO AFRICANUS, The Campaigns of.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

SCIPIO AFRICANUS MINOR,

Destruction of Carthage by.

See CARTHAGE: B. C. 146.

SCIR-GEREFA.

See SHERIFF; SHIRE; and EALDORMAN.

SCIRONIAN WAY, The.

"The Scironian Way led from Megara to Corinth, along the

eastern shore of the isthmus. At a short distance from Megara

it passed along the Scironian rocks, a long range of

precipices overhanging the sea, forming the extremity of a

spur which descends from Mount Geranium. This portion of the

road is now known as the 'Kaki Scala,' and is passed with some

difficulty. The way seems to have been no more than a footpath

until the time of Adrian, who made a good carriage road

throughout the whole distance. There is but one other route by

which the isthmus can be traversed. It runs inland, and passes

over a higher portion of Mount Geranium, presenting to the

traveller equal or greater difficulties."

G. Rawlinson,

History of Herodotus,

book 8, section 71, foot-note.

SCLAVENES.

SCLAVONIC PEOPLES.

See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

SCLAVONIC.

See SLAVONIC.

SCODRA, OR SKODRA.·

See ILLYRIANS.

SCONE, Kingdom of.

See SCOTLAND: 8-9TH CENTURIES.

SCORDISCANS, The.

The Scordiscans, called by some Roman writers a Thracian

people, but supposed to have been Celtic, were settled in the

south of Pannonia in the second century, B. C. In B. C. 114

they destroyed a Roman army under consul C. Portius Cato. Two

years later consul M. Livius Drusus drove them across the

Danube.

E. H. Bunbury,

History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 18, section 1 (volume 2).

SCOT AND LOT.

"Paying scot and lot; that is, bearing their rateable

proportion in the payments levied from the town for local or

national purposes."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 20, section 745 (volume 3).

SCOTCH HIGHLAND AND LOWLAND.

"If a line is drawn from a point on the eastern bank of Loch

Lomond, somewhat south of Ben Lomond, following in the main

the line of the Grampians, and crossing the Forth at Aberfoil,

the Teith at Callander, the Almond at Crieff, the Tay at

Dunkeld, the Ericht at Blairgowrie, and proceeding through the

hills of Brae Angus till it reaches the great range of the

Mounth, then crossing the Dee at Ballater, the Spey at lower

Craigellachie, till it reaches the Moray Firth at Nairn—this

forms what was called the Highland Line and separated the

Celtic from the Teutonic-speaking people. Within this line,

with the exception of the county of Caithness which belongs to

the Teutonic division, the Gaelic language forms the

vernacular of the inhabitants."

W. F. Skene,

Celtic Scotland,

volume 2, page 453.

SCOTCH-IRISH, The.

In 1607, six counties in the Irish province of Ulster,

formerly belonging to the earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel, were

confiscated by the English crown. The two earls, who had

submitted and had been pardoned, after a long rebellion during

the reign of queen Elizabeth, had now fled from new charges of

treason, and their great estates were forfeited.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603, and 1607-1611.

These estates, thus acquired by King James, the first of the

Stuarts, were "parcelled out among a body of Scotch and

English, brought over for the purpose. The far greater number

of these plantations were from the lower part of Scotland, and

became known as 'Scotch-Irish.' Thus a new population was

given to the north of Ireland, which has changed its history.

The province of Ulster, with fewer natural advantages than

either Munster, Leinster, or Connaught, became the most

prosperous, industrious and law-abiding of all Ireland. … But

the Protestant population thus transplanted to the north of

Ireland was destined to suffer many … persecutions. … In 1704,

the test-oath was imposed, by which everyone in public

employment was required to profess English prelacy. It was

intended to suppress Popery, but was used by the Episcopal

bishops to check Presbyterianism. To this was added burdensome

restraints on their commerce, and extortionate rents from

their landlords, resulting in what is known as the Antrim

evictions. There had been occasional emigrations from the

north of Ireland from the plantation of the Scotch, and one of

the ministers sent over in 1683, Francis Makemie, had

organized on the eastern shore of Maryland and in the

adjoining counties of Virginia the first Presbyterian churches

in America. But in the early part of the eighteenth century

the great movement began which transported so large a portion

of the Scotch-Irish into the American colonies, and, through

their influence, shaped in a great measure the destinies of

America. Says the historian Froude: 'In the two years which

followed the Antrim evictions, thirty-thousand Protestants

left Ulster for a land where there was no legal robbery, and

where those who sowed the seed could reap the harvest.'

Alarmed by the depletion of the Protestant population, the

Toleration Act was passed, and by it, and further promises of

relief, the tide of emigration was checked for a brief period.

{2838}

In 1728, however, it began anew, and from 1729 to 1750, it was

estimated that 'about twelve thousand came annually from

Ulster to America.' So many had settled in Pennsylvania before

1729 that James Logan, the Quaker president of that colony,

expressed his fear that they would become proprietors of the

province. … This bold stream of emigrants struck the American

continent mainly on the eastern border of Pennsylvania, and

was, in great measure, turned southward through Maryland,

Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, reaching and

crossing the Savannah river. It was met at various points by

counter streams of the same race, which had entered the

continent through the seaports of the Carolinas and Georgia.

Turning westward the combined flood overflowed the mountains

and covered the rich valley of the Mississippi beyond. As the

Puritans or Round-heads of the south, but freed from

fanaticism, they gave tone to its people and direction to its

history. … The task would be almost endless to simply call the

names of this people [the Scotch-Irish] in the South who have

distinguished themselves in the annals of their country. Yet

some rise before me, whose names demand utterance in any

mention of their people —names which the world will not

willingly let die. Among the statesmen they have given to the

world are Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, Benton. Among the

orators, Henry, Rutledge, Preston, McDuffie, Yancy. Among the

poets, the peerless Poe. Among the jurists, Marshall,

Campbell, Robertson. Among the divines, Waddell, the

Alexanders, Breckinridge, Robinson, Plummer, Hoge, Hawks,

Fuller, McKendree. Among the physicians, McDowell, Sims,

McGuire. Among the inventors, McCormick. Among the soldiers,

Lee, the Jacksons, the Johnstons, Stuart. Among the sailors,

Paul Jones, Buchanan. Presidents from the South,

seven—Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Taylor, Polk,

Johnson."

W. W. Henry,

The Scotch Irish of the South,

(Proceedings of the Scotch-Irish Congress, 1889).

"Full credit has been awarded the Roundhead and the Cavalier

for their leadership in our history; nor have we been

altogether blind to the deeds of the Hollander and the

Huguenot; but it is doubtful if we have wholly realized the

importance of the part played by that stern and virile people,

the Irish whose preachers taught the creed of Knox and Calvin.

These Irish representatives of the Covenanters were in the

west almost what the Puritans were in the northeast, and more

than the Cavaliers were in the south. Mingled with the

descendants of many other races, they nevertheless formed the

kernel of the distinctively and intensely American stock who

were the pioneers of our people in their march westward, the

vanguard of the army of fighting settlers, who with axe and

rifle won their way from the Alleghanies to the Rio Grande and

the Pacific. … They … made their abode at the foot of the

mountains, and became the outposts of civilization. … In this

land of hills, covered by unbroken forest, they took root and

flourished, stretching in a broad belt from north to south, a

shield of sinewy men thrust in between the people of the

seaboard and the red warriors of the wilderness. All through

this region they were alike; they had as little kinship with

the Cavalier as with the Quaker; the west was won by those who

have been rightly called the Roundheads of the south, the same

men who, before any others, declared for American

independence. The two facts of most importance to remember in

dealing with our pioneer history are, first, that the western

portions of Virginia and the Carolinas were peopled by an

entirely different stock from that which had long existed in

the tide-water regions of those colonies; and, secondly, that,

except for those in the Carolinas who came from Charleston,

the immigrants of this stock were mostly from the north, from

their great breeding ground and nursery in western

Pennsylvania. That these Irish Presbyterians were a bold and

hardy race is proved by their at once pushing past the settled

regions, and plunging into the wilderness as the leaders of

the white advance. They were the first and last set of

immigrants to do this; all others have merely followed in the

wake of their predecessors. But, indeed, they were fitted to

be Americans from the very start; they were kinsfolk of the

Covenanters; they deemed it a religious duty to interpret

their own Bible, and held for a divine right the election of

their own clergy. For generations, their whole ecclesiastic

and scholastic systems had been fundamentally democratic."

T. Roosevelt,

The Winning of the West,

volume 1, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

J. Phelan,

History of Tennessee,

chapter 23.

SCOTCH MILE ACT.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.

SCOTIA, The name.

See SCOTLAND, THE NAME.

----------SCOTLAND: Start--------

SCOTLAND:

The name.

"The name of Scotia, or Scotland, whether in its Latin or its

Saxon form, was not applied to any part of the territory

forming the modern kingdom of Scotland till towards the end of

the tenth century. Prior to that period it was comprised in

the general appellation of Britannia, or Britain, by which the

whole island was designated in contradistinction from that of

Hibernia, or Ireland. That part of the island of Britain which

is situated to the north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde

seems indeed to have been known to the Romans as early as the

first century by the distinctive name of Caledonia, and it

also appears to have borne from an early period another

appellation, the Celtic form of which was Albu, Alba, or

Alban, and Its Latin form Albania. The name of Scotia,

however, was exclusively appropriated to the island of

Ireland. Ireland was emphatically Scotia, the 'patria,' or

mother-country of the Scots; and although a colony of that

people had established themselves as early as the beginning of

the sixth century in the western districts of Scotland, it was

not till the tenth century that any part of the present

country of Scotland came to be known under that name. …

{2839}

From the tenth to the twelfth or thirteenth centuries the name

of Scotia, gradually superseding the older name of Alban, or

Albania, was confined to a district nearly corresponding with

that part of the Lowlands of Scotland which is situated on the

north of the Firth of Forth. … The three propositions—

1st, That Scotia, prior to the tenth century, was Ireland, and

Ireland alone;

2d, That when applied to Scotland it was considered a new name

superinduced upon the older designation of Alban or Albania;

and;

3d, That the Scotia of the three succeeding centuries was

limited to the districts between the Forth, the Spey, and

Drumalban,—lie at the very threshold of Scottish history."

W. F. Skene,

Celtic Scotland,

volume 1, introduction.

SCOTLAND:

The Picts and Scots.

"Cæsar tells us that the inhabitants of Britain in his day

painted themselves with a dye extracted from woad; by the

time, however, of British independence under Carausius and

Allectus, in the latter part of the third century, the fashion

had so far fallen off in Roman Britain that the word 'Picti,'

Picts, or painted men, had got to mean the peoples beyond the

Northern wall. … Now, all these Picts were natives of Britain,

and the word Picti is found applied to them for the first

time, in a panegyric by Eumenius, in the year 296; but in the

year 360 another painted people appeared on the scene. They

came from Ireland, and, to distinguish these two sets of

painted foes from one another, Latin historians left the

painted natives to be called Picti, as had been done before,

and for the painted invaders from Ireland they retained,

untranslated, a Celtic word of the same (or nearly the same)

meaning, namely 'Scotti.' Neither the Picts nor the Scotti

probably owned these names, the former of which is to be

traced to Roman authors, while the latter was probably given

the invaders from Ireland by the Brythons, whose country they

crossed the sea to ravage. The Scots, however, did recognize a

national name, which described them as painted or tattooed

men. … This word was Cruithnig, which is found applied equally

to the painted people of both islands. … The eponymus of all

the Picts was Cruithne, or Cruithneehan, and we have a kindred

Brythonic form in Prydyn, the name by which Scotland once used

to be known to the Kymry."

J. Rhys,

Celtic Britain,

chapter 7.

A different view of the origin and signification of these

names is maintained by Dr. Guest.

E. Guest,

Origines Celticae,

volume 2, part 1, chapter 1.

Prof. Freeman looks upon the question as unsettled. He says:

"The proper Scots, as no one denies, were a Gaelic colony from

Ireland. The only question is as to the Picts or Caledonians.

Were they another Gaelic tribe, the vestige of a Gaelic

occupation of the island earlier than the British occupation,

or were they simply Britons who had never been brought under

the Roman dominion? The geographical aspect of the case

favours the former belief, but the weight of philological

evidence seems to be on the side of the latter."

E. A. Freeman,

History of the Norman Conquest of England,

chapter 2, section 1, foot-note.

ALSO IN:

W. F. Skene,

Celtic Scotland,

book 1, chapter 5.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 78-84.

Roman conquests under Agricola.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 208-211.

Campaigns of Severus against the Caledonians.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 367-370.

The repulse of the Picts and Scots by Theodosius.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.

SCOTLAND: 6th Century.

The Mission of St. Columba.

See COLUMBAN CHURCH.

SCOTLAND: 6-7th Centuries.

Part included in the English Kingdom of Northumberland.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

SCOTLAND: 7th Century.

The Four Kingdoms.

"Out of these Celtic and Teutonic races [Picts, Scots, Britons

of Strathclyde, and Angles] there emerged in that northern

part of Britain which eventually became the territory of the

subsequent monarchy of Scotland, four kingdoms within definite

limits and under settled forms of government; and as such we

find them in the beginning of the 7th century, when the

conflict among these races, which succeeded the departure of

the Romans from the island, and the termination of their power

in Britain, may be held to have ceased and the limits of these

kingdoms to have become settled. North of the Firths of Forth

and Clyde were the two kingdoms of the Scots of Dalriada on

the west and of the Picts on the east. They were separated

from each other by a range of mountains termed by Adamnan the

Dorsal ridge of Britain, and generally known by the name of

Drumalban. … The colony [of Dalriada] was originally founded

by Fergus Mor, son of Erc, who came with his two brothers

Loarn and Angus from Irish Dalriada in the end of the 5th

century [see DALRIADA], but the true founder of the Dalriadic

kingdom was his great grandson Aedan, son of Gabran. … The

remaining districts north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde

formed the kingdom of the Picts. … The districts south of the

Firths of Forth and Clyde, and extending to the Solway Firth

on the west and to the Tyne on the east, were possessed by the

two kingdoms of the Britons [afterwards Strathclyde], on the

west and of the Angles of Bernicia on the east. The former

extended from the river Derwent in Cumberland in the south to

the Firth of Clyde in the north, which separated the Britons

from the Scots of Dalriada. … The Angles of Bernicia … were

now in firm possession of the districts extending along the

east coast as far as the Firth of Forth, originally occupied

by the British tribe of the Ottadeni and afterwards by the

Picts, and including the counties of Berwick and Roxburgh and

that of East Lothian or Haddington, the rivers Esk and Gala

forming here their western boundary. … In the centre of

Scotland, where it is intersected by the two arms of the sea,

the Forth and the Clyde, and where the boundaries of these

four kingdoms approach one another, is a territory extending

from the Esk to the Tay, which possessed a very mixed

population and was the scene of most of the conflicts between

these four states." About the middle of the 7th century, Osuiu

or Oswiu, king of Northumberland (which then included

Bernicia), having overcome the Mercians, "extended his sway

not only over the Britons but over the Picts and Scots; and

thus commenced the dominion of the Angles over the Britons of

Alclyde, the Scots of Dalriada, and the southern Picts, which

was destined to last for thirty years. … In the meantime the

little kingdom of Dalriada was in a state of complete

disorganisation. We find no record of any real king over the

whole nation of the Scots, but each separate tribe seems to

have remained isolated from the rest under its own chief,

while the Britons exercised a kind of sway over them, and

along with the Britons they were under subjection to the

Angles."

{2840}

In 685, on an attempt being made to throw off the yoke of the

Angles of Northumbria, King Ecgfrid or Ecgfrith, son of Oswiu,

led an army into the country of the Picts and was there

defeated crushingly and slain in a conflict styled variously

the battle of Dunnichen, Duin Nechtain, and Nechtan's Mere.

The effect of the defeat is thus described by Bede; "'From

that time the hopes and strength of the Anglic kingdom began

to fluctuate and to retrograde, for the Picts recovered the

territory belonging to them which the Angles had held, and the

Scots who were in Britain and a certain part of the Britons

regained their liberty, which they have now enjoyed for about

forty-six years.'"

W. F. Skene,

Celtic Scotland,

book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

SCOTLAND: 8-9th Centuries.

The kingdom of Scone and the kingdom of Alban.

"The Pictish kingdom had risen fast to greatness after the

victory of Nectansmere in 685. In the century which followed

Ecgfrith's defeat, its kings reduced the Scots of Dalriada

from nominal dependence to actual subjection, the annexation

of Angus and Fife carried their eastern border to the sea,

while to the south their alliance with the Northumbrians in

the warfare which both waged on the Welsh extended their

bounds on the side of Cumbria or Strath·Clyde. But the hour of

Pictish greatness was marked by the extinction of the Pictish

name. In the midst of the 9th century the direct line of their

royal house came to an end, and the under-king of the Scots of

Dalriada, Kenneth Mac Alpin, ascended the Pictish throne in

right of his maternal descent. For fifty years more Kenneth

and his successors remained kings of the Picts. At the moment

we have reached, however [the close of the 9th century], the

title passed suddenly away, the tribe which had given its

chief to the throne gave its name to the realm, and

'Pict-land' disappeared from history to make room first for

Alban or Albania, and then for 'the land of the Scots.'"

J. R. Green,

The Conquest of England,

chapter 4.

It appears however that, before the kingdom of Alban was

known, there was a period during which the realm established

by the successors of Kenneth Mac Alpin, the Scot, occupying

the throne of the Picts, was called the kingdom of Scone, from

the town which became its capital. "It was at Scone too that

the Coronation Stone was 'reverently kept for the consecration

of the kings of Alban,' and of this stone it was believed that

'no king was ever wont to reign in Scotland unless he had

first, on receiving the royal name, sat upon this stone at

Scone.' … Of its identity with the stone now preserved in the

coronation chair at Westminster there can be no doubt. It is

an oblong block of red sandstone, some 26 inches long by 16

inches broad, and 10½ inches deep. … Its mythic origin

identifies it with the stone which Jacob used as a pillow at

Bethel, … but history knows of it only at Scone." Some time

near the close of the 9th century "the kingdom ceased to be

called that of Scone and its territory Cruithentuath, or

Pictavia its Latin equivalent, and now became known as the

kingdom of Alban or Albania, and we find its kings no longer

called kings of the Picts but kings of Alban."

W. F. Skene,

Celtic Scotland,

book 1, chapters 6-7 (volume 1).

SCOTLAND: 9th Century.

The Northmen on the coasts and in the Islands.

See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN; 8-9TH CENTURIES.

SCOTLAND: 10-11th Centuries.

The forming of' the modern kingdom

and its relations to England.

"The fact that the West-Saxon or English Kings, from Eadward

the Elder [son of Alfred the Great] onwards, did exercise an

external supremacy over the Celtic princes of the island is a

fact too clear to be misunderstood by anyone who looks the

evidence on the matter fairly in the face. I date their

supremacy over Scotland from the reign of Eadward the Elder,

because there is no certain earlier instance of submission on

the part of the Scots to any West-Saxon King. … The submission

of Wales [A. D. 828] dates from the time of Ecgberht; but it

evidently received a more distinct and formal acknowledgement

[A. D. 922] in the reign of Eadward. Two years after followed

the Commendation of Scotland and Strathclyde. … I use the

feudal word Commendation, because that word seems to me better

than any other to express the real state of the case. The

transaction between Eadward and the Celtic princes was simply

an application, on an international scale, of the general

principle of the Comitatus. … A man 'chose his Lord'; he

sought some one more powerful than himself, with whom he

entered into the relation of Comitatus; as feudal ideas

strengthened, he commonly surrendered his allodial land to the

Lord so chosen, and received it back again from him on a

feudal tenure. This was the process of Commendation, a process

of everyday occurrence in the case of private men choosing

their Lords, whether those Lords were simple gentlemen or

Kings. And the process was equally familiar among sovereign

princes themselves. … There was nothing unusual or degrading

in the relation; if Scotland, Wales, Strathclyde, commended

themselves to the West-Saxon King, they only put themselves in

the same relation to their powerful neighbour in which every

continental prince stood in theory, and most of them in actual

fact, to the Emperor, Lord of the World. … The original

Commendation to the Eadward of the tenth century, confirmed by

a series of acts of submission spread over the whole of the

intermediate time, is the true justification for the acts of

his glorious namesake [Edward I.] in the thirteenth century.

The only difference was that, during that time, feudal notions

had greatly developed on both sides; the original Commendation

of the Scottish King and people to a Lord had changed, in the

ideas of both sides, into a feudal tenure of the land of the

Scottish Kingdom. But this change was simply the universal

change which had come over all such relations everywhere. …

But it is here needful to point out two other distinct events

which have often been confounded with the Commendation of

Scotland, a confusion through which the real state of the case

has often been misunderstood. … It is hard to make people

understand that there have not always been Kingdoms of England

and Scotland, with the Tweed and the Cheviot Hills as the

boundaries between them. It must be borne in mind that in the

tenth century no such boundaries existed, and that the names

of England and Scotland were only just beginning to be known.

At the time of the Commendation the country which is now

called Scotland was divided among three quite distinct

sovereignties.

{2841}

North of the Forth and Clyde reigned the King of Scots, an

independent Celtic prince reigning over a Celtic people, the

Picts and Scots, the exact relation between which two tribes

is a matter of perfect indifference to my present purpose.

South of the two great firths the Scottish name and the

Scottish dominion were unknown. The south-west part of modern

Scotland formed part of the Kingdom of the Strathclyde Welsh,

which up to 924 was, like the Kingdom of the Scots, an

independent Celtic principality. The south-eastern part of

modern Scotland, Lothian in the wide sense of the word, was

purely English or Danish, as in language it remains to this

day. It was part of the Kingdom of Northumberland, and it had

its share in all the revolutions of that Kingdom. In the year

924 Lothian was ruled by the Danish Kings of Northumberland,

subject only to that precarious superiority on the part of

Wessex which had been handed on from Ecgberht and Ælfred. In

the year 924, when the three Kingdoms, Scotland, Strathclyde

and Northumberland, all commended themselves to Eadward, the

relation was something new on the part of Scotland and

Strathclyde; but on the part of Lothian, as an integral part

of Northumberland, it was only a renewal of the relation which

had been formerly entered into with Ecgberht and Ælfred. … The

transactions which brought Scotland, Strathclyde, and Lothian

into their relations to one another and to the English Crown

were quite distinct from each other. They were as

follows:—First, the Commendation of the King and people of the

Scots to Eadward in 924. Secondly, the grant of Cumberland by

Eadmund to Malcolm in 945. … In 945 the reigning King [of

Cumberland, or Strathclyde] revolted against his over-lord

Eadmund; he was overthrown and his Kingdom ravaged; it was

then granted on tenure of military service to his kinsman

Malcolm King of Scots. … The southern part of this territory

was afterwards … annexed to Eng]and; the northern part was

retained by the Scottish Kings, and was gradually, though very

gradually, incorporated with their own Kingdom. The

distinction between the two states seems to have been quite

forgotten in the 13th century." The third transaction was "the

grant of Lothian to the Scottish kings, either under Eadgar or

under Cnut. … The date of the grant of Lothian is not

perfectly clear. But whatever was the date of the grant, there

can be no doubt at all as to its nature. Lothian, an integral

part of England, could be granted only as any other part of

England could be granted, namely to be held as part of

England, its ruler being in the position of an English Earl. …

But in such a grant the seeds of separation were sown. A part

of the Kingdom which was governed by a foreign sovereign, on

whatever terms of dependence, could not long remain in the

position of a province governed by an ordinary Earl. … That

the possession of Lothian would under all ordinary

circumstances remain hereditary, must have been looked for

from the beginning. This alone would distinguish Lothian from

all other Earldoms. … It was then to be expected that Lothian,

when once granted to the King of Scots, should gradually be

merged in the Kingdom of Scotland. But the peculiar and

singular destiny of this country could hardly have been looked

for. Neither Eadgar nor Kenneth could dream that this purely

English or Danish province would become the historical

Scotland. The different tenures of Scotland and Lothian got

confounded; the Kings of Scots, from the end of the eleventh

century, became English in manners and language; they were not

without some pretensions to the Crown of England, and not

without some hopes of winning it. They thus learned to attach

more and more value to the English part of their dominions,

and they laboured to spread its language and manners over

their original Celtic territory. They retained their ancient

title of Kings of Scots, but they became in truth Kings of

English Lothian and of Anglicized Fife. A state was thus

formed, politically distinct from England, and which political

circumstances gradually made bitterly hostile to England, a

state which indeed retained a dark and mysterious Celtic

background, but which, as it appears in history, is English in

laws, language and manners, more truly English indeed, in many

respects, than England itself remained after the Norman

Conquest."

E. A. Freeman,

History of the Norman Conquest of England,

chapter 3, section. 4.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1005-1034.

The kingdom acquires its final name.

"The mixed population of Picts and Scots had now become to a

great extent amalgamated, and under the influence of the

dominant race of the Scots were identified with them in name.

Their power was now to be further consolidated, and their

influence extended during the thirty years' reign of a king

who proved to be the last of his race, and who was to bequeath

the kingdom, under the name of Scotia, to a new line of kings.

This was Malcolm, the son of Kenneth, who slew his

predecessor, Kenneth, the son of Dubh, at Monzievaird. … With

Malcolm the descendants of Kenneth Mac Alpin, the founder of

the Scottish dynasty, became extinct in the male line."

W. F. Skene,

Celtic Scotland,

book 1, chapter 8.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1039-1054.

The reign of Macbeth or Macbeda.

Malcolm was succeeded by his daughter's son, Duncan. "There is

little noticeable in his [Duncan's] life but its conclusion.

He had made vain efforts to extend his frontiers southward

through Northumberland, and was engaged in a war with the

holders of the northern independent states at his death in the

year 1039. … He was slain in 'Bothgowan,' which is held to be

Gaelic for 'a smith's hut.' The person who slew him, whether

with his own hand or not, was Macbeda, the Maarmor of Ross, or

of Ross and Moray; the ruler, in short, of the district

stretching from the Moray Frith and Loch Ness northwards. The

place where the smith's hut stood is said to have been near

Elgin. This has not been very distinctly established; but at

all events it was near if not actually within the territory

ruled by Macbeda, and Duncan was there with aggressive

designs. The maarmor's wife was Gruach, a granddaughter of

Kenneth IV. If there was a grandson of Kenneth killed by

Malcolm, this was his sister. But whether or not she had this

inheritance of revenge, she was, according to the Scots

authorities, the representative of the Kenneth whom the

grandfather of Duncan had deprived of his throne and his life.

… The deeds which raised Macbeda and his wife to power were

not to appearance much worse than others of their day done for

similar ends. However he may have gained his power, he

exercised it with good repute, according to the reports

nearest to his time.

{2842}

It is among the most curious of the antagonisms that sometimes

separate the popular opinion of people of mark from anything

positively known about them, that this man, in a manner sacred

to splendid infamy, is the first whose name appears in the

ecclesiastical records both as a king of Scotland and a

benefactor of the Church; and is also the first who, as king

of Scotland, is said by the chroniclers to have offered his

services to the Bishop of Rome. The ecclesiastical records of

St. Andrews tell how he and his queen made over certain lands

to the Culdees of Lochleven, and there is no such fact on

record of any earlier king of Scotland. Of his connection with

Rome, it is a question whether he went there himself. … That

he sent money there, however, was so very notorious as not

only to be recorded by the insular authorities, but to be

noticed on the Continent as a significant event. … The reign

of this Macbeda or Macbeth forms a noticeable period in our

history. He had a wider dominion than any previous ruler,

having command over all the country now known as Scotland,

except the Isles and a portion of the Western Highlands. …

With him, too, ended that mixed or alternative regal

succession which, whether it was systematic or followed the

law of force, is exceedingly troublesome to the inquirer. …

From Macbeth downwards … the rule of hereditary succession

holds, at all events to the extent that a son, where there is

one, succeeds to his father. Hence this reign is a sort of

turning-point in the constitutional history of the Scottish

crown."

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

volume 1, chapter 10.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1066-1093.

Effects of the Norman Conquest of England.

Civilization and growth of the Northern Kingdom.

Reign of Malcolm III.

"The Norman Conquest of England produced a great effect upon

their neighbours. In the first place, a very great number of

the Saxons who fled from the cruelty of William the Conqueror,

retired into Scotland, and this had a considerable effect in

civilizing the southern parts of that country; for if the

Saxons were inferior to the Normans in arts and in learning,

they were, on the other hand, much superior to the Scots, who

were a rude and very ignorant people. These exiles were headed

and accompanied by what remained of the Saxon royal family,

and particularly by a young prince named Edgar Etheling, who

was a near kinsman of Edward the Confessor, and the heir of

his throne, but dispossessed by the Norman Conqueror. This

prince brought with him to Scotland two sisters, named

Margaret and Christian. They were received with much kindness

by Malcolm III., called Canmore [Ceanmore] (or Great Head),

who remembered the assistance which he had received from

Edward the Confessor. … He himself married the Princess

Margaret (1068), and made her the Queen of Scotland. … When

Malcolm, King of Scotland, was thus connected with the Saxon

royal family of England, he began to think of chasing away the

Normans, and of restoring Edgar Etheling to the English

throne. This was an enterprise for which he had not sufficient

strength; but he made deep and bloody inroads into the

northern parts of England, and brought away so many captives,

that they were to be found for many years afterwards in every

Scottish village, nay, in every Scottish hovel. No doubt, the

number of Saxons thus introduced into Scotland tended much to

improve and civilize the manners of the people. … Not only the

Saxons, but afterwards a number of the Normans themselves,

came to settle in Scotland, … and were welcomed by King

Malcolm. He was desirous to retain these brave men in his

service, and for that purpose he gave them great grants of

land, to be held for military services; and most of the

Scottish nobility are of Norman descent. And thus the Feudal

System was introduced into Scotland as well as England, and

went on gradually gaining strength, till it became the general

law of the country, as indeed it was that of Europe at large.

Malcolm Canmore, thus increasing in power, and obtaining

re-enforcements of warlike and civilized subjects, began

greatly to enlarge his dominions. At first he had resided

almost entirely in the province of Fife, and at the town of

Dunfermline, where there are still the ruins of a small tower

which served him for a palace. But as he found his power

increase, he ventured across the Frith of Forth, and took

possession of Edinburgh, and the surrounding country, which

had hitherto been accounted part of England. The great

strength of the castle of Edinburgh, situated upon a lofty

rock, led him to choose that town frequently for his

residence, so that in time it became the metropolis, or chief

city of Scotland. This king Malcolm was a brave and wise

prince, though without education. He often made war upon King

William the Conqueror of England, and upon his son and

successor, William, who, from his complexion, was called

William Rufus, that is, Red William. Malcolm was sometimes

beaten in these wars, but he was more frequently successful;

and not only made a complete conquest of Lothian, but

threatened also to possess himself of the great English

province of Northumberland, which he frequently invaded."

Malcolm Canmore was killed in battle at Alnwick Castle (1093),

during one of his invasions of English territory.

Sir W. Scott,

Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland);

abridged by E. Ginn,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

volume 1, chapter 11.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1093-1153.

Successors of Malcolm III.

The reign of David I.

His civilizing work and influence.

"Six sons and two daughters were the offspring of the marriage

between Malcolm and Margaret. Edward, the eldest, perished

with his father, and Ethelred, created Abbot of Dunkeld and

Earl of Fife, appears to have survived his parents for a very

short time: Edmund died in an English cloister, a penitent and

mysterious recluse; Edgar, Alexander, and David, lived to

wear, in succession, the crown of Scotland. Of the two

daughters, Editha … became the queen of Henry of England. …

Three parties may be said to have divided Scot·land at the

period of Malcolm's death." One of these parties, inspired

with jealousy of the English influence which had come into the

kingdom with queen Margaret, succeeded in raising Donald Bane,

a brother of the late king Malcolm, to the throne. Donald was

soon displaced by Edmund, who is sometimes said to have been

an illegitimate son of Malcolm; and in 1097 Edmund was

dethroned by Edgar, the son of Malcolm and Margaret. Edgar,

dying in 1107, was succeeded by Alexander I., and he, in 1124,

by David I.

{2843}

The reign of David was contemporary with the dark and troubled

time of Stephen in England, and he took an unfortunate part in

the struggle between Stephen and the Empress Matilda,

suffering a dreadful defeat in the famous Battle of the

Standard (see STANDARD, BATTLE OF). But "the whole of the

north of England beyond the Tees" was "for several years …

under the influence, if not under the direct authority, of the

Scottish king, and the comparative prosperity of this part of

the kingdom, contrasting strongly with the anarchy prevailing

in every other quarter, naturally inclined the population of

the northern counties to look with favour upon a continuance

of the Scottish connection. … Pursuing the policy inaugurated

by his mother [the English princess Margaret] …, he

encouraged the resort of foreign merchants to the ports of

Scotland, insuring to native traders the same advantages which

they had enjoyed during the reign of his father; whilst he

familiarized his Gaelic nobles, in their attendance upon the

royal court, with habits of luxury and magnificence, remitting

three years' rent and tribute—according to the account of his

contemporary Malmesbury—to all his people who were willing to

improve their dwellings, to dress with greater elegance, and

to adopt increased refinement in their general manner of

living. Even in the occupations of his leisure moments he

seems to have wished to exercise a softening influence over

his countrymen, for, like many men of his character, he was

fond of gardening, and he delighted in indoctrinating his

people in the peaceful arts of horticulture, and in the

mysteries of planting and of grafting. For similar reasons he

sedulously promoted the improvement of agriculture, or rather,

perhaps, directed increased attention to it; for the Scots of

that period were still a pastoral, and, in some respects, a

migratory people. … David hoped to convert the lower orders

into a more settled and industrious population; whilst he

enjoined the higher classes to 'live like noblemen' upon their

own estates, and not to waste the property of their

neighbours. … In consequence of these measures feudal castles

began, ere long, to replace the earlier buildings of wood and

wattles rudely fortified by earthworks; and towns rapidly grew

up around the royal castles and about the principal localities

of commerce. … The prosperity of the country during the last

fifteen years of his reign [he died in 1153] contrasted

strongly with the miseries of England under the disastrous

rule of Stephen; Scotland became the granary from which her

neighbour's wants were supplied; and to the court of

Scotland's king resorted the knights and nobles of foreign

origin, whom the commotions of the Continent had hitherto

driven to take refuge in England."

E. W. Robertson,

Scotland under her Early Kings,

volume 1, chapters 6-8.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1153.

Accession of Malcolm IV.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1165.

Accession of William IV. (called The Lion).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1174-1189.

Captivity of William the Lion, his oath of fealty to the

English king, and his release from it.

In 1174, on the occasion of a general conspiracy of rebellion

against Henry II., contrived at Paris, headed by his wife and

sons, and joined by great numbers of the nobles throughout his

dominions, both in England and in France, William the Lion,

king of Scotland, was induced to assist the rebellion by the

promise of Northumberland for himself. Henry was in France

until July, 1174, when he was warned that "only his own

presence could retrieve England, where a Scotch army was

pouring in from the north, while David of Huntingdon headed an

army in the midland counties, and the young prince was

preparing to bring over fresh forces from Gravelines. Henry

crossed the channel in a storm, and, by advice of a Norman

bishop, proceeded at once to do penance at Becket's shrine. On

the day of his humiliation, the Scotch king, William the Lion,

was surprised at Alnwick and captured. This, in fact, ended

the war, for David of Huntingdon was forced to return into

Scotland, where the old feud of Gael and Saxon had broken out.

The English rebels purchased peace by a prompt submission. In

less than a month Henry was able to leave England to itself."

The king of Scotland was taken as a prisoner to Falaise, in

Normandy, where he was detained for several months. "By advice

of a deputation of Scotch prelates and barons he at last

consented to swear fealty to Henry as his liege lord, and to

do provisional homage for his son. His chief vassals

guaranteed this engagement; hostages were given; and English

garrisons received into three Scotch towns, Roxburgh, Berwick,

and Edinburgh. Next year [1175] the treaty was solemnly

ratified at York."

C. H. Pearson,

History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,

volume 1, chapter 31.

This engagement of fealty on the part of William the Lion is

often referred to as the Treaty of Falaise. Fourteen years

afterwards, when Henry's son, Richard, Cœur de Lion, had

succeeded to the throne, the Scotch king was absolved from it.

"Early in December [1189], while Richard was at Canterbury on

his way to the sea [preparing to embark upon his crusade],

William the Lion came to visit him, and a bargain was struck

to the satisfaction of both parties. Richard received from

William a sum of 10,000 marks, and his homage for his English

estates, as they had been held by his brother Malcolm; in

return, he restored to him the castles of Roxburgh and

Berwick, and released him and his heirs for ever from the

homage for Scotland itself, enforced by Henry in 1175."

K. Norgate,

England under the Angevin Kings,

volume 2, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

W. Burns,

Scottish War of Independence,

volume 1, chapter 12.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1214.

Accession of Alexander II.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1249.

Accession of Alexander III.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1263.

The Norwegian invasion and the Battle of Largs.

"The western Highlands and Islands formed the original

territory of the Scots. But we have seen how the Norwegians

and Danes, seizing Shetland and Orkney, spread themselves over

the western Archipelago, even as far south as Man, thereby

putting an end, for 300 years, to the intercommunication

between the mainlands of Scotland and Ireland. These islands

long formed a sort of maritime community, sometimes under the

active authority of the kings of Norway, sometimes connected

with the Norwegian settlers in Ireland—Ostmen, as they were

called; sometimes partially ruled by kings of Man, but more

generally subject to chieftains more or less powerful, who,

when opportunity offered, made encroachments even on the

mainland. …

{2844}

Alexander II. seems to have determined to bring this sort of

interregnum to a close, and he was engaged in an expedition

for that purpose when he died at the little island of Kerrera,

near Oban. His son, as he advanced to manhood, appears to have

revived the idea of completely re-annexing the Islands.

Complaints were made by the islanders to Haco, king of Norway,

of aggressions by the earl of Ross and other mainland

magnates, in the interest of the king of Scots; and Haco, who

was at once a powerful and a despotic monarch, resolved to

vindicate his claims as suzerain of the isles. … Haco

accordingly fitted out a splendid fleet, consisting of 100

vessels, mostly of large size, fully equipped, and crowded

with gallant soldiers and seamen. … On the 10th of July, 1263,

'the mightiest armament that ever left the shores of Norway

sailed from the haven of Herlover.' … The island chieftains,

Magnus of the Orkneys, Magnus, king of Man, Dougal MacRoderic,

and others, met the triumphant fleet, swelling its numbers as

it advanced amongst the islands. Most of the chiefs made their

peace with Haco; though there were exceptions. … The invading

fleet entered the Clyde, numbering by this time as many as 160

ships. A squadron of 60 sail proceeded up Loch-long; the crews

drew their boats across the narrow isthmus at Tarbet, launched

on Loch-lomond, and spread their ravages, by fire and sword,

over the Lennox and Stirlingshire. … The alarm spread over the

surrounding country, and gradually a Scottish army began to

gather on the Ayrshire side of the firth. … Whether

voluntarily, or from stress of weather, some portion of the

Norwegians made a landing near Largs, on the Ayrshire coast,

opposite to Bute. These being attacked by the Scots,

reinforcements were landed, and a fierce but desultory

struggle was kept up, with varying success, from morning till

night. Many of the ships were driven ashore. Most of the

Norwegians who had landed were slain. The remainder of the

fleet was seriously damaged. … Retracing its course among the

islands, on the 20th of October it reached Kirkwall in Orkney,

where king Haco expired on 15th December. Such was the result

of an expedition which had set out with such fair promises of

success."

W. Burns,

The Scottish War of Independence,

chapter 13 (volume 1).

"In the Norse annals our famous Battle of Largs makes small

figure, or almost none at all, among Hakon's battles and

feats. … Of Largs there is no mention whatever in Norse books.

But beyond any doubt, such is the other evidence, Hakon did

land there; land and fight, not conquering, probably rather

beaten; and very certainly 'retiring to his ships,' as in

either case he behooved to do! It is further certain he was

dreadfully maltreated by the weather on those wild coasts; and

altogether credible, as the Scotch records bear, that he was

so at Largs very specially. The Norse Records or Sagas say

merely he lost many of his ships by the tempests, and many of

his men by land fighting in various parts,—tacitly including

Largs, no doubt, which was the last of these misfortunes to

him. … To this day, on a little plain to the south of the

village, now town, of Largs, in Ayrshire, there are seen stone

cairns and monumental heaps, and, until within a century ago,

one huge, solitary, upright stone; still mutely testifying to

a battle there—altogether clearly to this battle of King

Hakon's; who by the Norse records, too, was in these

neighbourhoods at that same date, and evidently in an

aggressive, high kind of humour."

T. Carlyle,

Early Kings of Norway,

chapter 15.

ALSO IN:

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapter 15 (volume 2).

See, also,

NORMANS.

NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES,

and 10-13TH CENTURIES.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1266.

Acquisition of the Western Islands.

Three years after the battle of Largs, "in 1266, Magnus IV.,

the new King [of Norway], by formal treaty ceded to the King

of Scots Man and all the Western Isles, specially reserving

Orkney and Shetland to the crown of Norway. On the other hand,

the King of Scots agreed to pay down a ransom for them of a

thousand marks, and an annual rent of a hundred marks."

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapter 15 (volume 2).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1286.

Accession of Queen Margaret (called The Maid of Norway)

who died on her way to Scotland in 1290.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

Death of the Maid of Norway.

Reign of John Balliol.

English conquest by Edward I.

Exploits of Wallace.

Alexander III. of Scotland, dying in 1286, left only an infant

granddaughter to inherit his crown. This was the child of his

daughter Margaret, married to the king of Norway and dead

after her first confinement. The baby queen, known in Scottish

history as the Maid of Norway, was betrothed in her sixth year

to Prince Edward of England, son of Edward I., and all looked

promising for an early union of the Scottish and English

crowns. "But this project was abruptly frustrated by the

child's death on her voyage to Scotland, and with the rise of

claimant after claimant of the vacant throne Edward was drawn

into far other relations to the Scottish realm. Of the

thirteen pretenders to the throne of Scotland, only three

could be regarded as serious claimants. By the extinction of

the line of William the Lion, the right of succession passed

to the daughters of his brother David. The claim of John

Balliol, Lord of Galloway, rested on his descent from the

eldest of these; that of Robert Bruce, Lord of Annandale, on

his descent from the second; that of John Hastings, Lord of

Abergavenny, on his descent from the third. … All the rights

of a feudal suzerain were at once assumed by the English King;

he entered into the possession of the country as into that of

a disputed fief to be held by its overlord till the dispute

was settled. … Scotland was thus reduced to the subjection

which she had experienced under Henry II. … The commissioners

whom he named to report on the claims to the throne were

mainly Scotch; a proposal for the partition of the realm among

the claimants was rejected as contrary to Scotch law, and the

claim of Balliol as representative of the elder branch was

finally preferred to that of his rivals. The castles were at

once delivered to the new monarch, and Balliol did homage to

Edward with full acknowledgment of the services due to him

from the realm of Scotland. For a time there was peace." But,

presently, Edward made claims upon the Scotch nobles for

service in his foreign wars which were resented and

disregarded. He also asserted for his courts a right of

hearing appeals from the Scottish tribunals, which was angrily

denied. Barons and people were provoked to a hostility that

forced Balliol to challenge war. He obtained from the pope

absolution from his oath of fealty and he entered into a

secret alliance with the king of France.

{2845}

In the spring of 1296 Edward invaded Scotland, carried Berwick

by storm, slaughtered 8,000 of its citizens, defeated the

Scots with great slaughter at Dunbar, occupied Edinburgh,

Stirling and Perth, and received, in July, the surrender of

Balliol, who was sent to imprisonment in the Tower of London.

"No further punishment, however, was exacted from the

prostrate realm. Edward simply treated it as a fief, and

declared its forfeiture to be the legal consequence of

Balliol's treason. It lapsed in fact to the overlord, and its

earls, barons and gentry swore homage in Parliament at Berwick

to Edward as their king. … The government of the new

dependency was intrusted to Warenne, Earl of Surrey, at the

head of an English Council of Regency. … The disgraceful

submission of their leaders brought the people themselves to

the front. … The genius of an outlaw knight, William Wallace,

saw in their smouldering discontent a hope of freedom for his

country, and his daring raids on outlying parties of the

English soldiery roused the country at last into revolt. Of

Wallace himself, of his life or temper, we know little or

nothing; the very traditions of his gigantic stature and

enormous strength are dim and unhistorical. But the instinct

of the Scotch people has guided it aright in choosing Wallace

for its national hero. He … called the people itself to arms."

At Stirling, in September, 1297, Wallace caught the English

army in the midst of its passage of the Forth, cut half of it

in pieces and put the remainder to flight. At Falkirk, in the

following July, Edward avenged himself upon the forces of

Wallace with terrible slaughter, and the Scottish leader

narrowly escaped. In the struggle which the Scots still

maintained for several years, he seems to have borne no longer

a prominent part. But when they submitted, in 1303, Wallace

refused Edward's offered amnesty; he was afterwards captured,

sent to London for trial, and executed, his head being placed

on London Bridge, according to the barbarous custom of the

time.

J. R. Green,

Short History of the English People,

chapter 4, section 3.

ALSO:

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapters 15 and 18-22.

C. H. Pearson,

History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,

volume 2, chapters 12-13.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1305-1307.

The rising under Robert Bruce.

After the submission of Scotland in 1303, King Edward of

England "set to work to complete the union of the two

kingdoms. In the meantime Scotland was to be governed by a

Lieutenant aided by a council of barons and churchmen. It was

to be represented in the English parliament by ten

deputies,—four churchmen, four barons, and two members of the

commons, one for the country north of the Firths, one for the

south. These members attended one parliament at Westminster,

and an ordinance was issued for the government of Scotland. …

But the great difficulty in dealing with the Scots was that

they never knew when they were conquered, and, just when

Edward hoped that his scheme for union was carried out, they

rose in arms once more. The leader this time was Robert Bruce,

Lord of Annandale, Earl of Carrick in right of his mother, and

the grandson and heir of the rival of Balliol. He had joined

Wallace, but had again sworn fealty to Edward at the

Convention of Irvine, and had since then received many favours

from the English king. Bruce signed a bond with William

Lamberton, Bishop of St. Andrews, who had also been one of

Wallace's supporters. In this bond each party swore to stand

by the other in all his undertakings, no matter what, and not

to act without the knowledge of the other. … This bond became

known to Edward; and Bruce, afraid of his anger, fled from

London to Dumfries. There in the Church of the Grey Friars he

had an interview with John Comyn of Badenoch, called the Red

Comyn, who, after Balliol and his sons, was the next heir to

the throne. … What passed between them cannot be certainly

known, as they met alone"—but Comyn was slain. "By this murder

and sacrilege Bruce put himself at once out of the pale of the

law and of the Church, but by it he became the nearest heir to

the crown, after the Balliols. This gave him a great hold on

the people, whose faith in the virtue of hereditary succession

was strong, and on whom the English yoke weighed heavily. On

March 27, 1306, Bruce was crowned [at Scone] with as near an

imitation of the old ceremonies as could be compassed on such

short notice. The actual crowning was done by Isabella,

Countess of Buchan, who, though her husband was a Comyn, and,

as such, a sworn foe of Bruce, came secretly to uphold the

right of her own family, the Macduffs, to place the crown on

the head of the King of Scots. Edward determined this time to

put down the Scots with rigour. … All who had taken any part

in the murder of the Red Comyn were denounced as traitors, and

death was to be the fate of all persons taken in arms. Bruce

was excommunicated by a special bull from the Pope. The

Countess of Buchan was confined in a room, made like a cage,

in one of the towers of Berwick Castle. One of King Robert's

sisters was condemned to a like punishment. His brother Nigel,

his brother-in-law Christopher Seaton, and three other nobles

were taken prisoners, and were put to death as traitors. …

Edward this time made greater preparations than ever. All

classes of his subjects from all parts of his dominions were

invited to join the army, and he exhorted his son, Edward

Prince of Wales, and 300 newly-created knights, to win their

spurs worthily in the reduction of contumacious Scotland. It

was well for Scotland that he did not live to carry out his

vows of vengeance. He died at Burgh-on-the-Sands, July 30th.

His death proved a turning-point in the history of Scotland,

for, though the English still remained in possession of the

strongholds, Edward II. took no effective steps to crush the

rebels. He only brought the army raised by his father as far

as Cumnock in Ayrshire, and retreated without doing anything."

M. MacArthur,

History of Scotland,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

Sir W. Scott,

History of Scotland,

volume 1, chapters 8-9.

W. Burns,

Scottish War of Independence,

volume 2, chapters 21-22.

{2846}

SCOTLAND: A. D, 1314.

The Battle of Bannockburn.

"It is extremely difficult to give distinctness and

chronological sequence to the events in Scotland from 1306 to

1310: the conditions are indeed antagonistic to distinctness.

We have a people restless and feverishly excited to efforts

for their liberty when opportunity should come, but not yet

embodied in open war against their invaders, and therefore

doing nothing distinct enough to hold a place in history. …

The other prominent feature in the historical conditions was

the new-made king [Robert Bruce], … a tall strong man, of

comely, attractive, and commanding countenance. … He is steady

and sanguine of temperament; his good spirits and good-humour

never fail, and in the midst of misery and peril he can keep

up the spirits of his followers by chivalrous stories and

pleasant banter. … The English were driven out of the strong

places one by one—sometimes by the people of the district. We

hear of the fall of Edinburgh, Roxburgh, Linlithgow, Perth,

Dundee, Rutherglen, and Dumfries. … In the beginning of the

year 1309 Scotland was so far consolidated as to be getting

into a place in European diplomacy. The King of France advised

his son-in-law, Edward II., to agree to a souffrance or truce

with the Scots. … While the negotiations with France went on,

countenance still more important was given to the new order of

things at home. The clergy in council set forth their

adherence to King Robert, with the reasons for it. … This was

an extremely important matter, for it meant, of course, that

the Church would do its best to protect him from all

ecclesiastical risk arising from the death of Comyn. … A

crisis came at last which roused the Government of England to

a great effort. After the fortresses had fallen one by one,

Stirling Castle still held out. It was besieged by Edward

Bruce [brother of Robert] before the end of the year 1313.

Mowbray, the governor, stipulated that he would surrender if

not relieved before the Feast of St. John the Baptist in the

following year, or the 24th of June. The taking of this

fortress was an achievement of which King Edward [I.] was

prouder than of anything else he had done in the invasions of

Scotland. … That the crowning acquisition of their mighty king

should thus be allowed to pass away, and stamp emphatically

the utter loss of the great conquest he had made for the

English crown, was a consummation too humiliating for the

chivalry of England to endure without an effort. Stirling

Castle must be relieved before St. John's Day, and the

relieving of Stirling Castle meant a thorough invasion and

resubjection of Scotland." On both sides the utmost efforts

were made,—the one to relieve the Castle, the other to

strengthen its besiegers. "On the 23d of June [1314] the two

armies were visible to each other. If the Scots had, as it was

said, between 30,000 and 40,000 men, it was a great force for

the country at that time to furnish. Looking at the urgency of

the measures taken to draw out the feudal array of England, to

the presence of the Welsh and Irish, and to a large body of

Gascons and other foreigners, it is easy to be believed that

the army carried into Scotland might be, as it was said to be,

100,000 in all. The efficient force, however, was in the

mounted men, and these were supposed to be about equal in

number to the whole Scottish army." The Scots occupied a

position of great strength and advantage (on the banks of the

Bunnock Burn), which they had skilfully improved by

honeycombing all the flat ground with hidden pits, to make it

impassable for cavalry. The English attacked them at daybreak

on the 24th of June, and suffered a most ignominious and awful

defeat. "The end was rout, confused and hopeless. The pitted

field added to the disasters; for though they avoided it in

their advance, many horsemen were pressed into it in the

retreat, and floundered among the pitfalls. Through all the

history of her great wars before and since, never did England

suffer a humiliation deep enough to approach even comparison

with this. Besides the inferiority of the victorious army,

Bannockburn is exceptional among battles by the utter

helplessness of the defeated. There seems to have been no

rallying point anywhere. … None of the parts of that mighty

host could keep together, and the very chaos among the

multitudes around seems to have perplexed the orderly army of

the Scots. The foot-soldiers of the English army seem simply

to have dispersed at all points, and the little said of them

is painfully suggestive of the poor wanderers having to face

the two alternatives—starvation in the wilds, or death at the

hands of the peasantry. The cavalry fled right out towards

England. … Stirling Castle was delivered up in terms of the

stipulation."

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

volume 2, chapter 23.

"The defeated army … left dead upon the field about 30,000

men, including 200 knights and 700 esquires."

W. Burns,

Scottish War of Independence,

chapter 23 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

P. F. Tytler,

History of Scotland,

volume 1, chapter 3.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314-1328.

After Bannockburn.

The consequences of the battle in different views.

"A very general impression exists, especially among

Englishmen, that the defeat at Bannockburn put an end to the

attempted subjugation of Scotland. This is a mistake. … No

doubt the defeat was of so decisive a character as to render

the final result all but certain. But it required many others,

though of a minor kind, to bring about the conviction

described by Mr. Froude [that the Scotch would never stoop to

the supremacy inflicted upon Wales]; and it was yet fourteen

long years till the treaty of Northampton."

W. Burns,

The Scottish War of Independence,

chapter 24 (volume 2).

"No defeat, however crushing, ever proved half so injurious to

any country as the victory of Bannockburn did to Scotland.

This is the testimony borne by men whose patriotism cannot be

called in question. … It drove from Scotland the very elements

of its growing civilization and its material wealth. The

artisans of North Britain were at that time mostly English.

These retired or were driven from Scotland, and with them the

commercial importance of the Scottish towns was lost. The

estates held by Englishmen in Scotland were confiscated, and

the wealth which through the hands of these proprietors had

found its way from the southern parts of the kingdom and

fertilized the more barren soil of the north, at once ceased.

The higher and more cultured clergy were English; these

retired when the severance of Scotland from England was

effected, and with them Scottish scholarship was almost

extinguished, and the budding literature of the north

disappeared. How calamitous was the period which followed upon

Bannockburn may be partially estimated by two significant

facts. Of the six princes who had nominal rule in Scotland

from the death of Robert III. to James VI., not one died a

natural death. Of the ten kings whose names are entered on the

roll of Scottish history from the death of Robert Bruce, seven

came to the throne whilst minors, and James I. was detained in

England for nineteen years. The country during these long

minorities, and the time of the captivity of James, was

exposed to the strife commonly attendant on minorities.…

{2847}

The war commenced by Bruce lingered for almost three

centuries, either in the shape of formal warfare proclaimed by

heralds and by the ceremonials usually observed at the

beginning of national strife, or in the informal but equally

destructive hostilities which neighbours indulge in, and which

partake of the bitterness of civil war. … For three centuries

the lands south of the Tweed, and almost as far as the Tyne at

its mouth, were exposed to the ceaseless ravages of

moss-troopers. … For a while men were killed, and women

outraged and murdered, and children slain without pity, and

houses plundered and then burnt, and cattle swept off the

grazing lands between Tweed and Tyne, until none cared, unless

they were outlaws, to occupy any part of the country within a

night's ride of the borders of Scotland. The sufferers in

their turn soon learned to recognize no law save that of

might, and avenged their wrongs by inflicting like wrongs upon

others; and thus there grew up along the frontiers of either

country a savage population, whose occupation was murder and

plunder, and whose sole wealth was what they had obtained by

violence. … The war, indeed, which has been called a war of

independence, and fills so large a part of the annals of

England and Scotland during the Middle Ages, was successful so

far as its main object was concerned, the preservation of

power in the hands of 'barbarous chieftains who neither feared

the king nor pitied the people'; the war was a miserable

failure if we regard the well-being of the people themselves

and the progress of the nation."

W. Denton,

England in the Fifteenth Century,

pages 68-78.

On the other side: "It [the battle of Bannockburn] put an end

for ever to all hopes upon the part of England of

accomplishing the conquest of her sister country. … Nor have

the consequences of this victory been partial or confined.

Their duration throughout succeeding centuries of Scottish

history and Scottish liberty, down to the hour in which this

is written, cannot be questioned; and without launching out

into any inappropriate field of historical speculation, we

have only to think of the most obvious consequences which must

have resulted from Scotland becoming a conquered province of

England; and if we wish for proof, to fix our eyes on the

present condition of Ireland, in order to feel the reality of

all that we owe to the victory at Bannockburn, and to the

memory of such men as Bruce, Randolph, and Douglas."

P. F. Tytler,

History of Scotland,

volume 1, chapter 3.

"It is impossible, even now, after the lapse of more than 570

years, to read any account of that battle—or still more to

visit the field—without emotion. For we must remember all the

political and social questions which depended on it. For good

or for evil, tremendous issues follow on the gain or on the

loss of national independence. … Where the seeds of a strong

national civilisation, of a strong national character, and of

intellectual wealth have been deeply sown in any human soil,

the preservation of it from conquest, and from invasion, and

from foreign rule, is the essential condition of its yielding

its due contribution to the progress of the world. Who, then,

can compute or reckon up the debt which Scotland owes to the

few and gallant men who, inspired by a splendid courage and a

noble faith, stood by The Bruce in the War of Independence,

and on June 24, 1314, saw the armies of the invader flying

down the Carse of Stirling?"

The Duke of Argyll,

Scotland as it was and as it is,

volume 1, chapter 2.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603.

The formation of the Scottish Parliament.

"As many causes contributed to bring government earlier to

perfection in Eng]and than in Scotland; as the rigour of the

feudal institutions abated sooner, and its defects were

supplied with greater facility in the one kingdom than in the

other; England led the way in all these changes, and burgesses

and knights of the shire appeared in the parliaments of that

nation, before they were heard of in ours. Burgesses were

first admitted into the Scottish parliaments by Robert Bruce

[A. D. 1326]; and in the preamble to the laws of Robert III.

they are ranked among the constituent members of that

assembly. The lesser barons were indebted to James I. [A. D.

1427] for a statute exempting them from personal attendance,

and permitting them to elect representatives: the exemption

was eagerly laid hold on, but the privilege was so little

valued that, except one or two instances, it lay neglected

during one hundred and sixty years; and James VI. first

obliged them to send representatives regularly to parliament.

A Scottish parliament, then, consisted anciently of great

barons, of ecclesiastics, and a few representatives of

boroughs. Nor were these divided, as in Eng]and, into two

houses, but composed one assembly, in which the lord

chancellor presided. … The great barons, or lords of

parliament, were extremely few; even so late as the beginning

of the reign of James VI. they amounted only to 53. The

ecclesiastics equalled them in number, and, being devoted

implicitly to the crown, … rendered all hopes of victory in

any struggle desperate. … As far back as our records enable us

to trace the constitution of our parliaments, we find a

committee distinguished by the name of lords of articles. It

was their business to prepare and to digest all matters which

were to be laid before the parliament. There was rarely any

business introduced into parliament but what had passed

through the channel of this committee. … This committee owed

the extraordinary powers vested in it to the military genius

of the ancient nobles, too impatient to submit to the drudgery

of civil business. … The lords of articles, then, not only

directed all the proceedings of parliament, but possessed a

negative before debate. That committee was chosen and

constituted in such a manner as put this valuable privilege

entirely in the king's hands. It is extremely probable that

our kings once had the sole right of nominating the lords of

articles. They came afterwards to be elected by the

parliament, and consisted of an equal number out of each

estate."

W. Robertson,

History of Scotland,

book 1.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.

The Peace of Northampton.

In 1327 King Edward III. of England collected a splendid army

of 60,000 men for his first campaign against the Scots. After

several weeks of tiresome marching and countermarching, in

vain attempts to bring the agile Scots to an engagement, or to

stop the bold ravages of Douglas and Randolph, who led them,

the young king abandoned his undertaking in disgust.

{2848}

He next "convoked a parliament at York, in which there

appeared a tendency on the part of England to concede the main

points on which proposals for peace had hitherto failed, by

acknowledging the independence of Scotland and the legitimate

sovereignty of Bruce." A truce was presently agreed upon,

"which it was now determined should be the introduction to a

lasting peace. As a necessary preliminary, the English

statesmen resolved formally to execute a resignation of all

claims of dominion and superiority which had been assumed over

the kingdom of Scotland, and agreed that all muniments or

public instruments asserting or tending to support such a

claim should be delivered up. This agreement was subscribed by

the king on the 4th of March, 1328. Peace was afterwards

concluded at Edinburgh the 17th of March, 1328, and ratified

at a parliament held at Northampton, the 4th of May, 1328. It

was confirmed by a match agreed upon between the princess

Joanna, sister to Edward III., and David, son of Robert I.,

though both were as yet infants. Articles of strict amity were

settled betwixt the nations, without prejudice to the effect

of the alliance between Scotland and France. … It was

stipulated that all the charters and documents carried from

Scotland by Edward I. should be restored, and the king of

England was pledged to give his aid in the court of Rome

towards the recall of the excommunication awarded against king

Robert. Lastly, Scotland was to pay a sum of £20,000 in

consideration of these favourable terms. The borders were to

be maintained in strict order on both sides, and the fatal

coronation-stone was to be restored to Scotland. There was

another separate obligation on the Scottish side, which led to

most serious consequences in the subsequent reign. The seventh

article of the Peace of Northampton provided that certain

English barons … should be restored to the lands and heritages

in Scotland, whereof they had been deprived during the war, by

the king of Scots seizing them into his own hand. The

execution of this article was deferred by the Scottish king,

who was not, it may be conceived, very willing again to

introduce English nobles as landholders into Scotland. The

English mob, on their part, resisted the removal of the fatal

stone from Westminster, where it had been deposited. … The

deed called Ragman's Roll, being the list of the barons and

men of note who subscribed the submission to Edward I. in

1296, was, however, delivered up to the Scots."

Sir W. Scott,

History of Scotland,

chapter 12 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

J. Froissart,

Chronicles (translated by Johnes),

book 1, chapter 18.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1329.

Accession of David II.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333.

The Disinherited Barons.

Balliol's invasion.

Siege of Berwick and battle of Halidon Hill.

Until his death, in 1329, King Robert Bruce evaded the

enforcement of that provision of the Treaty of Northampton

which pledged him to restore the forfeited estates of English

nobles within the Scottish border. His death left the crown to

a child of seven years, his son David, under the regency of

Randolph, Earl of Murray, and the regent still procrastinated

the restoration of the estates in question. At length, in

1332, the "disinherited barons," as they were called,

determined to prosecute their claim by force of arms, and they

made common cause with Edward Balliol, son of the ex-king of

Scotland, who had been exiled in France. The English king,

Edward III. would not openly give countenance to their

undertaking, nor permit them to invade Scotland across the

English frontier; but he did nothing to prevent their

recruiting in the northern counties an army of 3,300 men,

which took ship at Ravenspur, in Yorkshire, and landed on the

coast of Fifeshire, under Balliol's command. Marching

westward, the invaders "finally took up a strong position in

the heart of the country, with the river Earn in their front.

Just before this crisis, the wise and capable Regent,

Randolph, Earl of Murray, had died, and the great Sir James

Douglas, having gone with King Robert's heart to offer it at

the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre, had perished on his way, in

conflict with the Moors of Spain. The regency had devolved

upon the Earl of Mar, a man wanting both in energy and in

military capacity; but so strong was the national antipathy to

Balliol, as representing the idea of English supremacy, that

Mar found no difficulty in bringing an army of 40,000 men into

the field against him. He drew up over against the enemy on

the northern bank of the Earn, on Dupplin Moor, while the Earl

of March, with forces scarcely inferior to the Regent's,

threatened the flank of the little army of the invaders.

Balliol, however, was not wanting in valour or generalship,

and there were, as usual, traitors in the Scotch army, one of

whom led the English, by a ford which he knew, safe across the

river in the darkness of the night. They threw themselves upon

the scattered, over-secure, and ill-sentinelled camp of the

enemy with such a sudden and furious onslaught, that the huge

Scottish army broke up into a panic-stricken and disorganised

crowd and were slaughtered like sheep, the number of the slain

four times exceeding that of the whole of Balliol's army,

which escaped with the loss of thirty men. The invaders now

took possession of Perth, which the Earl of March forthwith

surrounded, by land and water, and thought to starve into

submission; but Balliol's ships broke through the blockade on

the Tay, and the besiegers, despairing of success, marched off

and disbanded without striking another blow. Scotland having

been thus subdued by a handful of men, the nobles one by one

came to make their submission. Young King David and his

affianced bride were sent over to France for security, and

Edward Balliol was crowned King at Scone on September 24,

1332, two months after his disembarkation in Scotland. As

Balliol was thus actual (de facto) King of Scotland, Edward

could now form an alliance with him without a breach of the

treaty; and there seemed to be many arguments in favour of

espousing his cause. The young Bruce and his dynasty

represented the troublesome spirit of Scottish independence,

and were closely allied with France, whose king, as will be

seen, lost no opportunity of stimulating and supporting the

party of resistance to England. Balliol, on the other hand,

admitted in a secret despatch to Edward that the success of

the expedition was owing to that King's friendly

non-intervention, and the aid of his subjects; offered to hold

Scotland 'as his man,' doing him homage for it as an English

fief; and, treating the princess Joan's hastily formed union

with David as a mere engagement, proposed to marry her himself

instead. The King, as always, even on less important issues

than the present, consulted his Parliament. …

{2849}

Balliol in the meanwhile, having dismissed the greater part of

his English auxiliaries, was lying unsuspicious of danger at

Annan, when his camp was attacked in the middle of the night

by a strong body of cavalry under Murray, son of the wise

Regent, and Douglas, brother of the great Sir James. The

entrenchments were stormed in the darkness; noble, vassal and

retainer were slaughtered before they were able to organise

any resistance, and Balliol himself barely escaped with his

life across the English border." In the following year,

however, Edward restored his helpless vassal, invading

Scotland in person, besieging Berwick, and routing and

destroying, at Halidon Hill, a Scotch army which came to its

relief.

W. Warburton,

Edward III.,

chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

W. Longman,

Life and Times of Edward III.,

volume 1, chapter 4.

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

volume 3, chapter 25.

See, also, BERWICK-UPON-TWEED.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.

The long-continued wars with Edward III.

"Throughout the whole country of Scotland, only four castles

and a small tower acknowledged the sovereignty of David Bruce,

after the battle of Halidon; and it is wonderful to see how,

by their efforts, the patriots soon afterwards changed for the

better that unfavourable and seemingly desperate state of

things. In the several skirmishes and battles which were

fought all over the kingdom, the Scots, knowing the country,

and having the good-will of the inhabitants, were generally

successful, as also in surprising castles and forts, cutting

off convoys of provisions which were going to the English, and

destroying scattered parties of the enemy; so that, by a long

and incessant course of fighting, the patriots gradually

regained what they lost in great battles. … You may well

imagine that, during those long and terrible wars which were

waged, when castles were defended and taken, prisoners made,

many battles fought, and numbers of men wounded and slain, the

state of the country of Scotland was most miserable. There was

no finding refuge or protection in the law. … All laws of

humanity and charity were transgressed without scruple. People

were found starved to death in the woods with their families,

while the country was so depopulated and void of cultivation

that the wild deer came out of the remote forests, and

approached near to cities and the dwellings of men. …

Notwithstanding the valiant defence maintained by the Scots,

their country was reduced to a most disastrous state, by the

continued wars of Edward III., who was a wise and warlike King

as ever lived. Could he have turned against Scotland the whole

power of his kingdom, he might probably have effected the

complete conquest, which had been so long attempted in vain.

But while the wars in Scotland were at the hottest, Edward

became also engaged in hostilities with France, having laid

claim to the crown of that kingdom. … The Scots sent an

embassy to obtain money and assistance from the French; and

they received supplies of both, which enabled them to recover

their castles and towns from the English. Edinburgh Castle was

taken from the invaders by a stratagem. … Perth, and other

important places, were also retaken by the Scots, and Edward

Baliol retired out of the country, in despair of, making good

his pretensions to the crown. The nobles of Scotland, finding

the affairs of the kingdom more prosperous, now came to the

resolution of bringing back from France, where he had resided

for safety, their young King, David II., and his consort,

Queen Joanna. They arrived in 1341. David II. was still a

youth, neither did he possess at any period of life the wisdom

and talents of his father, the great King Robert. The nobles

of Scotland had become each a petty prince on his own estates;

they made war on each other as they had done upon the English,

and the poor King possessed, no power of restraining them.

Edward III. being absent in France, and in the act of

besieging Calais, David was induced, by the pressing and

urgent counsels of the French King, to renew the war, and

profit by the King's absence from England. The young King of

Scotland raised, accordingly, a large army, and, entering

England on the west frontier, he marched eastward towards

Durham, harassing and wasting the country with great severity;

the Scots boasting that, now the King and his nobles were

absent, there were none in England to oppose them, save

priests and base mechanics. But they were greatly deceived.

The lords of the northern counties of England, together with

the Archbishop of York, assembled a gallant army. They

defeated the vanguard of the Scots and came upon the main body

by surprise. … The Scottish army fell fast into disorder. The

King himself fought bravely in the midst of his nobles and was

twice wounded with arrows. At length he was captured. …The

left wing of the Scottish army continued fighting long after

the rest were routed, and at length made a safe retreat. It

was commanded by the Steward of Scotland and the Earl of

March. Very many of the Scottish nobility were slain; very

many made prisoners. The King himself was led in triumph

through the streets of London, and committed to the Tower a

close prisoner. This battle was fought at Neville's Cross,

near Durham, on 17th October, 1346. Thus was another great

victory gained by the English over the Scots. It was followed

by farther advantages, which gave the victors for a time

possession of the country from the Scottish Border as far as

the verge of Lothian. But the Scots, as usual, were no sooner

compelled to momentary submission, than they began to consider

the means of shaking off the yoke. Edward III. was not more

fortunate in making war on Scotland in his own name, than when

he used the pretext of supporting Baliol. He marched into

East-Lothian in spring, 1355, and committed such ravages that

the period was long marked by the name of the Burned

Candlemas, because so many towns and villages were burned. But

the Scots had removed every species of provisions which could

be of use to the invaders, and avoided a general battle, while

they engaged in a number of skirmishes. In this manner Edward

was compelled to retreat out of Scotland, after sustaining

much loss. After the failure of this effort, Edward seems to

have despaired of the conquest of Scotland, and entered into

terms for a truce, and for setting the King at liberty. Thus

David II. at length obtained his freedom from the English,

after he had been detained in prison eleven years. The latter

years of this King's life have nothing very remarkable. He

died in 1370."

Sir W. Scott,

Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland);

abridged by E. Ginn,

chapters 14-15.

{2850}

ALSO IN:

J. Froissart,

Chronicles (translated by Johnes),

book 1.

W. Longman,

Life and Times of Edward III.,

volume 1, chapters 4, 10, 15, 22.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1346.

Founding of the Lordship of the Isles.

See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370.

The accession of Robert II. the first of the Stewart

or Stuart Dynasty.

On the death of David II. of Scotland (son of Robert Bruce) A.

D. 1370, he was succeeded on the throne by his nephew, "Robert

the High Steward of Scotland," whose mother was Marjory,

daughter of Robert Bruce. The succession had been so fixed by

act of the Scottish Parliament during "good King Robert's"

life. The new King Robert began the Stewart line, as a royal

dynasty. "The name of his family was Allan, or Fitz Allan, but

it had become habitual to call them by the name of the feudal

office held by them in Scotland, and hence Robert II. was the

first of the Steward, or, as it came to be written, the

Stewart dynasty. They obtained their feudal influence through

the office enjoyed by their ancestors at the Court of

Scotland—the office of Steward."

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapter 26 (volume 3).

The succession of the family on the Scottish throne was as

follows:

Robert II.,

Robert III.,

James I.,

James II.,

James III.,

James IV.,

James V.,

Mary,

James VI.

The grandmother of Mary, the great grandmother of James VI.,

was Margaret Tudor, of the English royal family—sister of

Henry VIII. The death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603 left the

English throne with no nearer heir than the Scottish King

James. He, therefore, united the two crowns and became James

I. of England, as well as James VI. of Scotland. His

successors of the dynasty in England were Charles I., before

the Rebellion and Commonwealth, then Charles II., James II.,

Mary (of the joint reign of William and Mary), and Anne. The

Hanoverian line, which succeeded, was derived from the Stuart,

through a daughter of James I.—Elizabeth of Bohemia.

M. Noble,

Historical Genealogy of the House of Stuart.

ALSO IN:

Sir W. Scott,

History of Scotland,

chapter 15 (volume 1).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1388.

The Battle of Otterburn.

See OTTERBURN.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1390.

Accession of Robert III.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.

Homildon Hill and Shrewsbury.

The captivity of James I.

From 1389 to 1399 there was a truce between England and

Scotland, and the Scotch borderers watched impatiently for the

termination of it, that they might be let loose on the

northern English counties, "like hounds let off the leash. It

was asserted on the part of England, indeed, that they did not

wait for the conclusion. Ten years of peaceful husbandry had

prepared a harvest for them, and they swept it off in the old

way—the English borderers retaliating by an invasion of the

Lowlands. The political aspect again became menacing for

Scotland. The conditions which rendered peace almost a

necessity for England had ceased with a revolution. It was no

longer Richard II., but Henry IV., who reigned; and he began

his reign by a great invasion of Scotland." He marched with a

large army (A. D. 1400) as far as Leith and threatened

Edinburgh Castle, which was stoutly defended by the Scottish

king's son; but the expedition was fruitless of results.

Henry, however, gained the adhesion of the Earl of March, one

of the most powerful of the Scottish nobles, who had received

an unpardonable affront from the Duke of Albany, then regent

of Scotland, and who joined the English against his country in

consequence. In the autumn of 1402 the Scotch retaliated

Henry's invasion by a great plundering expedition under

Douglas, which penetrated as far as Durham. The rievers were

returning, laden with plunder, when they were intercepted by

Hotspur and the traitor March, at Homildon Hill, near Wooler,

and fearfully beaten, a large number of Scotch knights and

lords being killed or taken prisoner. Douglas and others among

the prisoners of this battle were subsequently released by

Hotspur, in defiance of the orders of King Henry, and they

joined him with a considerable force when he raised his

standard of revolt. Sharing the defeat of the rebellious

Percys, Douglas was again taken prisoner at Shrewsbury, A. D.

1403. Two years later the English king gained a more important

captive, in the person of the young heir to the Scottish

throne, subsequently King James I., who was taken at sea while

on a voyage to France. The young prince (who became titular

king of Scotland in 1406, on his father's death) was detained

at the English court nineteen years, treated with friendly

courtesy by Henry IV. and Henry V. and educated with care. He

married Jane Beaufort, niece of Henry IV., and was set free to

return to his kingdom in 1424, prepared by his English

training to introduce in Scotland a better system of

government and more respectful ideas of law. The reforms which

he undertook gave rise to fear and hatred among the lawless

lords of the north, and they rid themselves of a king who

troubled them with too many restraints, by assassinating him,

on the 20th of February, 1436.

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

volume 3, chapters 26-27.

ALSO IN:

Sir W. Scott,

History of Scotland,

volume 1, chapters 16-18.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1411.

Battle of Harlaw.

Defeat of the Lord of the Isles and the Highland clans.

See HARLAW.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1437-1460.

Reign of James II.

Feuds in the kingdom.

The Douglases.

James II. was crowned (1437) at six years of age. "Sir

Alexander Livingstone became guardian of his person; Sir

William Crichton, Chancellor of his kingdom; and Archibald,

fifth Earl of Douglas, … nephew of the late King, became

Lieutenant-General. The history of the regency is the history

of the perpetual strife of Livingstone and Crichton with each

other and with the Earl of Douglas, who had become 'very

potent in kine and friendis.' His 'kine and friend is' now

spread over vast territories in southern Scotland, including

Galloway and Annandale, and in France he was Lord of

Longueville and possessor of the magnificent duchy of

Touraine. The position the Douglases occupied in being nearly

related to the house of Baliol (now extinct) and to the house

of Comyn placed them perilously near the throne; but there was

a greater peril still, and this lay in the very dearness of

the name of Douglas to Scotland. … To the Queen-mother had

been committed by Parliament the care of her son, but as

Crichton, the Chancellor, seemed disposed to take this charge

upon himself, she determined to outwit him and to fulfil her

duties. Accordingly, saying she was bound on a pilgrimage, she

contrived to pack the boy up in her luggage, and carried him

off to Stirling Castle.

{2851}

He was soon, however, brought back to Edinburgh by those in

power, and then they executed a wicked plot for the

destruction of William, who, in 1439, had, at the age of

sixteen, succeeded his father, Archibald, as Earl of Douglas.

The Earl and his brother … were executed, and for a time it

would appear that the mightiness of the Douglases received a

shock. … The Queen-mother had been early thrust out of the

regency by Livingstone and Crichton. Distrusted because she

was by birth one 'of our auld enemies of England'; separated

from her son; still comparatively young, and needing a strong

protector, she gave her hand to Sir James Stewart, the Black

Knight of Lorn. … After her second marriage she sinks out of

notice, but enough is told to make it apparent that neglect

and suffering accompanied the last years of the winning Jane

Beaufort, who had stolen the heart of the King of Scots at

Windsor Castle. … The long minority of James, and the first

years of his brief reign, were too much occupied in strife

with the Douglases to leave time for good government. … When

there was peace, the King and his Parliament enacted many good

laws. … Although the Wars of the Roses left the English little

time to send armies to Scotland, and although there were no

great hostilities with England, yet during this reign a great

Scottish army threatened England, and a great English army

threatened Scotland. James was on the side of the House of

Lancaster; and 'the only key to the complicated understanding

of the transactions of Scotland during the Wars of the two

Roses is to recollect that the hostilities of James were

directed, not against England, but against the successes of

the House of York.' … Since the Battle of Durham, the frontier

fortress of Roxburgh had been in English hands; and when, in

1460, it was commanded by the great partisan of York, the Earl

of Warwick, James laid siege to it in person. Artillery had

been in use for some time, and years before we hear of the

'cracks of war.' Still many of the guns were novelties, and,

curious to study the strange new machinery of death, 'more

curious than became the majesty of ane King,' James ventured

too near 'ane misframed gun.' It burst, and one of its oaken

wedges striking him, he fell to the ground, and 'died hastlie

thairafter,' being in the thirtieth year of his age. … King

James III., who was eight years old, was crowned at the

Monastery of Kelso in 1460."

M. G. J. Kinloch,

History of Scotland,

volume 1, chapter 16.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1460.

Accession of James Ill.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.

Lauder Bridge and Sauchie Burn.

James III., who was an infant at the time of his father's

death, developed a character, as he came to manhood, which the

rude nobles of his court and kingdom could not understand. "He

had a dislike to the active sports of hunting and the games of

chivalry, mounted on horseback rarely, and rode ill. … He was

attached to what are now called the fine arts of architecture

and music; and in studying these used the instructions of

Rogers, an English musician, Cochrane, a mason or architect,

and Torphichen, a dancing-master. Another of his domestic

minions was Hommil, a tailor, not the least important in the

conclave, if we may judge from the variety and extent of the

royal wardrobe, of which a voluminous catalogue is preserved.

Spending his time with such persons, who, whatever their merit

might be in their own several professions, could not be

fitting company for a prince, James necessarily lost the taste

for society of a different description, whose rank imposed on

him a certain degree of restraint. … The nation, therefore,

with disgust and displeasure, saw the king disuse the society

of the Scottish nobles, and abstain from their counsel, to

lavish favours upon and be guided by the advice of a few whom

the age termed base mechanics. In this situation, the public

eye was fixed upon James's younger brothers, Alexander duke of

Albany, and John earl of Mar." The jealousy and suspicion of

the king were presently excited by the popularity of his

brothers and he caused them to be arrested (1478). Mar,

accused of having dealings with witches, was secretly executed

in prison and his earldom was sold to the king's favourite,

Cochrane, who had amassed wealth by a thrifty use of his

influence and opportunities. Albany escaped to France and

thence to England, where he put himself forward as a claimant

of the Scottish throne, securing the support of Edward IV. by

offering to surrender the hard-won independence of the

kingdom. An English army, under Richard of Gloucester

(afterwards King Richard III.) was sent into Scotland to

enforce his claim. The Scotch king assembled his forces and

advanced from Edinburgh as far as Lauder (1482), to meet the

invasion. At Lauder, the nobles, having becoming deeply

exasperated by the arrogant state which the ex-architect

assumed as Earl of Mar, held a meeting which resulted in the

sudden seizure and hanging of all the king's favourites on

Lauder Bridge. "All the favourites of the weak prince perished

except a youth called Ramsay of Balmain, who clung close to

the king's person," and was spared. Peace with Albany and his

English allies was now arranged, on terms which made the duke

lieutenant-general of the kingdom; but it lasted no more than

a year. Albany became obnoxious and fled to England again. The

doings of the king were still hateful to his nobles and people

and a continual provocation of smouldering wrath. In 1488, the

discontent broke out in actual rebellion, and James was easily

defeated in a battle fought at Sauchie Burn, between

Bannockburn and Stirling. Flying from the battlefield, he fell

from his horse and was taken, badly injured, into the house of

a miller near by, where he disclosed his name. "The

consequence was, that some of the rebels who followed the

chase entered the hut and stabbed him to the heart. The

persons of the murderers were never known, nor was the king's

body ever found."

Sir W. Scott,

History of Scotland,

chapter 20 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

C. M. Yonge,

Cameos from English History,

series 3, chapters 18 and 22.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1488.

Accession of James IV.

{2852}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502.

The marriage which brought the crown of England

to the Stuarts.

"On the 8th of August 1502 the ceremony of marriage between

King James [IV. of Scotland] and Margaret, Princess of England

[daughter of Henry VII. and sister of Henry VIII.], was

celebrated in the Chapel of Holyrood. A union of crowns and

governments might be viewed as a possible result of such a

marriage; but there had been others between Scotland and

England whence none followed. It was long ere such a harvest

of peace seemed likely to arise from this union—it seemed,

indeed, to be so buried under events of a contrary tenor that

it was almost forgotten; yet, a hundred and one years later,

it sent the great-grandson of James IV. to be King of

England."

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapter 30 (volume 3).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502-1504.

The Highlands brought to order.

Suppression of the independent Lordship of the Isles.

"The marriage of James in 1502 with the Princess Margaret,

daughter of Henry VII., helped to prolong the period of

tranquillity. But, in fact, his energetic administration of

justice had, almost from the beginning of his reign, restored

confidence, and re-awakened in his subjects an industrial

activity, that had slumbered since the death of Alexander III.

Everywhere he set his barons the novel task of keeping their

territories in order. The Huntlys in the North, the Argylls in

the West, were made virtual viceroys of the Highlands; the

Douglasses were charged with maintaining the peace of the

Borders; and at length the formidable Lordship of the Isles,

which had been the source of all the Celtic troubles of

Scotland since the days of Somerled, was broken up in 1504,

after a series of fierce revolts, and the claim to an

independent sovereignty abandoned forever. Henceforth the

chieftains of the Hebrides held their lands of the Crown, and

were made responsible for the conduct of their clans."

J. M. Ross,

Scottish History and Literature,

chapter 5, page 177.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513.

The Battle of Flodden.

In 1513, while Henry VIII. of England, who had joined the Holy

League against France, was engaged in the latter country,

besieging Terouenne, he received an embassy from James IV.,

king of Scotland, his brother-in-law. "French intrigues, and

the long-standing alliance between the nations, had induced

James to entertain the idea of a breach with England. Causes

of complaint were not wanting. There was a legacy due from

Henry VII.; Sir Robert Ker, the Scotch Warden of the Marches,

had been killed by a Heron of Ford, and the murderer found

refuge in England; Andrew Barton, who, licensed with letters

of marque against the Portuguese in revenge for the death of

his father, had extended his reprisals to general piracy, had

been captured and slain by Lord Thomas and Sir Edward Howard,

and the Scotch King demanded justice for the death of his

captain. To these questions, which had been long unsettled, an

answer was now imperiously demanded. Henry replied with scorn,

and the Scotch King declared war. The safety of England had

been intrusted to the Earl of Surrey, who, when James crossed

the border, was lying at Pontefract. Without delay, he pushed

forward northward, and, challenging James to meet him on the

Friday next following, came up with him when strongly posted

on the hill of Flodden, with one flank covered by the river

Till, the other by an impassable morass, and his front

rendered impregnable by the massing of his artillery. Ashamed,

after his challenge, to avoid the combat, Surrey moved

suddenly northward, as though bound for Scotland, but soon

marching round to the left, he crossed the Till near its

junction with the Tweed, and thus turned James's position. The

Scots were thus compelled to fight [September 9, 1513]. On the

English right, the sons of Surrey with difficulty held their

own. In the centre, where Surrey himself was assaulted by the

Scotch King and his choicest troops, the battle inclined

against the English; but upon the English left the Highlanders

were swept away by the archers, and Stanley, who had the

command in that wing, fell on the rear of the successful

Scotch centre, and determined the fortune of the day. The

slaughter of the Scotch was enormous, and among the number of

the slain was James himself, with all his chief nobility."

J. F. Bright,

History of England,

volume 2, pages 370-372.

"There lay slain on the fatal field of Flodden twelve Scottish

earls, thirteen lords, and five eldest sons of peers—fifty

chiefs, knights, and men of eminence, and about 10,000 common

men. Scotland had sustained defeats in which the loss had been

numerically greater, but never one in which the number of the

nobles slain bore such a proportion to those of the inferior

rank. The cause was partly the unusual obstinacy of the long

defence, partly that when the common people began … to desert

their standards, the nobility and gentry were deterred by

shame and a sense of honour from following their example."

Sir W. Scott,

History of Scotland,

chapter 21 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

P. F. Tytler,

History of Scotland,

volume 2, chapter 6.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513.

Accession of James V.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.

The disaster at Solway-frith.

James V. of Scotland, who was the nephew of Henry VIII. of

England—the son of Henry's sister, Margaret Tudor—gave offense

to his proud and powerful uncle (A. D. 1541) by excusing

himself from a meeting which had been arranged to take place

between the two kings, and for which Henry had taken the

trouble to travel to York. It was the eager wish of the

English king to persuade his royal nephew to take possession

of the property of the monasteries of Scotland, in imitation

of his own example. The appointed meeting was for the further

urging of these proposals, more especially, and it had been

frustrated through the influence of the Catholic clergy with

young King James,—very much to the disgust of many among the

Scottish nobles, as well as to the wrath of King Henry. Whence

came results that were unexpectedly sad. Henry determined to

avenge himself for the slight that had been put upon him, and,

having made his preparations for war, he issued a manifesto,

alleging various injuries which gave color to his declaration

of hostilities. "He even revived the old claim to the

vassalage of Scotland, and he summoned James to do homage to

him as his liege lord and superior. He employed the Duke of

Norfolk, whom he called the scourge of the Scots, to command

in the war." After some preliminary raiding expeditions, the

Duke of Norfolk advanced to the border with 20,000 men, or

more. "James had assembled his whole military force at Fala

and Sautrey, and was ready to advance as soon as he should be

informed of Norfolk's invading his kingdom. The English passed

the Tweed at Berwick, and marched along the banks of the river

as far as Kelso; but hearing that James had collected near

30,000 men, they repassed the river at that village, and

retreated into their own country. The King of Scots, inflamed

with a desire of military glory, and of revenge on his

invaders, gave the signal for pursuing them, and carrying the

war into England.

{2853}

He was surprised to find that his nobility, who were in

general disaffected on account of the preference which he had

given to the clergy, opposed this resolution, and refused to

attend him in his projected enterprise. Enraged at this

mutiny, he reproached them with cowardice, and threatened

vengeance; but still resolved, with the forces which adhered

to him, to make an impression on the enemy. He sent 10,000 men

to the western borders, who entered England at Solway-frith

[or Solway Moss]; and he himself followed them at a small

distance, ready to join them upon occasion." At the same time,

he took the command of his little army away from Lord Maxwell,

and conferred it on one of his favorites, Oliver Sinclair.

"The army was extremely disgusted with this alteration, and

was ready to disband; when a small body of English appeared,

not exceeding 500 men, under the command of Dacres and

Musgrave. A panic seized the Scots, who immediately took to

flight, and were pursued by the enemy. Few were killed in this

rout, for it was no action; but a great many were taken

prisoners, and some of the principal nobility." The effect of

this shameful disaster upon the mind of James was so

overwhelming that he took to his bed and died in a few days.

While he lay upon his deathbed, his queen gave birth to a

daughter, who inherited his crown, and who played in

subsequent history the unfortunate role of Mary, Queen of

Scots."

D. Hume,

History of England,

chapter 33.

ALSO IN:

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapter 33.

W. Robertson,

History of Scotland,

book 1.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.

Accession of Queen Mary.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.

The English Wooing of Queen Mary.

Immediately on the death of James V., Henry VIII. of England

began a most resolute undertaking to secure the hand of the

infant queen Mary for his own infant son. Scotland, however,

was averse to the union, and resisted all the influences which

the English king could bring to bear. Enraged by his failure,

Henry despatched the Earl of Hertford, in May 1544, with a

military and naval force, commissioned to do the utmost

destructive work in its power, without attempting permanent

conquest, for which it was not adequate. The expedition landed

at Newhaven and seized the town of Leith, before Cardinal

Beaton or Beatoun, then governing Scotland in the name of the

Regent, the Earl of Arran, had learned of its approach. "The

Cardinal immediately deserted the capital and fled in the

greatest dismay to Stirling. The Earl of Hertford demanded the

unconditional surrender of the infant Queen, and being

informed that the Scottish capital and nation would suffer

every disaster before they would submit to his ignominious

terms, he marched immediately with his whole forces upon

Edinburgh. … The English army entered by the Water-gate

without opposition, and assaulted the Nether Bow Port, and

beat it open on the second day, with a terrible slaughter of

the citizens. They immediately attempted to lay siege to the

Castle. … Baffled in their attempts on the fortress, they

immediately proceeded to wreak their vengeance on the city.

They set it on fire in numerous quarters, and continued the

work of devastation and plunder till compelled to abandon it

by the smoke and flames, as well as the continual firing from

the Castle. They renewed the work of destruction on the

following day; and for three successive days they returned

with unabated fury to the smoking ruins, till they had

completely effected their purpose. The Earl of Hertford then

proceeded to lay waste the surrounding country with fire and

sword. … This disastrous event forms an important era in the

history of Edinburgh; if we except a portion of the Castle,

the churches, and the north-west wing of Holyrood Palace, no

building anterior to this date now exists in Edinburgh. … The

death of Henry VIII. in 1547 tended to accelerate the renewal

of his project for enforcing the union of the neighbouring

kingdoms, by the marriage of his son with the Scottish Queen.

Henry, on his deathbed, urged the prosecution of the war with

Scotland; and the councillors of the young King Edward VI.

lost no time in completing their arrangements for the purpose.

… In the beginning of September, the Earl of Hertford, now

Duke of Somerset, and Lord Protector of England, during the

minority of his nephew Edward VI., again entered Scotland at

the head of a numerous army; while a fleet of about 60 sail

co-operated with him, by a descent on the Scottish coast. At

his advance, he found the Scottish army assembled in great

force to oppose him. … After skirmishing for several days with

various success in the neighbourhood of Prestonpans, where the

English army was encamped,—a scene long afterwards made

memorable by the brief triumph of Mary's hapless descendant,

Charles Stuart,—the two armies at length came to a decisive

engagement on Saturday the 10th of September 1547, long after

known by the name of 'Black Saturday.' The field of Pinkie,

the scene of this fatal contest, lies about six miles distant

from Edinburgh. … The Scots were at first victorious, and

succeeded in driving back the enemy, and carrying off the

royal standard of England; but being almost destitute of

cavalry … they were driven from the field, after a dreadful

slaughter, with the loss of many of their nobles and leaders,

both slain and taken prisoners." Notwithstanding their severe

defeat, the Scots were still stubbornly resolved that their

young queen should not be won by such savage wooing; and the

English returned home, after burning Leith and desolating the

coast country once more. Next year the royal maid of Scotland,

then six years old, was betrothed to the dauphin of France and

sent to the French court to be reared. So the English scheme

of marriage was frustrated in a decisive way. Meantime, the

Scots were reinforced by 8,000 French and 1,000 Dutch troops,

and expelled the English from most of the places they held in

the country.

D. Wilson,

Memorials of Edinburgh,

part 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

P. F. Tytler,

History of Scotland,

volume 3, chapters 1-2.

J. A. Froude,

History of England,

chapter 22 (volume 4) and chapters 24-25 (volume 5).

{2854}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.

The murder of Cardinal Beatoun.

Cardinal Beatoun [who had acquired practical control of the

government, although the Earl of Arran was nominally Regent]

had not used his power with moderation, equal to the prudence

by which he attained it. Notwithstanding his great abilities,

he had too many of the passions and prejudices of an angry

leader of a faction, to govern a divided people with temper.

His resentment against one party of the nobility, his

insolence towards the rest, his severity to the reformers,

and, above all, the barbarous and illegal execution of the

famous George Wishart, a man of honourable birth and of

primitive sanctity, wore out the patience of a fierce age; and

nothing but a bold hand was wanting to gratify the public wish

by his destruction. Private revenge, inflamed and sanctified

by a false zeal for religion, quickly supplied this want.

Norman Lesly, the eldest son of the earl of Rothes, had been

treated by the cardinal with injustice and contempt. It was

not the temper of the man, or the spirit of the times, quietly

to digest an affront. … The cardinal, at that time, resided in

the castle of St. Andrew's, which he had fortified at great

expense, and, in the opinion of the age, had rendered it

impregnable. His retinue was numerous, the town at his

devotion, and the neighbouring country full of his dependents.

In this situation, sixteen persons undertook to surprise his

castle, and to assassinate himself; and their success was

equal to the boldness of the attempt. … His death was fatal to

the catholic religion, and to the French interest in Scotland.

The same zeal for both continued among a great party in the

nation, but when deprived of the genius and authority of so

skilful a leader, operated with less effect." The sixteen

conspirators, having full possession of the castle of St.

Andrew's, were soon joined by friends and sympathizers—John

Knox being one of the party—until 150 men were within the

walls. They stood a siege for five months and only surrendered

to a force sent over by the king of France, on being promised

their lives. They were sent as prisoners to France, and the

castle of St. Andrew's was demolished.

W. Robertson,

History of Scotland,

book 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

P. F. Tytler,

History of Scotland,

volume 3, chapters 1-2.

T. M'Crie,

Life of John Knox,

period 2.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557.

The birth of the Protestant Reformation.

In Scotland, the kings of the house of Stuart "obtained a

decisive influence over the appointment to the high dignities

in the Church, but this proved advantageous neither to the

Church nor, at last, to themselves. … The French abuses came

into vogue here also: ecclesiastical benefices fell to the

dependents of the court, to the younger sons of leading

houses, often to their bastards: they were given or sold 'in

commendam,' and then served only for pleasure and gain: the

Scotch Church fell into an exceedingly scandalous and corrupt

state. It was not so much disputed questions of doctrine as in

Germany, nor again the attempt to keep out Papal influence as

in England, but mainly aversion to the moral corruption of the

spirituality which gave the first impulse to the efforts at

reformation in Scotland. We find Lollard societies among the

Scots much later than in England: their tendencies spread

through wide circles, owing to the anti-clerical spirit of the

century, and received fresh support from the doctrinal

writings that came over from Germany. But the Scotch clergy

was resolved to defend itself with all its might. … It

persecuted all with equal severity as tending to injure the

stability of holy Church, and awarded the most extreme

penalties. To put suspected heretics to death by fire was the

order of the day; happy the man who escaped the unrelenting

persecution by flight, which was only possible amid great

peril. These two causes, an undeniably corrupt condition, and

relentless punishment of those who blamed it as it well

deserved, gave the Reform movement in Scotland, which was

repressed but not stifled, a peculiar character of

exasperation and thirst for vengeance. Nor was it without a

political bearing, in Scotland as elsewhere. In particular,

Henry VIII. proposed to his nephew, King James V., to remodel

the Church after his example: and a part of the nobility,

which was already favourably disposed towards England, would

have gladly seen this done. But James preferred the French

pattern to the English: he was kept firm in his Catholic and

French sympathies by his wife, Mary of Guise, and by the

energetic Archbishop Beaton. Hence he became involved in the

war with England in which he fell, and after this it

occasionally seemed, especially at the time of the invasions

by the Duke of Somerset, as if the English, and in connexion

with them the Protestant, sympathies would gain the

ascendancy. But national feelings were still stronger than the

religious. Exactly because England defended and recommended

the religious change it failed to make way in Scotland. Under

the regency of the Queen dowager, with some passing

fluctuations, the clerical interests on the whole kept the

upper hand. … It is remarkable how under these unfavourable

circumstances the foundation of the Scotch Church was laid.

Most of the Scots who had fled from the country were content

to provide for their subsistence in a foreign land and improve

their own culture. But there was one among them who did not

reconcile himself for one moment to this fate. John Knox was

the first who formed a Protestant congregation in the besieged

fortress of S. Andrew's; when the French took the place in

1547 he was made prisoner and condemned to serve in the

galleys. … After he was released, he took a zealous share in

the labours of the English Reformers under Edward VI., but

was not altogether content with the result; after the King's

death he had to fly to the continent. He went to Geneva, where

he became a student once more and tried to fill up the gaps in

his studies, but above all he imbibed, or confirmed his

knowledge of, the views which prevailed in that Church. … A

transient relaxation of ecclesiastical control in Scotland

made it possible for him to return thither … towards the end

of 1555: without delay he set his hand to form a church-union,

according to his ideas of religious independence, which was

not to be again destroyed by any state power. … Sometimes in

one and sometimes in another of the places of refuge which he

found, he administered the Communion to little congregations

according to the Reformed rite; this was done with greater

solemnity at Easter 1556, in the house of Lord Erskine of Dun,

one of those Scottish noblemen who had ever promoted literary

studies and the religious movement as far as lay in his power.

A number of people of consequence from the Mearns (Mearnshire)

were present. But they were not content with partaking the

Communion; following the mind of their preacher they pledged

themselves to avoid every other religious community, and to

uphold with all their power the preaching of the Gospel. In

this union we may see the origin of the Scotch Church,

properly so called. …

{2855}

At Erskine's house met together also Lord Lorn, afterwards

Earl of Argyle, and the Prior of S. Andrew's, subsequently

Earl of Murray; in December 1557 Erskine, Lorn, Murray,

Glencairn (also a friend of Knox), and Morton, united in a

solemn engagement, to support God's word and defend his

congregation against every evil and tyrannical power even unto

death. When, in spite of this, another execution took place

which excited universal aversion, they proceeded to an express

declaration, that they would not suffer any man to be punished

for transgressing a clerical law based on human ordinances.

What the influence of England had not been able to effect was

now produced by antipathy to France. The opinion prevailed

that the King of France wished to add Scotland to his

territories, and that the Regent gave him aid thereto. When

she gathered the feudal army on the borders in 1557 (for the

Scots had refused to contribute towards enlisting mercenaries)

to invade England according to an understanding with the

French, the barons held a consultation on the Tweed, in

consequence of which they refused their co-operation for this

purpose. … It was this quarrel of the Regent with the great

men of the country that gave an opportunity to the lords who

were combined for the support of religion to advance with

increasing resolution."

L. Von Ranke,

History of England principally in the 17th Century,

book 3, chapter 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

T. M'Crie,

Life of John Knox,

period 1-6.

G. Stuart,

History of the Establishment of the

Reformation of Religion in Scotland,

books 1-2.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557.

The First Covenant and the Lords of the Congregation.

In 1556 John Knox withdrew from Scotland and returned to

Geneva—whether through fear of increasing dangers, or for

other reasons, is a question in dispute. The following year he

was solicited to come back to the Scottish field of labor, by

those nobles who favored the reformation, and he gave up his

Genevan congregation for the purpose of obeying their summons.

"In the beginning of October he proceeded to Dieppe; but while

he waited there for a vessel to convey him to Scotland, he

received other letters which dashed all his hopes, by

counselling him to remain where he was. The Reformers had

suddenly changed their minds. … Sitting down in his lodging at

Dieppe, Knox wrote a letter to the lords whose faith had

failed, after inviting him to come to their help. … With it he

despatched another addressed to the whole nobility of

Scotland, and others to particular friends. … The letters of

Knox had an immediate and powerful effect in stimulating the

decaying zeal of the Reforming nobles. Like a fire stirred up

just when ready to die out among its own ashes, it now burned

more brightly than ever. Meeting at Edinburgh in the month of

December, they drew up a bond which knit them into one body,

pledged them to a definite line of conduct and gave

consistency and shape to their plans. They had separated from

the Roman communion; they now formed themselves into an

opposing phalanx. This document is known in our Church history

as the first Covenant, and is so important that we give it

entire:

'We, perceiving how Satan, in his members, the anti-christs of

our time, cruelly do rage, seeking to overthrow and destroy

the gospel of Christ and His congregation, ought, according to

our bounden duty, to strive in our Master's cause, even unto

the death, being certain of the victory in Him. The which our

duty being well considered, we do promise before the Majesty

of God and His congregation, that we, by His grace, shall,

with all diligence, continually apply our whole power,

substance, and our very lives, to maintain, set forward, and

establish the most blessed Word of God and His congregation;

and shall labour, at our possibility, to have faithful

ministers, truly and purely to administer Christ's gospel and

sacraments to His people. We shall maintain them, nourish

them, and defend them, the whole congregation of Christ, and

every member thereof, at our whole powers and waging of our

lives, against Satan and all wicked power that doth intend

tyranny or trouble against the foresaid congregation. Unto the

which holy word and congregation we do join us, and so do

forsake and renounce the congregation of Satan, with all the

superstitious abomination and idolatry thereof; and, moreover,

shall declare ourselves manifestly enemies thereto, by this

our faithful promise before God, testified to His congregation

by our subscription to these presents, at Edinburgh, the 3rd

day of December 1557 years. God called to witness—A., Earl of

Argyle, Glencairn, Morton, Archibald, Lord of Lorn, John

Erskine of Dun,' &c.

From the time that the Reformers had resolved to refrain from

being present at mass, they had been in the habit of meeting

among themselves for the purpose of worship. … Elders and

deacons were chosen to superintend the affairs of these infant

communities. Edinburgh has the honour of having given the

example, and the names of her first five elders are still

preserved. The existence of these small Protestant

'congregations,' scattered over the country, probably led the

lords to employ the word so frequently in their bond, and this

again led to their being called the Lords of the Congregation.

It was a bold document to which they had thus put their names.

It was throwing down the gauntlet to all the powers of the

existing Church and State."

J. Cunningham,

Church History of Scotland,

volume 1, chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

John Knox,

History of the Reformation in Scotland

(Works, volume 1), book 1.

D. Calderwood,

History of the Kirk of Scotland, 1557

(volume 1).

T. M'Crie,

Life of John Knox,

periods 5-6.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558.

Marriage of Mary Stuart to the Dauphin of France.

Contemplated union of Crowns.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.

Rebellion and triumph of the Lords of the Congregation.

The Geneva Confession adopted.

"In 1558 the burning of an old preacher, Walter Mill, at St.

Andrew's, aroused the Lords of the Congregation, as the

signers of the Covenant now called themselves. They presented

their demands to the regent [the queen-dowager, Mary of

Guise], and some time was spent in useless discussion. But the

hands of the Reformers were strengthened by Elizabeth's

accession in England, and on May 2, 1559, the leading spirit

of the Scottish Reformation, John Knox, returned to Scotland.

… Knox's influence was soon felt in the course of affairs. In

May, 1559, the regent, stirred to action by the Cardinal of

Lorraine, summoned the reformed clergy to Stirling. They came,

but surrounded by so many followers, that the regent was

afraid, and promised that, if they would disperse, she would

proceed no further. They agreed; but scarcely were they gone

before Mary caused the preachers to be tried and condemned in

their absence.

{2856}

Knox's anger broke out in a fierce sermon against idolatry,

preached at Perth. The people of the town rose and destroyed

the images in the churches, and tore down all architectural

ornaments which contained sculpture. The example of Perth was

followed elsewhere, and the churches of Scotland were soon

robbed of their old beauty. From this time we must date the

decay of the fine ecclesiastical buildings of Scotland, whose

ruins still bear witness to their former splendour. … The

Lords of the Congregation were now in open rebellion against

the regent, and war was on the point of breaking out. It was,

however, averted for a time by the mediation of a few moderate

men, amongst whom was Lord James Stewart, an illegitimate son

of the late king, known in later history as the Earl of

Murray. Both parties agreed to lay down their arms, and submit

their disputes to a meeting of the Estates of the Realm, while

the regent promised not to molest the people of Perth, or

garrison the town with French soldiers. She kept the letter

only of her promise; for she hired native troops with French

money, and proceeded to punish the people of Perth. This

perfidy gave strength to the Congregation. They again took up

arms, seized Edinburgh, summoned a parliament, and deposed the

regent (October, 1559). This was a bold step; but without help

from England it could not be maintained. As the regent was

strong in French troops, the Congregation must ally with

England. Elizabeth wished to help them; but her course was by

no means clear. To ally with rebels fighting against their

lawful sovereign was a bad example for one in Elizabeth's

position to set. … At last, in January, 1560, a treaty was

made at Berwick, between Elizabeth and the Duke of

Chatelherault [better known as the Earl of Arran, who had

resigned the regency of Scotland in favor of Mary of Guise,

and received from the French king the duchy of Chatelherault],

the second person in the Scottish realm. Elizabeth undertook

to aid the Scottish lords in expelling the French, but would

only aid them so long as they acknowledged their queen. And

now a strange change had come over Scotland. The Scots were

fighting side by side with the English against their old

allies the French. Already their religious feelings had

overcome their old national animosities; or, rather, religion

itself had become a powerful element in their national spirit.

… But meanwhile affairs in France took a direction favourable

to the Reformers. … The French troops were needed at home, and

could no longer be spared for Scotland. The withdrawal of the

French made peace necessary in Scotland, and by the treaty of

Edinburgh (July, 1560), it was provided that henceforth no

foreigners should be employed in Scotland without the consent

of the Estates of the Realm. Elizabeth's policy was rewarded

by a condition that Mary and Francis II. should acknowledge

her queen of England, lay aside their own pretensions, and no

longer wear the British arms. Before the treaty was signed the

queen-regent died (June 20), and with her the power of France

and the Guises in Scotland was gone for the present. The

Congregation was now triumphant, and the work of Reformation

was quickly carried on. A meeting of the Estates approved of

the Geneva Confession of Faith, abjured the authority of the

Pope, and forbade the administration, or presence at the

administration, of the mass, on pain of death for the third

offence (August 25, 1560). … The plans of the Guises were no

longer to be carried on in Scotland and Eng]and by armed

interference, but by the political craft and cunning of their

niece, Mary of Scotland [now widowed by the death, December 4,

1560, of her husband, the young French king, Francis II.], who

had been trained under their influence."

M. Creighton,

The Age of Elizabeth,

book 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

J. A. Froude,

History of England,

volume 7, chapters 2-3.

J. Knox,

History of the Reformation in Scotland,

book 2 (Works, volume 1).

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapters 37-38 (volume 4).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

The reign of Mary.

Differing views of her conduct and character.

In August, 1561, Queen Mary returned from her long residence

in France, to undertake the government of a country of which

she was the acknowledged sovereign, but of which she knew

almost nothing. "She was now a widow, so the Scots were freed

from the fear they had felt of seeing their country sink into

a province of France. The people, who had an almost

superstitious reverence for kingship, which was very

inconsistent with their contempt for kingly authority,

welcomed her with open arms. … They had yet to find out that

she had come back to them French in all but birth, gifted with

wit, intellect, and beauty, but subtle beyond their power of

searching, and quite as zealous for the old form of religion

as they were for the new one. The Queen, too, who came thus as

a stranger among her own people, had to deal with a state of

things unknown in former reigns. Hitherto the Church had taken

the side of the Crown against the nobles; now both [the

Reformed Church and the Lords of the Congregation] were united

against the Crown, whose only hope lay in the quarrels between

these ill-matched allies. The chief cause of discord between

them was the property of the Church. The Reformed ministers

fancied that they had succeeded, not only to the Pope's right

of dictation in all matters, public and private, but to the

lands of the Church as well. To neither of these claims would

the Lords agree. They were as little inclined to submit to the

tyranny of presbyters as to the tyranny of the Pope. They

withstood the ministers who wished to forbid the Queen and her

attendants hearing mass in her private chapel, and they

refused to accept as law the First, Book of Discipline, a code

of rules drawn up by the ministers for the guidance of the new

Church. As to the land, much of it had already passed into the

hands of laymen, who, with the lands, generally bore the title

of the Church dignitary who had formerly held them. The Privy

Council took one-third of what remained to pay the stipends of

the ministers, while the rest was supposed to remain in the

hands of the Churchmen in possession, and, as they died out,

it was to fall in to the Crown. Lord James Stewart, Prior of

St. Andrews, whom the Queen created Earl of Murray, was the

hope of the Protestants, but in the north the Romanists were

still numerous and strong. Their head was the Earl of Huntly,

chief of the Gordons, who reigned supreme over most of the

north." One of the first proceedings of the Queen was to join

the Earl of Murray in hostilities which pursued the Earl of

Huntly and his son to their death.

{2857}

And yet they were the main pillars of the Church which she was

determined to restore! "The most interesting question now for

all parties was, whom the Queen would marry. Many foreign

princes were talked of, and Elizabeth suggested her own

favourite, the Earl of Leicester, but Mary settled the matter

herself by falling in love with her own cousin, Henry Stewart,

Lord Darnley." Murray opposed the marriage with bitterness,

and took up arms against it, but failed of support and fled to

England. The wretched consequences of Mary's union with the

handsome but worthless Darnley are among the tragedies of

history which all the world is acquainted with. She tired of

him, and inflamed his jealousy, with that of all her court, by

making a favorite of her Italian secretary, David Rizzio.

Rizzio was brutally murdered, in her presence, March 9, 1566,

by a band of conspirators, to whom Darnley had pledged his

protection. The Queen dissembled her resentment until she had

power to make it effective, flying from Edinburgh to Dunbar,

meantime. When, within a month, she returned to the capital,

it was with a strong force, brought to her support by James

Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. The murderers of Rizzio were

outlawed, and Darnley, while recovering from an attack of

smallpox, was killed (February 9, 1567) by the blowing up of a

house, outside of Edinburgh, in which the Queen had placed

him. "It was commonly believed that Bothwell was guilty of the

murder, and it was suspected that he had done it to please the

Queen and with her consent. This suspicion was strengthened by

her conduct. She made no effort to find out the murderer and

to bring him to punishment, and on the day of the funeral she

gave Bothwell the feudal superiority over the town of Leith."

In May, three months after Darnley's death, she married the

Earl of Bothwell,—who had freed himself from an earlier tie by

hasty divorce. This shameless conduct caused a rising of the

barons, who occupied Edinburgh in force. Bothwell attempted to

oppose them with an army; but there was no battle. The Queen

surrendered herself, at Carberry, June 15, 1567; Bothwell

escaped, first to Orkney, and then to Denmark, where he died

about ten years later. "Just a month after her third marriage

the Queen was brought back to Edinburgh, to be greeted by the

railings of the mob, who now openly accused her as a

murderess. … From Edinburgh she was taken to a lonely castle

built on a small island in the centre of Loch Leven. A few

days later a casket containing eight letters was produced.

These letters, it was said, Bothwell had left behind him in

his flight, and they seemed to have been written by Mary to

him while Darnley was ill in Glasgow. If she really wrote

them, they proved very plainly that she had planned the murder

with Bothwell. They are called the 'casket letters,' from the

box or casket in which they were found. The confederate barons

acted as if they were really hers. The Lord Lindsay and Robert

Melville were sent to her at Loch Leven, and she there signed

the demission of the government to her son, and desired that

Murray should be the first regent." The infant king, James

VI., was crowned at Stirling; and Murray, recalled from

France, became regent. Within a year Mary escaped from her

prison, reasserted her right of sovereignty, and was supported

by a considerable party. Defeated in a battle fought at

Langside, May 13, 1568, she then fled to England, and received

from Elizabeth the hospitality of a prison. She was confined

in various castles and manor-houses, ending her life, after

many removes, at Fotheringay, where she was executed February

8, 1587.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

M. Macarthur,

History of Scotland,

chapter 6.

"In spite of all the prurient suggestions of writers who have

fastened on the story of Mary's life as on a savoury morsel,

there is no reason whatever for thinking that she was a woman

of licentious disposition, and there is strong evidence to the

contrary. There was never anything to her discredit in France.

… The charge of adultery with Rizzio is dismissed as unworthy

of belief even by Mr. Froude, the severest of her judges.

Bothwell indeed she loved, and, like many another woman who

does not deserve to be called licentious, she sacrificed her

reputation to the man she loved. But the most conclusive proof

that she was no slave to appetite is afforded by her nineteen

years' residence in England, which began when she was only

twenty-five. During almost the whole of that time she was

mixing freely in the society of the other sex, with the

fullest opportunity for misconduct had she been so inclined.

It is not to be supposed that she was fettered by any scruples

of religion or morality. Yet no charge of unchastity is made

against her. … That Darnley was murdered by Bothwell is not

disputed. That Mary was cognisant of the plot and lured him to

the shambles, has been doubted by few investigators at once

competent and unbiased. She lent herself to this part not

without compunction. Bothwell had the advantage over her that

the loved has over the lover; and he used it mercilessly for

his headlong ambition, hardly taking the trouble to pretend

that he cared for the unhappy woman who was sacrificing

everything for him. He in fact cared more for his lawful wife,

whom he was preparing to divorce, and to whom he had been

married only six months. … What brought sudden and

irretrievable ruin on Mary was not the murder of Darnley, but

the infatuation which made her the passive instrument of

Bothwell's presumptuous ambition."

E. S. Beesly,

Queen Elizabeth,

chapter 4.

"Constitutionally, Mary was not a person likely to come under

the sway of a violent and absorbing passion. Her whole nature

was masculine in its moderation, its firmness, its

magnanimity. She was tolerant, uncapricious, capable of

carrying out a purpose steadily, yet with tact and policy. She

was never hysterical, never fanciful. With her, love was not

an engrossing occupation; on the contrary, to Mary, as to most

men, it was but the child and plaything of unfrequent leisure.

Her lovers went mad about her, but she never went mad about

her lovers. She sent Chatelar to the scaffold. She saw Sir

John Gordon beheaded. She admitted Rizzio to a close intimacy.

Rizzio was her intellectual mate, the depository of her state

secrets, her politic guide and confidant: but the very

notoriety of her intercourse with him showed how innocent and

unsexual it was in its nature,—the frank companionship of

friendly statesmen.

{2858}

Had she been Rizzio's mistress, nay, even had love in the

abstract been a more important matter to her than it was, she

would have been more cautious and discreet; however important

the public business which they were transacting might have

been, she would hardly have kept the Italian secretary in her

boudoir half the night. Her marriage with Darnley was not

exclusively a love-match: it was a marriage to which her

judgment, as well as her heart, consented. Her love-letters

abound in pretty trifles: her business letters are clear,

strong, rapid, brilliantly direct. By the fantastic irony of

fate this masculine unsentimental career has been translated

into an effeminate love-story,—the truth being, as I have had

to say again and again, that no woman ever lived to whom love

was less of a necessity. This was the strength of Mary's

character as a queen—as a woman, its defect. A love-sick girl,

when her castle in the air was shattered, might have come to

hate Darnley with a feverish feminine hatred; but the sedate

and politic intelligence of the Queen could only have been

incidentally affected by such considerations. She knew that,

even at the worst, Darnley was a useful ally, and the motives

which induced her to marry him must have restrained her from

putting him forcibly away. Yet when the deed was done, it is

not surprising that she should have acquiesced in the action

of the nobility. Bothwell, again, was in her estimation a

loyal retainer, a trusted adviser of the Crown; but he was

nothing more. Yet it need not surprise us that after her

forcible detention at Dunbar, she should have resolved to

submit with a good grace to the inevitable. Saving Argyle and

Huntley, Bothwell was the most powerful of her peers. He was

essentially a strong man; fit, it seemed, to rule that

turbulent nobility. He had been recommended to her acceptance

by the unanimous voice of the aristocracy, Protestant and

Catholic. … On a woman of ardent sentimentality these

considerations would have had little effect: they were exactly

the considerations which would appeal to Mary's masculine

common-sense. Yet, though she made what seemed to her the best

of a bad business, she was very wretched."

J. Skelton,

Essays in History and Biography,

pages 40-41.

"To establish the genuineness of the Casket Letters is

necessarily to establish that Mary was a co-conspirator with

Bothwell in the murder of her husband. … The expressions in

the letters are not consistent with an innocent purpose, or

with the theory that she brought Darnley to Edinburgh in order

to facilitate the obtaining of a divorce. Apart even from

other corroborative evidence, the evidence of the letters, if

their genuineness be admitted, is sufficient to establish her

guilt. Inasmuch, however, as her entire innocence is not

consistent with other evidence, it can scarcely be affirmed

that the problem of the genuineness of the letters has an

absolutely vital bearing on the character of Mary. Mr.

Skelton, who does not admit the genuineness of the letters,

and who may be reckoned one of the most distinguished and

ingenious defenders of Mary in this country, has taken no

pains to conceal his contempt for what he terms the 'theory of

the ecclesiastics'—that Mary, during the whole progress of the

plot against Darnley's life, was 'innocent as a child,

immaculate as a saint.' He is unable to adopt a more friendly

attitude towards her than that of an apologizer, and is

compelled to attempt the assumption of a middle position—that

she was neither wholly innocent nor wholly guilty; that,

ignorant of the details and method of the plot, she only

vaguely guessed that it was in progress, and failed merely in

firmly and promptly forbidding its execution. But in a case of

murder a middle position—a position of even partial

indifference—is, except in very peculiar circumstances,

well-nigh impossible; in the case of a wife's attitude to the

murder of her husband, the limit of impossibility is still

more nearly approached; but when the wife possesses such

exceptional courage, fertility of resource, and strength of

will as were possessed by Mary, the impossibility may be

regarded as absolute. Besides, as a matter of fact, Mary was

not indifferent in the matter. She had long regarded her

husband's conduct with antipathy and indignation; she did not

conceal her eager desire to be delivered from the yoke of

marriage to him; and she had abundant reasons, many of which

were justifiable, for this desire. … The fatal weakness … of

all such arguments as are used to establish either Mary's

absolute or partial innocence of the murder is, that they do

not harmonize with the leading traits of her disposition. She

was possessed of altogether exceptional decision and force of

will; she was remarkably wary and acute; and she was a match

for almost any of her contemporaries in the art of diplomacy.

She was not one to be concussed into a course of action to

which she had any strong aversion."

T. F. Henderson,

The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots,

chapter 1.

"The beauties of her person, and graces of her air, combined

to make her the most amiable of women; and the charms of her

address and conversation aided the impression which her lovely

figure made on the hearts of all beholders. Ambitious and

active in her temper, yet inclined to cheerfulness and

society; of a lofty spirit, constant and even vehement in her

purpose, yet polite, and gentle, and affable in her demeanour;

she seemed to partake only so much of the male virtues as to

render her estimable, without relinquishing those soft graces

which compose the proper ornament of her sex. In order to form

a just idea of her character, we must set aside one part of

her conduct, while she abandoned herself to the guidance of a

profligate man; and must consider these faults, whether we

admit them to be imprudences or crimes, as the result of an

inexplicable, though not uncommon, inconstancy in the human

mind, of the frailty of our nature, of the violence of

passion, and of the influence which situations, and sometimes

momentary incidents, have on persons whose principles are not

thoroughly confirmed by experience and reflection. Enraged by

the ungrateful conduct of her husband, seduced by the

treacherous counsels of one in whom she reposed confidence,

transported by the violence of her own temper, which never lay

sufficiently under the guidance of discretion, she was

betrayed into actions which may with some difficulty be

accounted for, but which admit of no apology, nor even of

alleviation. An enumeration of her qualities might carry the

appearance of a panegyric: an account of her conduct must in

some parts wear the aspect of severe satire and invective. Her

numerous misfortunes, the solitude of her long and tedious

captivity, and the persecutions to which she had been exposed

on account of her religion, had wrought her up to a degree of

bigotry during her later years; and such were the prevalent

spirit and principles of the age, that it is the less wonder

if her zeal, her resentment, and her interest uniting, induced

her to give consent to a design which conspirators, actuated

only by the first of these motives, had formed against the

life of Elizabeth."

D. Hume,

History of England,

chapter 42 (volume 4).

{2859}

"More books have been written about Mary Stuart than exist as

to all the Queens in the world; yet, so greatly do those

biographies vary in their representations of her character,

that at first it seems scarcely credible how any person could

be so differently described. The triumph of a creed or party

has unhappily been more considered than the development of

facts, or those principles of moral justice which ought to

animate the pen of the Historian; and, after all the literary

gladiatorship that has been practised in this arena for some

three hundred years, the guilt or innocence of Mary Queen of

Scots is still under consideration, for party feeling and

sectarian hate have not yet exhausted their malice. … If the

opinions of Mary Stuart's own sex were allowed to decide the

question at issue, a verdict of not guilty would have been

pronounced by an overwhelming majority of all readers,

irrespective of creed or party. Is, then, the moral standard

erected by women for one another, lower than that which is

required of them by men? Are they less acute in their

perceptions of right and wrong, or more disposed to tolerate

frailties? The contrary has generally been proved. With the

exception of Queen Elizabeth, Catharine de Medicis, Lady

Shrewsbury, and Margaret Erskine (Lady Douglas), of infamous

memory, Mary Stuart had no female enemies worthy of notice. It

is a remarkable fact that English gold could not purchase

witnesses from the female portion of the household of the

Queen of Scots. None of the ladies of the Court, whether

Protestant or Catholic, imputed crime at any time to their

mistress. In the days of her Royal splendour in France Queen

Mary was attended by ladies of ancient family and unsullied

honour, and, like true women, they clung to her in the darkest

hour of her later adversity, through good and evil report they

shared the gloom and sorrow of her prison life."

S. H. Burke,

Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty

and the Reformation Period,

volume 4, chapter 7.

"Mary Stuart was in many respects the creature of her age, of

her creed, and of her station; but the noblest and most

noteworthy qualities of her nature were independent of rank,

opinion, or time. Even the detractors who defend her conduct

on the plea that she was a dastard and a dupe are compelled in

the same breath to retract this implied reproach, and to

admit, with illogical acclamation and incongruous applause,

that the world never saw more splendid courage at the service

of more brilliant intelligence; that a braver if not 'a rarer

spirit never did steer humanity.' A kinder or more faithful

friend, a deadlier or more dangerous enemy, it would be

impossible to dread or to desire. Passion alone could shake

the double fortress of her impregnable heart and ever active

brain. The passion of love, after very sufficient experience,

she apparently and naturally outlived; the passion of hatred

and revenge was as inextinguishable in her inmost nature as

the emotion of loyalty and gratitude. Of repentance it would

seem that she knew as little as of fear; having been trained

from her infancy in a religion where the Decalogue was

supplanted by the Creed. Adept as she was in the most

exquisite delicacy of dissimulation, the most salient note of

her original disposition was daring rather than subtlety.

Beside or behind the voluptuous or intellectual attractions of

beauty and culture, she had about her the fresher charm of a

fearless and frank simplicity, a genuine and enduring pleasure

in small and harmless things no less than in such as were

neither. … For her own freedom of will and of way, of passion

and of action, she cared much; for her creed she cared

something; for her country she cared less than nothing. She

would have flung Scotland with England into the hellfire of

Spanish Catholicism rather than forego the faintest chance of

personal revenge. … In the private and personal qualities

which attract and attach a friend to his friend and a follower

to his leader, no man or woman was ever more constant and more

eminent than Mary Queen of Scots."

A. C. Swinburne,

Mary Queen of Scots

(Miscellanies, pages 357-359).

ALSO IN:

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapters 41-47 (volume 4).

M. Laing,

History of Scotland,

volumes 1-2.

F. A. Mignet,

History of Mary, Queen of Scots.

A. Strickland,

Life of Mary, Queen of Scots.

J. Skelton,

Maitland of Lethington.

W. Robertson,

History of Scotland,

Appendix.

C. M. Yonge,

Cameos of English History,

series 4, chapter 32,

and series 5, chapters 1, 2, 5 and 6.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1567.

Accession of James VI.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1568-1572.

Distracted state of the kingdom.

The Reformed Church and John Knox.

During the whole minority of the young king, James VI.,

Scotland was torn by warring factions. Murray, assassinated in

1570, was succeeded in the regency by the Earl of Lennox, who

was killed in a fight the next year. The Earl of Mar followed

him, and Morton held the office next. "The civil commotions

that ensued on Murray's assassination were not wholly adverse

to the reformed cause, as they gave it an overwhelming

influence with the king's party, which it supported. On the

other hand they excused every kind of irregularity. There was

a scramble for forfeited estates and the patrimony of the

kirk, from which latter source the leaders of both parties

rewarded their partisans. … The church … viewed with alarm the

various processes by which the ecclesiastical revenues were

being secularised. Nor can it be doubted that means, by which

the evil might be stayed, were the subject of conference

between committees of the Privy Council and General Assembly.

The plan which was actually adopted incorporated in the

reformed church the spiritual estate, and reintroduced the

bishops by their proper titles, subject to stringent

conditions of qualification. …

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

Knox, whose life had been attempted in March 1570-1, had been

constrained to retire from Edinburgh and was at St. Andrews

when the new platform was arranged. On the strength of certain

notices that are not at all conclusive, it has been

strenuously denied that he was a party to it even by consent.

… There are facts, however, to the contrary. … On the evidence

available Knox cannot be claimed as the advocate of a divine

right, either of presbytery or episcopacy. … With fast-failing

strength he returned to Edinburgh towards the end of August."

On the 24th of November, 1572, he died.

M. C. Taylor,

John Knox

(St. Giles' Lectures, 3d series).

{2860}

"It seems to me hard measure that this Scottish man [John

Knox], now after three-hundred years, should have to plead

like a culprit before the world; intrinsically for having

been, in such way as it was then possible to be, the bravest

of all Scotchmen! Had he been a poor Half-and-half, he could

have crouched into the corner, like so many others; Scotland

had not been delivered; and Knox had been without blame. He is

the one Scotchman to whom, of all others, his country and the

world owe a debt. He has to plead that Scotland would forgive

him for having been worth to it any million 'unblamable'

Scotchmen that need no forgiveness. He bared his breast to the

battle; had to row in French galleys, wander forlorn in exile,

in clouds and storms; was censured, shot-at through his

windows; had a right sore fighting life; if this world were

his place of recompense, he had made but a bad venture of it.

I cannot apologise for Knox. To him it is very indifferent,

these two-hundred-and-fifty years or more, what men say of

him."

T. Carlyle,

Heroes and Hero-worship,

lecture 4.

"Altogether, if we estimate him [Knox], as we are alone

entitled to do, in his historical position and circumstances,

Knox appears a very great and heroic man—no violent demagogue,

or even stern dogmatist—although violence and sternness and

dogmatism were all parts of his character. These coarser

elements mingled with but did not obscure the fresh, living,

and keenly sympathetic humanity beneath. Far inferior to

Luther in tenderness and breadth and lovableness, he is

greatly superior to Calvin in the same qualities. You feel

that he had a strong and loving heart under all his harshness,

and that you can get near to it, and could have spent a cheery

social evening with him in his house at the head of the Canon

gate, over that good old wine that he had stored in his

cellar, and which he was glad and proud to dispense to his

friends. It might not have been a very pleasant thing to

differ with him even in such circumstances; but, upon the

whole, it would have been a pleasanter and safer audacity than

to have disputed some favourite tenet with Calvin. There was

in Knox far more of mere human feeling and of shrewd worldly

sense, always tolerant of differences; and you could have

fallen back upon these, and felt yourself comparatively safe

in the utterance of some daring sentiment. And in this point

of view it deserves to be noticed that Knox alone of the

reformers, along with Luther, is free from all stain of

violent persecution. Intolerant he was towards the mass,

towards Mary, and towards the old Catholic clergy; yet he was

no persecutor. He was never cruel in act, cruel as his

language sometimes is, and severe as were some of his

judgments. Modern enlightenment and scientific indifference we

have no right to look for in him. His superstitions about the

weather and witches were common to him with all men of his

time. … As a mere thinker, save perhaps on political subjects,

he takes no rank; and his political views, wise and

enlightened as they were, seem rather the growth of his manly

instinctive sense than reasoned from any fundamental

principles. Earnest, intense, and powerful in every practical

direction, he was not in the least characteristically

reflective or speculative. Everywhere the hero, he is nowhere

the philosopher or sage.—He was, in short, a man for his work

and time—knowing what was good for his country there and then,

when the old Catholic bonds had rotted to the very heart. A

man of God, yet with sinful weaknesses like us all. There is

something in him we can no longer love,—a harshness and

severity by no means beautiful or attractive; but there is

little in him that we cannot in the retrospect heartily

respect, and even admiringly cherish."

J. Tulloch,

Leaders of the Reformation: Knox.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1570-1573.

Civil War.

"All the miseries of civil war desolated the kingdom.

Fellow-citizens, friends, brothers, took different sides, and

ranged themselves under the standards of the contending

factions. In every county, and almost in every town and

village, 'king's men' and 'queen's men' were names of

distinction. Political hatred dissolved all natural ties, and

extinguished the reciprocal good-will and confidence which

hold mankind together in society. Religious zeal mingled

itself with these civil distinctions, and contributed not a

little to heighten and to inflame them. The factions which

divided the kingdom were, in appearance, only two; but in both

these there were persons with views and principles so

different from each other that they ought to be distinguished.

With some, considerations of religion were predominant, and

they either adhered to the queen because they hoped by her

means to reestablish popery, or they defended the king's

authority as the best support of the protestant faith. Among

these the opposition was violent and irreconcilable. … As

Morton, who commanded the regent's forces [1572, during the

regency of Mar], lay at Leith, and Kirkaldy still held out the

town and castle of Edinburgh [for the party of the queen],

scarce a day passed without a skirmish. … Both parties hanged

the prisoners which they took, of whatever rank or quality,

without mercy and without trial. Great numbers suffered in

this shocking manner; the unhappy victims were led by fifties

at a time to execution; and it was not till both sides had

smarted severely that they discontinued this barbarous

practice." In 1573, Morton, being now regent, made peace with

one faction of the queen's party, and succeeded, with the help

of a siege train and force which Queen Elizabeth sent him from

England, in overcoming the other faction which held Edinburgh

and its castle. Kirkaldy was compelled to surrender after a

siege of thirty-three days, receiving promises of protection

from the English commander, in spite of which he was hanged.

W. Robertson,

History of Scotland,

book 6 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapters 53-56 (volume 5).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

Episcopacy restored.

The Concordat of Leith.

The Tulchan Bishops.

"On the 12th of January, 1572, a Convention of the Church

assembled at Leith. By whom it was convened is unknown. It was

not a regular Assembly, but it assumed to itself 'the

strength, force, and effect of a General Assembly,' and it was

attended by 'the superintendents, barons, commissioners to

plant kirks, commissioners of provinces, towns, kirks, and

ministers.' …

{2861}

By the 1st of February the joint committees

framed a concordat, of which the following articles were the

chief;

1. That the names of archbishops and bishops, and the bounds

of dioceses, should remain as they were before the

Reformation, at the least till the majority of the king, or

till a different arrangement should be made by the parliament;

and that to every cathedral church there should be attached a

chapter of learned men; but that the bishops should have no

more power than was possessed by the superintendents, and

should like them be subject to the General Assemblies.

2. That abbots and friars should be continued as parts of the

Spiritual Estate of the realm. …

Such was the famous concordat agreed upon by the Church and

State in Scotland in 1572. … The Church had in vain …

struggled to get possession of its patrimony. It had in vain

argued that the bishoprics and abbacies should be dissolved,

and their revenues applied for the maintenance of the

ministry, the education of the youthhead, and the support of

the poor. The bishoprics and abbacies were maintained as if

they were indissoluble. Some of them were already gifted to

laymen, and the ministers of the Protestant Church were poorly

paid out of the thirds of benefices. The collection of these

even the regent had recently stopped, and beggary was at the

door. What was to be done? The only way of obtaining the

episcopal revenues was by reintroducing the episcopal office.

… The ministers regarded archbishops, bishops, deans and

chapters as things lawful, but not expedient—'they sounded ·of

papistry'; but now, under the pressure of a still stronger

expediency, they received them into the Church. … Knox yielded

to the same necessity under which the Church had bowed. … It

was a mongrel prelacy that was thus introduced into Scotland—a

cross betwixt Popery and Presbytery. It was not of the true

Roman breed. It was not even of the Anglican. It could not

pretend to the apostolical descent."

J. Cunningham,

Church History of Scotland,

volume 1, chapter 12.

"The new dignitaries got from the populace the name of the

Tulchan bishops. A tulchan, an old Scots word of unknown

origin, was applied to a stuffed calf-skin which was brought

into the presence of a recently-calved cow. It was an

agricultural doctrine of that age, and of later times, that

the presence of this changeling induced the bereaved mother

easily to part with her milk. To draw what remained of the

bishops' revenue, it was expedient that there should be

bishops; but the revenues were not for them, but for the lay

lords, who milked the ecclesiastical cow."

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapter 54 (volume 5).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1581.

The Second Covenant, called also The First National Covenant.

"The national covenant of Scotland was simply an abjuration of

popery, and a solemn engagement, ratified by a solemn oath, to

support the protestant religion. Its immediate occasion was a

dread, too well founded—a dread from which Scotland was never

entirely freed till the revolution—of the re-introduction of

popery. It was well known that Lennox was an emissary of the

house of Guise, and had been sent over to prevail on the young

king to embrace the Roman Catholic faith. … A conspiracy so

dangerous at all times to a country divided in religious

sentiment, demanded a counter-combination equally strict and

solemn, and led to the formation of the national covenant of

Scotland. This was drawn up at the king's request, by his

chaplain, John Craig. It consisted of an abjuration, in the

most solemn and explicit terms, of the various articles of the

popish system, and an engagement to adhere to and defend the

reformed doctrine and discipline of the reformed church of

Scotland. The covenanters further pledged themselves, under

the same oath, 'to defend his majesty's person and authority

with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of Christ's

evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of justice,

and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies within the

realm or without.' This bond, at first called 'the king's

confession,' was sworn and subscribed by the king and his

household, for example to others, on the 28th of January 1581;

and afterwards, in consequence of an order in council, and an

act of the general assembly, it was cheerfully subscribed by

all ranks of persons through the kingdom; the ministers

zealously promoting the subscription in their respective

parishes."

T. M'Crie,

Sketches of Scottish Church History,

volume 1, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

D. Calderwood,

History of the Kirk of Scotland,

volume 3, 1581.

J. Row,

History of the Kirk of Scotland, 1581.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1582.

The Raid of Ruthven.

"The two favourites [Lennox and Arran], by their ascendant

over the king, possessed uncontrolled power in the kingdom,

and exercised it with the utmost wantonness." The provocation

which they gave brought about, at length, a combination of

nobles, formed for the purpose of removing the young king from

their influence. Invited to Ruthven Castle in August, 1582, by

its master, Lord Ruthven, lately created Earl of Gowrie, James

found there a large assemblage of the conspirators and was

detained against his will. He was afterwards removed to

Stirling, and later to the palace of Holyrood, but still under

restraint. This continued until the following June, when the

king effected his escape and Arran recovered his power. Lennox

had died meantime in France. All those concerned in what was

known as the Raid of Ruthven were proclaimed guilty of high

treason and fled the country. The clergy gave great offense to

the king by approving and sustaining the Raid of Ruthven. He

never forgave the Church for its attitude on this occasion.

W. Robertson,

History of Scotland,

book 6 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

C. M. Yonge,

Cameos from English History,

series 5, chapter 20.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1584.

The Black Acts.

"James was bent upon destroying a form of Church government

which he imagined to be inconsistent with his own kingly

prerogatives. The General Assembly rested upon too popular a

basis; they were too independent of his absolute will; they

assumed a jurisdiction which he could not allow. The ministers

were too much given to discuss political subjects in the

pulpit—to speak evil of dignities—to resist the powers that

were ordained of God. … On the 22d of May, 1584, the

Parliament assembled. … A series of acts were passed almost

entirely subversive of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the

Church. By one, the ancient jurisdiction of the Three Estates

was ratified,—and to speak evil of any one of them was

declared to be treason; thus were the bishops hedged about. By

another, the king was declared to be supreme in all causes and

over all persons, and to decline his judgment was pronounced

to be treason; thus was the boldness of such men as Melville

to be chastised.

{2862}

By a third, all convocations except those specially licensed

by the king were declared to be unlawful; thus were the courts

of the Church to be shorn of their power. By a fourth, the

chief jurisdiction of the Church was lodged in the hands of

the Episcopal body; for the bishops must now do what the

Assemblies and presbyteries had hitherto done. By still

another act, it was provided 'that none should presume,

privately or publicly, in sermons, declamations, or familiar

conferences, to utter any false, untrue, or slanderous

speeches, to the reproach of his Majesty or council, or meddle

with the affairs of his Highness and Estate, under the pains

contained in the acts of parliament made against the makers

and reporters of lies.' … The parliament registered the

resolves of the king; for though Scottish barons were

turbulent, Scottish parliaments were docile, and seldom

thwarted the reigning power. But the people sympathized with

the ministers; the acts became known as the Black Acts; and

the struggle between the court and the Church, which lasted

with some intermissions for more than a century, was begun."

J. Cunningham,

Church History of Scotland,

volume 1, chapter 12.

ALSO IN:

D. Calderwood,

History of the Kirk of Scotland,

volume 4, 1584.

Scottish Divines

(St. Giles' Lectures, series 3),

lecture 2.

J. Melville,

Autobiography and Diary, 1584.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587.

The execution of Mary Stuart in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587.

Appropriation of Church lands and ruin of the Episcopacy.

The parliament of 1587 passed an act which "annexed to the

crown such lands of the church as had not been inalienably

bestowed upon the nobles or landed gentry; these were still

considerable, and were held either by the titular bishops who

possessed the benefices, or were granted to laymen by rights

merely temporary. The only fund reserved for the clergy who

were to serve the cure was the principal mansion house, with a

few acres of glebe land. The fund from which their stipends

were to be paid was limited to the tithes. … The crown … was

little benefited by an enactment which, detaching the church

lands from all connection with ecclesiastical persons, totally

ruined the order of bishops, for the restoration of whom, with

some dignity and authority, king James, and his successor

afterwards, expressed considerable anxiety."

Sir W. Scott,

History of Scotland,

chapter 37 (volume 2).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1600.

The Gowrie Plot.

"On the morning of the 5th of August, 1600, as James was

setting out hunting from Falkland Palace, he was met by

Alexander Ruthven, the younger brother of the Earl of Gowrie

[both being sons of the Gowrie of the ' Raid of Ruthven'], who

told him with a great air of mystery that he had discovered a

man burying a pot of money in a field, and that he thought the

affair so suspicious that he had taken him prisoner, and

begged the King to come to Gowrie House in Perth to see him.

James went, taking with him Mar, Lennox, and about twenty

other gentlemen. After dinner Alexander took the King aside,

and, when his attendants missed him, they were told that he

had gone back to Falkland. They were preparing to follow him

there when some of them heard cries from a turret. They

recognized the King's voice, and they presently saw his head

thrust out of a window, calling for help. They had much ado to

make their way to him, but they found him at last in a small

room struggling with Alexander, while a man dressed in armour

was looking on. Alexander Ruthven and Gowrie were both killed

in the scuffle which followed. A tumult rose in the town, for

the Earl had been Provost and was very popular with the

towns-folk, and the King and his followers had to make their

escape by the river. The doom of traitors was passed on the

dead men, and their name was proscribed, but as no accomplice

could be discovered, it was hard to say what was the extent or

object of their plot. The whole affair was very mysterious,

the only witnesses being the King himself and Henderson the

man in armour. Some of the ministers thought it so suspicions

that they refused to return thanks for the King's safety, as

they thought the whole affair an invention of his own." Eight

years later, however, some letters were discovered which

seemed to prove that there had really been a plot to seize the

King's person.

M. Macarthur,

History of Scotland,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

Sir W. Scott,

History of Scotland,

chapter 40 (volume 2).

P. F. Tytler,

History of Scotland,

volume 4, chapter 11.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1603.

Accession of James VI. to the English throne.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1603.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.

The Five Articles of Perth.

After his accession to the English throne, James became more

deeply enamoured of Episcopacy, and of its ecclesiastical and

ceremonial incidents, than before, and more determined to

force them on the Scottish church. He worked to that end with

arbitrary insolence and violence, and with every kind of

dishonest intrigue, until he had accomplished his purpose

completely. Not only were his bishops seated, with fair

endowments and large powers restored, but he had them ordained

in England, to ensure their apostolic legitimacy. When this

had been done, he resolved to impose a liturgy upon the

Church, with certain ordinances of his own framing. The five

articles in which the latter were embodied became for two

years the subject of a most bitter and heated struggle between

the court and its bishops on one side, with most of the

general clergy on the other. At length, in August, 1618, an

Assembly made up at Perth proved subservient enough to submit

to the royal brow-beating and to adopt the five articles.

These Five Articles of Perth, as they are known, enjoined

kneeling at the communion, observance of five holidays, and

episcopal confirmation; and they authorized the private

dispensation both of baptism and of the Lord's Supper. The

powers of the court of high commission were actively brought

into play to enforce them.

J. Cunningham,

Church History of Scotland,

volume 2, chapter 1.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.

Laud's Liturgy and Jenny Geddes' Stool.

"Now we are summoned to a sadder subject; from the sufferings

of a private person [John Williams, bishop of Lincoln, pursued

and persecuted by Laud] to the miseries and almost mutual]

ruin of two kingdoms, England and Scotland. I confess, my

hands have always been unwilling to write of that cold

country, for fear my fingers should be frostbitten therewith;

but necessity to make our story entire puts me upon the

employment. Miseries, caused from the sending of the Book of

Service or new Liturgy thither, which may sadly be termed a

'Rubric' indeed, dyed with the blood of so many of both

nations, slain on that occasion.

{2863}

It seems the design began in the reign of king James; who

desired and endeavoured an uniformity of public prayers

through the kingdom of Scotland. … In the reign of king

Charles, the project being resumed (but whether the same book

or no, God knoweth), it was concluded not to send into

Scotland the same Liturgy of England 'totidem verbis,' lest

this should be misconstrued a badge of dependence of that

church on ours. It was resolved also, that the two Liturgies

should not differ in substance, lest the Roman party should

upbraid us with weighty and material differences. A similitude

therefore not identity being resolved of, it was drawn up with

some, as they termed them, insensible alterations, but such as

were quickly found and felt by the Scotch to their great

distaste. … The names of sundry saints, omitted in the

English, are inserted into the Scotch Calendar (but only in

black letters), on their several days. … Some of these were

kings, all of them natives of that country. … But these Scotch

saints were so far from making the English Liturgy acceptable,

that the English Liturgy rather made the saints odious unto

them. … No sooner had the dean of Edinburgh begun to read the

book in the church of St. Giles, Sunday, July 23rd, in the

presence of the Privy Council, both the archbishops, divers

bishops, and magistrates of the city, but presently such a

tumult was raised that, through clapping of hands, cursing,

and crying, one could neither hear nor be heard. The bishop of

Edinburgh endeavoured in vain to appease the tumult; when a

stool, aimed to be thrown at him [according to popular

tradition by an old herb-woman named Jenny Geddes], had

killed, if not diverted by one present; so that the same book

had occasioned his death and prescribed the form of his

burial; and this hubbub was hardly suppressed by the lord

provost and bailiffs of Edinburgh. This first tumult was

caused by such, whom I find called 'the scum of the city,'

considerable for nothing but their number. But, few days

after, the cream of the nation (some of the highest and best

quality therein) engaged in the same cause, crying out, 'God

defend all those who will defend God's cause! and God confound

the service-book and all the maintainers of it!'"

T. Fuller,

Church History of Britain,

book 11, section 2 (volume 3).

"One of the most distinct and familiar of historical

traditions attributes the honour of flinging the first stool,

and so beginning the great civil war, to a certain Jenny or

Janet Geddes. But a search among contemporary writers for the

identification of such an actor on the scene, will have the

same inconclusive result that often attends the search after

some criminal hero with a mythical celebrity when he is wanted

by the police. … Wodrow, on the authority of Robert Stewart—a

son of the Lord Advocate of the Revolution—utter]y dethrones

Mrs. Geddes: 'He tells me that it's the constantly-believed

tradition that it was Mrs. Mean, wife to John Mean, merchant

in Edinburgh, that cast the first stool when the service was

read in the New Kirk, Edinburgh, 1637; and that many of the

lasses that carried on the fray were prentices in disguise,

for they threw stools to a great length.'"

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

volume 6, pages 443-444, foot-note.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.

The Tables, and the signing of the National Covenant.

"Nobles, ministers, gentlemen, and burghers from every

district poured into Edinburgh to take part in a national

resistance to these innovations [of the Service Book], and an

appeal was made from the whole body assembled in the capital,

not only against the Service Book, but also against the Book

of Canons and the conduct of the bishops. Instead, however, of

granting redress of these grievances, the King issued a series

of angry and exasperating proclamations, commanding the crowds

of strangers in the capital to return immediately to their own

homes, and instructing the Council and the Supreme Courts of

Law to remove to Linlithgow. But instead of obeying the

injunction to leave Edinburgh, the multitudes there continued

to receive accessions from all parts of the country. … In

answer to the complaint of the Council that their meeting in

such numbers was disorderly and illegal, the supplicants

offered to choose a limited number from each of the classes

into which they were socially divided—nobles, lesser barons,

burgesses, and clergy—to act as their representatives. This

was at once very imprudently agreed to by the Council. A

committee of four was accordingly selected by each of these

classes, who were instructed to reside in the capital, and

were empowered to take all necessary steps to promote their

common object. They had also authority to assemble the whole

of their constituents should any extraordinary emergency

arise. The opponents of the new Canons and Service Book were

thus organised with official approval into one large and

powerful body, known in history as 'The Tables,' which

speedily exercised an important influence in the country. As

soon as this arrangement was completed, the crowds of

supplicants who thronged the metropolis returned to their own

homes, leaving the committee of sixteen to watch the progress

of events." But the obstinacy of the King soon brought affairs

to a crisis, and early in 1638 the deputies of The Tables

"resolved to summon the whole body of supplicants to repair at

once to the capital in order to concert measures for their

common safety and the furtherance of the good cause. The

summons was promptly obeyed, and after full deliberation it

was resolved, on the suggestion of Johnstone of Warriston,

that in order to strengthen their union against the enemies of

the Protestant faith they should renew the National Covenant,

which had been originally drawn up and sworn to at a time [A.

D. 1581] when the Protestant religion was in imminent peril,

through the schemes of France and Spain, and the plots of

Queen Mary and the Roman Catholics in England and Scotland.

The original document denounced in vehement terms the errors

and devices of the Romish Church, and an addition was now made

to it, adapting its declarations and pledges to existing

circumstances."

J. Taylor,

The Scottish Covenanters,

chapter 1.

"It was in the Greyfriars' Church at Edinburgh that it [the

National Covenant] was first received, on February 28, 1638.

The aged Earl of Sutherland was the first to sign his name.

Then the whole congregation followed. Then it was laid on the

flat grave-stone still preserved in the church-yard. Men and

women crowded to add their names. Some wept aloud, others

wrote their names in their own blood; others added after their

names 'till death.' For hours they signed, till every corner

of the parchment was filled, and only room left for their

initials, and the shades of night alone checked the continual

flow.

{2864}

From Greyfriars' church-yard it spread to the whole of

Scotland. Gentlemen and noblemen carried copies of it 'in

their portmanteaus and pockets, requiring and collecting

subscriptions publicly and privately.' Women sat in church all

day and all night, from Friday till Sunday, in order to

receive the Communion with it. None dared to refuse their

names."

A. P. Stanley,

Lectures on the History of the Church of Scotland,

lecture 2.

ALSO IN:

J. Cunningham,

Church History of Scotland,

volume 2, chapter 2.

D. Masson,

Life of John Milton,

volume 1, chapter 7.

R. Chambers,

Domestic Annals of Scotland,

volume 2, pages 116-127.

The following is the text of the Scottish National Covenant:

"The confession of faith of the Kirk of Scotland, subscribed

at first by the King's Majesty and his household in the year

of God 1580; thereafter by persons of all ranks in the year

1581, by ordinance of the Lords of the secret council, and

acts of the General Assembly; subscribed again by all sorts of

persons in the year 1590, by a new ordinance of council, at

the desire of the General Assembly; with a general band for

the maintenance of the true religion, and the King's person,

and now subscribed in the year 1638, by us noblemen, barons,

gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons under

subscribing; together with our resolution and promises for the

causes after specified, to maintain the said true religion,

and the King's Majesty, according to the confession aforesaid,

and Acts of Parliament; the tenure whereof here followeth: 'We

all, and every one of us underwritten, do protest, that after

long and due examination of our own consciences in matters of

true and false religion, we are now thoroughly resolved of the

truth, by the word and spirit of God; and therefore we believe

with our hearts, confess with our mouths, subscribe with our

hands, and constantly affirm before God and the whole world,

that this only is the true Christian faith and religion,

pleasing God, and bringing salvation to man, which now is by

the mercy of God revealed to the world by the preaching of the

blessed evangel, and received, believed, and defended by many

and sundry notable kirks and realms, but chiefly by the Kirk

of Scotland, the King's Majesty, and three estates of this

realm, as God's eternal truth and only ground of our

salvation; as more particularly is expressed in the confession

of our faith, established and publicly confirmed by sundry

Acts of Parliament; and now of a long time hath been openly

professed by the King's Majesty, and whole body of this realm,

both in burgh and land. To the which confession and form of

religion we willingly agree in our consciences in all points,

as unto God's undoubted truth and verity, grounded only upon

His written Word; and therefore we abhor and detest all

contrary religion and doctrine, but chiefly all kind of

papistry in general and particular heads, even as they are now

damned and confuted by the Word of God and Kirk of Scotland.

But in special we detest and refuse the usurped authority of

that Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God, upon the

Kirk, the civil magistrate, and consciences of men; all his

tyrannous laws made upon indifferent things against our

Christian liberty; his erroneous doctrine against the

sufficiency of the written Word, the perfection of the law,

the office of Christ and His blessed evangel; his corrupted

doctrine concerning original sin, our natural inability and

rebellion to God's law, our justification by faith only, our

imperfect sanctification and obedience to the law, the nature,

number, and use of the holy sacraments; his five bastard

sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false

doctrine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments,

without the Word of God; his cruel judgments against infants

departing without the sacrament; his absolute necessity of

baptism; his blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation or real

presence of Christ's body in the elements, and receiving of

the same by the wicked, or bodies of men; his dispensations,

with solemn oaths, perjuries, and degrees of marriage,

forbidden in the Word; his cruelty against the innocent

divorced; his devilish mass; his blasphemous priesthood; his

profane sacrifice for the sins of the dead and the quick; his

canonization of men, calling upon angels or saints departed,

worshipping of imagery, relics, and crosses, dedicating of

kirks, altars, days, vows to creatures; his purgatory, prayers

for the dead, praying or speaking in a strange language; with

his processions and blasphemous litany, and multitudes of

advocates or mediators; his manifold orders, auricular

confession; his desperate and uncertain repentance; his

general and doubtsome faith; his satisfaction of men for their

sins; his justification by works, "opus operatum," works of

supererogation, merits, pardons, perigrinations and stations;

his holy water, baptizing of bells, conjuring of spirits,

crossing, saning, anointing, conjuring, hallowing of God's

good creatures, with the superstitious opinion joined

therewith; his worldly monarchy and wicked hierarchy; his

three solemn vows, with all his shavelings of sundry sorts;

his erroneous and bloody decrees made at Trent, with all the

subscribers and approvers of that cruel and bloody band

conjured against the Kirk of God. And finally, we detest all

his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions, brought in

the Kirk without or against the Word of God, and doctrine of

this true reformed Kirk, to which we join ourselves willingly,

in doctrine, religion, faith, discipline, and life of the holy

sacraments, as lively members of the same, in Christ our head,

promising and swearing, by the great name of the Lord our God,

that we shall continue in the obedience of the doctrine and

discipline of this Kirk, and shall defend the same according

to our vocation and power all the days of our lives, under the

pains contained in the law, and danger both of body and soul

in the day of God's fearful judgment. And seeing that many are

stirred up by Satan and that Roman Antichrist, to promise,

swear, subscribe, and for a time use the holy sacraments in

the Kirk, deceitfully against their own consciences, minding

thereby, first under the external cloak of religion, to

corrupt and subvert secretly God's true religion within the

Kirk; and afterwards, when time may serve, to become open

enemies and persecutors of the same, under vain hope of the

Pope's dispensation, devised against the Word of God, to his

great confusion, and their double condemnation in the day of

the Lord Jesus.

{2865}

We therefore, willing to take away all suspicion of hypocrisy,

and of such double dealing with God and his Kirk, protest and

call the Searcher of all hearts for witness, that our minds

and hearts do fully agree with this our confession, promise,

oath, and subscription: so that we are not moved for any

worldly respect, but are persuaded only in our consciences,

through the knowledge and love of God's true religion printed

in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, as we shall answer to Him in

the day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed. And

because we perceive that the quietness and stability of our

religion and Kirk doth depend upon the safety and good

behaviour of the King's Majesty, as upon a comfortable

instrument of God's mercy granted to this country for the

maintenance of His Kirk, and ministration of justice among us,

we protest and promise with our hearts under the same oath,

handwrit, and pains, that we shall defend his person and

authority with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of

Christ His evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of

justice, and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies

within this realm or without, as we desire our God to be a

strong and merciful defender to us in the day of our death,

and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; to Whom, with the Father

and the Holy Spirit, be all honour and glory eternally. Like

as many Acts of Parliament not only in general do abrogate,

annul, and rescind all laws, statutes, acts, constitutions,

canons civil or municipal, with all other ordinances and

practick penalties whatsoever, made in prejudice of the true

religion, and professors thereof, or of the true Kirk

discipline, jurisdiction, and freedom thereof; or in favours

of idolatry and superstition; or of the papistical kirk (as

Act 3. Act 31. Parliament 1. Act 23. Parliament 11. Act 114.

Parliament 12, of K. James VI), that papistry and superstition

may be utter]y suppressed, according to the intention of the

Acts of Parliament reported in Act 5. Parliament 20. K. James

VI. And to that end they ordained all papists and priests to

be punished by manifold civil and ecclesiastical pains, as

adversaries to God's true religion preached, and by law

established within this realm (Act 24. Parliament 11. K. James

VI) as common enemies to all Christian government (Act 18.

Parliament 16. K. James VI), as rebellers and gainstanders of

our Sovereign Lord's authority (Act 47. Parliament 3. K. James

VI, and as idolaters, Act 104. Parliament 7. K. James VI), but

also in particular (by and attour the confession of faith) do

abolish and condemn the Pope's authority and jurisdiction out

of this land, and ordains the maintainers thereof to be

punished (Act 2. Parliament 1. Act 51. Parliament 3. Act 106.

Parliament 7. Act 114. Parliament 12. of K. James VI); do

condemn the Pope's erroneous doctrine, or any other erroneous

doctrine repugnant to any of the Articles of the true and

Christian religion publicly preached, and by law established

in this realm; and ordains the spreaders or makers of books or

libels, or letters or writs of that nature, to be punished

(Act 46. Parliament 3. Act 106. Parliament 7. Act 24.

Parliament 11. K. James VI); do condemn all baptism conform to

the Pope's kirk, and the idolatry of the Mass; and ordains all

sayers, wilful hearers, and concealers of the Mass, the

maintainers, and resetters of the priests, Jesuits,

trafficking Papists, to be punished without exception or

restriction (Act 5. Parliament 1. Act 120. Parliament 12. Act

164. Parliament 13. Act 193. Parliament 14. Act 1. Parliament

19. Act 5. Parliament 20. K. James VI); do condemn all

erroneous books and writs containing erroneous doctrine

against the religion presently professed, or containing

superstitious rights or ceremonies papistical, whereby the

people are greatly abused; and ordains the home-bringers of

them to be punished (Act 25. Parliament 11. K. James VI); do

condemn the monuments and dregs of bygone idolatry, as going

to crosses, observing the festival days of saints, and such

other superstitious and papistical rites, to the dishonour of

God, contempt of true religion, and fostering of great errors

among the people, and ordains the users of them to be punished

for the second fault as idolaters (Act 104. Parliament 7. K.

James VI). Like us many Acts of Parliament are conceived for

maintenance of God's true and Christian religion, and the

purity thereof in doctrine and sacraments of the true Church

of God, the liberty and freedom thereof in her national

synodal assemblies, presbyteries, sessions, policy,

discipline, and jurisdiction thereof, as that purity of

religion and liberty of the Church was used, professed,

exercised, preached, and confessed according to the

reformation of religion in this realm. (As for instance: Act

99. Parliament 7. Act 23. Parliament 11. Act 114. Parliament

12. Act 160. Parliament 13. K. James VI, ratified by Act 4. K.

Charles.) So that Act 6. Parliament 1. and Act 68. Parliament

6. of K. James VI, in the year of God 1579, declare the

ministers of the blessed evangel, whom God of His mercy had

raised up or hereafter should raise, agreeing with them that

then lived in doctrine and administration of the sacraments,

and the people that professed Christ, as He was then offered

in the evangel, and doth communicate with the holy sacraments

(as in the reformed Kirks of this realm they were presently

administered) according to the confession of faith to be the

true and holy Kirk of Christ Jesus within this realm, and

discerns and declares all and sundry, who either gainsays the

word of the evangel, received and approved as the heads of the

confession of faith, professed in Parliament in the year of

God 1560, specified also in the first Parliament of K. James

VI, and ratified in this present parliament, more particularly

do specify; or that refuses the administration of the holy

sacraments as they were then ministrated, to be no members of

the said Kirk within this realm and true religion presently

professed, so long as they keep themselves so divided from the

society of Christ's body. And the subsequent Act 69.

Parliament 6. K. James VI, declares that there is no other

face of Kirk, nor other face of religion than was presently at

that time by the favour of God established within this realm,

which therefore is ever styled God's true religion, Christ's

true religion, the true and Christian religion, and a perfect

religion, which by manifold Acts of Parliament all within this

realm are bound to profess to subscribe the Articles thereof,

the confession of faith, to recant all doctrine and errors

repugnant to any of the said Articles (Act 4 and 9. Parliament

1. Act 45. 46. 47. Parliament 3. Act 71. Parliament 6. Act

106. Parliament 7. Act 24. Parliament 11. Act 123. Parliament

12. Act 194 and 197. Parliament 14 of King James VI). And all

magistrates, sheriffs, &c., on the one part, are ordained to

search, apprehend, and punish all contraveners (for instance,

Act 5. Parliament 1. Act 104. Parliament 7. Act 25. Parliament

11. K. James VI), and that, notwithstanding of the King's

Majesty's licences on the contrary, which are discharged and

declared to be of no force, in so far as they tend in any ways

to the prejudice and hindrance of the execution of the Acts of

Parliament against Papists and adversaries of the true

religion (Act 106. Parliament 7. K. James VI).

{2866}

On the other part, in Act 47. Parliament 3. K. James VI, it is

declared and ordained, seeing the cause of God's true religion

and His Highness's authority are so joined as the hurt of the

one is common to both; and that none shall be reputed as loyal

and faithful subjects to our Sovereign Lord or his authority,

but be punishable as rebellers and gainstanders of the same,

who shall not give their confession and make profession of the

said true religion; and that they, who after defection shall

give the confession of their faith of new, they shall promise

to continue therein in time coming to maintain our Sovereign

Lord's authority, and at the uttermost of their power to

fortify, assist, and maintain the true preachers and

professors of Christ's religion, against whatsoever enemies

and gainstanders of the same; and namely, against all such of

whatsoever nation, estate, or degree they be of, that have

joined or bound themselves, or have assisted or assists to set

forward and execute the cruel decrees of Trent, contrary to

the preachers and true professors of the Word of God, which is

repeated word by word in the Articles of Pacification at

Perth, the 23d Feb., 1572, approved by Parliament the last of

April 1573, ratified in Parliament 1578, and related Act 123.

Parliament 12. of K. James VI., with this addition, that they

are bound to resist all treasonable uproars and hostilities

raised against the true religion, the King's Majesty and the

true professors. Like as an lieges are bound to maintain the

King's Majesty's royal person and authority, the authority of

Parliaments, without which neither any laws or lawful

judicatories can be established (Act 130. Act 131. Parliament

8. K. James VI), and the subject's liberties, who ought only

to live and be governed by the King's laws, the common laws of

this realm allanerly (Act 48. Parliament 3. K. James I, Act

79. Parliament 6. K. James VI, repeated in Act 131. Parliament

8. K. James VI), which if they be innovated or prejudged the

commission anent the union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and

England, which is the sole Act of 17 Parliament James VI,

declares such confusion would ensue as this realm could be no

more a free monarchy, because by the fundamental laws, ancient

privileges, offices, and liberties of this kingdom, not only

the princely authority of His Majesty's royal descent hath

been these many ages maintained; also the people's security of

their lands, livings, rights, offices, liberties and dignities

preserved; and therefore for the preservation of the said true

religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, it is statute by

Act 8. Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7.

ratified in Act 23. Parliament 11 and 14. Act of K. James VI

and 4 Act of K. Charles, that all Kings and Princes at their

coronation and reception of their princely authority, shall

make their faithful promise by their solemn oath in the

presence of the Eternal God, that during the whole time of

their lives they shall serve the same Eternal God to the

utmost of their power, according as He hath required in His

most Holy Word, contained in the Old and New Testaments, and

according to the same Word shall maintain the true religion of

Christ Jesus, the preaching of His Holy Word, the due and

right ministration of the sacraments now received and preached

within this realm (according to the confession of faith

immediately preceding); and shall abolish and gainstand all

false religion contrary to the same; and shall rule the people

committed to their charge according to the will and

commandment of God revealed in His aforesaid Word, and

according to the lowable laws and constitutions received in

this realm, no ways repugnant to the said will of the Eternal

God; and shall procure to the utmost of their power, to the

Kirk of God, and whole Christian people, true and perfect

peace in all time coming; and that they shall be careful to

root out of their Empire all heretics and enemies to the true

worship of God, who shall be convicted by the true Kirk of God

of the aforesaid crimes. Which was also observed by His

Majesty at his coronation in Edinburgh, 1633, as may be seen

in the Order of the Coronation. In obedience to the commands

of God, conform to the practice of the godly in former times,

and according to the laudable example of our worthy and

religious progenitors, and of many yet living amongst us,

which was warranted also by act of council, commanding a

general band to be made and subscribed by His Majesty's

subjects of all ranks for two causes: one was, for defending

the true religion, as it was then reformed, and is expressed

in the confession of faith above written, and a former large

confession established by sundry acts of lawful general

assemblies and of Parliament unto which it hath relation, set

down in public catechisms, and which had been for many years

with a blessing from heaven preached and professed in this

Kirk and kingdom, as God's undoubted truth grounded only upon

His written Word. The other cause was for maintaining the

King's Majesty, his person and estate: the true worship of God

and the King's authority being so straitly joined, as that

they had the same friends and common enemies, and did stand

and fall together. And finally, being convinced in our minds;

and confessing with our mouths, that the present and

succeeding generations in this land are bound to keep the

aforesaid national oath and subscription inviolable:—We

noblemen, barons, gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons

under subscribing, considering divers times before, and

especially at this time, the danger of the true reformed

religion of the King's honour, and of the public of the

kingdom, by the manifold innovations and evils generally

contained and particularly mentioned in our late

supplications, complaints, and protestations, do hereby

profess, and before God, His angels and the world, solemnly

declare, that with our whole hearts we agree and resolve all

the days of our life constantly to adhere unto and to defend

the aforesaid true religion, and forbearing the practice of

all novations already introduced in the matters of the worship

of God, or approbation of the corruptions of the public

government of the Kirk, or civil places and power of kirkmen

till they be tried and allowed in free assemblies and in

Parliaments, to labour by all means lawful to recover the

purity and liberty of the Gospel as it was established and

professed before the aforesaid novations; and because, after

due examination, we plainly perceive and undoubtedly believe

that the innovations and evils contained in our supplications,

complaints and protestations have no warrant of the Word of

God, are contrary to the articles of the aforesaid

confessions, to the intention and meaning of the blessed

reformers of religion in this land, to the above-written Acts

of Parliament, and do sensibly tend to the reestablishing of

the popish religion and tyranny, and to the subversion and

ruin of the true reformed religion, and of our liberties, laws

and estates; we also declare that the aforesaid confessions

are to be interpreted, and ought to be understood of the

aforesaid novations and evils, no less than if everyone of

them had been expressed in the aforesaid confessions; and that

we are obliged to detest and abhor them, amongst other

particular heads of papistry abjured therein.

{2867}

And therefore from the knowledge and conscience of our duty to

God, to our King and country, without any worldly respect or

inducement so far as human infirmity will suffer, wishing a

further measure of the grace of God for this effect, we

promise and swear by the great name of the Lord our God, to

continue in the profession and obedience of the aforesaid

religion; that we shall defend the same, and resist all these

contrary errors and corruptions according to our vocation, and

to the utmost of that power that God hath put into our hands,

all the days of our life. And in like manner, with the same

heart we declare before God and men, that we have no intention

or desire to attempt anything that may turn to the dishonour

of God or the diminution of the King's greatness and

authority; but on the contrary we promise and swear that we

shall to the utmost of our power, with our means and lives,

stand to the defence of our dread Sovereign the King's

Majesty, his person and authority, in the defence and

preservation of the aforesaid true religion, liberties and

laws of the kingdom; as also to the mutual defence and

assistance everyone of us of another, in the same cause of

maintaining the true religion and His Majesty's authority,

with our best counsels, our bodies, means and whole power,

against all sorts of persons whatsoever; so that whatsoever

shall be done to the least of us for that cause shall be taken

as done to us all in general, and to everyone of us in

particular; and that we shall neither directly or indirectly

suffer ourselves to be divided or withdrawn by whatsoever

suggestion, combination, allurement or terror from this

blessed and loyal conjunction; nor shall cast in any let or

impediment that may stay or hinder any such resolution as by

common consent shall be found to conduce for so good ends; but

on the contrary shall by all lawful means labour to further

and promote the same; and if any such dangerous and divisive

motion be made to us by word or writ, we and everyone of us

shall either suppress it or (if need be) shall incontinently

make the same known, that it may be timously obviated. Neither

do we fear the foul aspersions of rebellion, combination or

what else our adversaries from their craft and malice would

put upon us, seeing what we do is so well warranted, and

ariseth from an unfeigned desire to maintain the true worship

of God, the majesty of our King, and the peace of the kingdom

for the common happiness of ourselves and posterity. And

because we cannot look for a blessing from God upon our

proceedings, except with our profession and subscription, we

join such a life and conversation as beseemeth Christians who

have renewed their covenant with God: we therefore faithfully

promise, for ourselves, our followers, and all other under us,

both in public, in our particular families and personal

carriage, to endeavour to keep ourselves within the bounds of

Christian liberty, and to be good examples to others of all

godliness, soberness and righteousness, and of every duty we

owe to God and man; and that this our union and conjunction

may be observed without violation we call the living God, the

searcher of our hearts to witness, who knoweth this to be our

sincere desire and unfeigned resolution, as we shall answer to

Jesus Christ in the great day, and under the pain of God's

everlasting wrath, and of infamy, and of loss of all honour

and respect in this world; most humbly beseeching the Lord to

strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless

our desires and proceedings with a happy success, that

religion and righteousness may flourish in the land, to the

glory of God, the honour of our King, and peace and comfort of

us all.' In witness whereof we have subscribed with our hands

all the premises, &c."

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

The First Bishops' War.

In November, 1638, a General Assembly was convened at Glasgow,

with the consent of the king, and was opened by the Marquis of

Hamilton as Royal Commissioner. But when the Assembly took in

hand the trial of the bishops, Hamilton withdrew and ordered

the members to disperse. They paid no heed to the order, but

deposed the bishops and excommunicated eight of them. "The

Canons and the Liturgy were then rejected, and all acts of the

Assemblies held since 1606 were annulled. In the North, where

Huntly was the King's lieutenant, the Covenant had not been

received, and the Tables resolved to enforce it with the

sword. Scotland was now full of trained soldiers just come

back from Germany, where they had learnt to fight in the

Thirty Years' war, and as plenty of money had been collected

among the Covenanters, an army was easily raised. Their banner

bore the motto, 'For Religion, the Covenant, and the Country,'

and their leader was James Graham, Earl of Montrose, one of

the most zealous among the champions of the cause. … While

Montrose had been thus busy for the Covenant in the North, the

King had been making ready to put down his rebellious Scottish

subjects with the sword. Early in May a fleet entered the

Forth under the command of Hamilton. But the Tables took

possession of the strongholds, and seized the ammunition which

had been laid in for the King. They then raised another army

of 22,000 foot and 1,200 horse, and placed at its head

Alexander Leslie, a veteran trained in the German war. Their

army they sent southwards to meet the English host which the

King was bringing to reduce Scotland. The two armies faced

each other on opposite banks of the Tweed. The Scots were

skilfully posted on Dunse Law, a hill commanding the Northern

road. To pass them without fighting was impossible, and to

fight would have been almost certain defeat. The King seeing

this agreed to treat. By a treaty called the Pacification of

Berwick, it was settled that the questions at issue between

the King and the Covenanters should be put to a free Assembly,

that both armies should be disbanded, and that the strongholds

should be restored to the King (June 9, 1639). The Assembly

which met at Edinburgh repeated and approved all that had been

done at Glasgow. When the Estates met for the first time in

the New Parliament-house, June 2, 1640, they went still

further, for they not only confirmed the Acts of the

Assemblies, but ordered every one to sign the Covenant under

pain of civil penalties.

{2868}

Now for the first time they acted in open defiance of the

King, to whom hitherto they had professed the greatest loyalty

and submission. Three times had they been adjourned by the

King, who had also refused to see the Commissioners whom they

sent up to London. Now they met in spite of him, and, as in

former times of troubles and difficulties, they appealed to

France for help. When this intrigue with the French was found

out, the Lord Loudon, one of their Commissioners, was sent to

the Tower, and the English Parliament was summoned to vote

supplies for putting down the Scots by force of arms."

M. Macarthur,

History of Scotland,

chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

S. R. Gardiner,

History of England, 1603-1641,

chapters 88-89 (volume 9).

D. Masson,

Life of John Milton,

volume 2, book 1, chapter 1.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1640.

The Second Bishops' War.-

Invasion of England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1643.

The Solemn League and Covenant with the English Parliament.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

The exploits of Montrose.

At the beginning of the conflict between Charles I. and the

Covenanters, James Graham, the brilliant and accomplished Earl

of Montrose, attached himself to the latter, but soon deserted

their cause and gave himself with great earnestness to that of

the court. For his reward, he was raised to the dignity of

Marquis of Montrose. After the great defeat of Prince Rupert

at Marston Moor, Montrose obtained a commission to raise

forces among the Highlanders and proved to be a remarkably

successful leader of these wild warriors. Along with his

Highlanders he incorporated a body of still wilder Celts,

received from Ireland. On the 1st of September, 1644, Montrose

attacked an army of the Covenanters, 6,000 foot and horse, at

Tippermuir, "totally routed them, and took their artillery and

baggage, without losing a man. Perth immediately surrendered

to Montrose, and he had some further successes; but threatened

by a superior force under the Marquis of Argyll, he retreated

northwards into Badenoch, and thence sweeping down into

Argyllshire, he mercilessly ravaged the country of the

Campbells. Exasperated with the devastation of his estates,

Argyll marched against Montrose, who, not waiting to be

attacked, surprised the army of the Covenanters at Inverlochy,

2d February, 1645, and totally defeated them, no fewer than

1,500 of the clan Campbell perishing in the battle, while

Montrose lost only four or five men. Brilliant as were these

victories, they had no abiding influence in quenching this

terrible civil war. It was a game of winning and losing; and

looking to the fact that the Scotch generally took the side of

the Covenant, the struggle was almost hopeless. Still Montrose

was undaunted. After the Inverlochy affair, he went southwards

through Elgin and Banff into Aberdeenshire, carrying

everything before him. Major-general Baillie, a second-rate

Covenanting commander, and his lieutenant, General Hurry, were

at Brechin, with a force to oppose him; but Montrose, by a

dexterous movement, eluded them, captured and pillaged the

city of Dundee, and escaped safely into the Grampians. On the

4th May, he attacked, and by extraordinary generalship routed

Hurry at Auldearn, near Nairn. After enjoying a short respite

with his fierce veterans in Badenoch, he again issued from his

wilds, and inflicted a still more disastrous defeat on

Baillie, at Alford, in Aberdeenshire, July 2. There was now

nothing to prevent his march south, and he set out with a

force of from 5,000 to 6,000 men." Overtaken by Baillie at

Kilsyth, he once more defeated that commander overwhelmingly.

"The number of slain was upwards of 6,000, with very few

killed on the side of the royalists. The victory so effected,

15th August 1645, was the greatest Montrose ever gained. His

triumph was complete, for the victory of Kilsyth put him in

possession of the whole of Scotland. The government of the

country was broken up; every organ of the recent

administration, civil and ecclesiastical, at once vanished.

The conqueror was hailed as 'the great Marquis of Montrose.'

Glasgow yielded him tribute and homage; counties and burghs

compounded for mercy. The city of Edinburgh humbly deprecated

his vengeance, and implored his pardon and forgiveness." But,

if the conquest of Scotland was complete for the moment, it

came too late. The battle of Naseby had been fought two months

before the battle of Kilsyth, and the king's cause was lost.

It was in vain that Charles sent to his brilliant champion of

the north a commission as Lieutenant-governor of Scotland.

Montrose's army melted away so rapidly that when, in

September, he marched south, leading his forlorn hope to the

help of the king in England, he had but 700 foot and 200

mounted gentlemen. The small force was intercepted and

surprised at Philiphaugh (September 13, 1645) by Leslie, with

4,000 horse. Montrose, after fighting with vain obstinacy

until no more fighting could be done, made his escape, with a

few followers. Most of his troops, taken prisoners, were

massacred a few days afterwards, cold-bloodedly, in the

courtyard of Newark Castle; and the deed is said to have been

due, not to military, but to clerical malignity.

W. Chambers,

Stories of Old Families,

pages 206-217.

ALSO in:

M. Napier,

Montrose and the Covenanters.

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapter 73 (volume 7).

Lady V. Greville,

Montrose.

P. Bayne,

The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution,

chapter 7.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.

Flight of King Charles to the Scots army

and his surrender to the English Parliament.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1648.

Royalist invasion of England and Battle of Preston.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (APRIL-AUGUST).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (MARCH-JULY).

Scottish loyalty revived.

Charles II. accepted as a "Covenant King."

"The Scots had begun the great movement whose object was at

once to resist the tyranny of the Stuarts and the tyranny of

Rome, and which was destined to result in incalculable

consequences for Europe. But now they retraced their steps,

and put themselves in opposition to the Commonwealth of

England. They wanted a leader. 'With Oliver Cromwell born a

Scotchman,' says Carlyle; 'with a Hero King and a unanimous

Hero Nation at his back, it might have been far otherwise.

With Oliver born Scotch, one sees not but the whole world

might have become Puritan.' Without shutting our eyes to the

truth there may be in this pas·sage, we find the cause of this

northern war elsewhere. In spiritual things the Scots

acknowledged Jesus Christ as their king; in temporal, they

recognized Charles II.

{2869}

They had no wish that the latter should usurp the kingdom of

the former; but they also had no desire that Cromwell should

seize upon the Stuarts' throne. They possessed a double

loyalty—one towards the heavenly king, and another to their

earthly sovereign. They had cast off the abuses of the latter,

but not the monarchy itself. They accordingly invited the

prince, who was then in Holland, to come to Scotland, and take

possession of his kingdom. … Charles at this time was

conniving at Montrose, who was spreading desolation throughout

Scotland; and the young king hoped by his means to recover a

throne without having to take upon himself any embarrassing

engagement. But when the marquis was defeated, he determined

to surrender to the Scottish parliament. One circumstance had

nearly caused his ruin. Among Montrose's papers was found a

commission from the king, giving him authority to levy troops

and subdue the country by force of arms. The indignant

parliament immediately recalled their commissioner from

Holland; but the individual to whom the order was addressed

treacherously concealed the document from his colleagues, and

by showing it to none but the prince, gave him to understand

that he could no longer safely temporize. Charles being thus

convinced hurried on board, and set sail for Scotland,

attended by a train of unprincipled men. The most serious

thinkers in the nation saw that they could expect little else

from him than duplicity, treachery, and licentiousness. It has

been said that the Scotch compelled Charles to adopt their

detested Covenant voluntarily. Most certainly the political

leaders cannot be entirely exculpated of this charge; but it

was not so with the religious part of the government. When he

declared his readiness to sign that deed on board the ship,

even before he landed, Livingston, who doubted his sincerity,

begged him to wait until he had reached Scotland, and given

satisfactory proofs of his good faith. But it was all to no

effect. … If Charles Stuart had thought of ascending his

native throne only, Cromwell and the English would have

remained quiet; but he aimed at the recovery of the three

kingdoms, and the Scotch were disposed to aid him. Oliver

immediately saw the magnitude of the danger which threatened

the religion, liberty, and morals of England, and did not

hesitate."

J. H. Merle d'Aubigne,

The Protector,

chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

A. Bisset,

Omitted Chapters of the History of England,

volume 1, chapter 5.

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapter 75 (volume 7).

P. Bayne,

The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution,

chapter 6.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (September).

Cromwell's victory at Dunbar.

War with Scotland having been determined upon by the English

Council of State, and Fairfax having declined the command,

Cromwell was recalled from Ireland to head the army. "He

passed the Tweed with an army of 16,000 men on the 16th of

July. The Scots had placed themselves under the command of the

old Earl of Leven and of David Leslie. As yet their army was a

purely Covenanting one. By an act of the Scotch Church, called

the Act of Classes, all known Malignants, and the Engagers (as

those men were called who had joined Hamilton's insurrection),

had been removed from the army. The country between the Tweed

and Edinburgh had been wasted; and the inhabitants, terrified

by ridiculous stories of the English cruelty, had taken

flight; but Cromwell's army, marching by the coast, was

supplied by the fleet. He thus reached the immediate

neighbourhood of Edinburgh; but Leslie skilfully availed

himself of the advantages of the ground and refused to be

brought to an engagement. It became necessary for Cromwell to

withdraw towards his supplies. He fell back to Dunbar, which

lies upon a peninsula, jutting out into the Firth of Forth.

The base of this peninsula is at a little distance encircled

by high ground, an offshoot of the Lammermuir Hills. These

heights were occupied by the Scotch army, as was also the pass

through which the road to Berwick lies. Cromwell was therefore

apparently shut up between the enemy and the sea, with no

choice but to retire to his ships or surrender. Had Leslie

continued his cautious policy, such might have been the event.

A little glen, through which runs a brook called the Broxburn,

separated the two enemies. Between it and the high grounds lay

a narrow but comparatively level tract. Either army attacking

the other must cross this glen. There were two convenient

places for passing it: one, the more inland one, towards the

right of the English, who stood with their back to the sea,

was already in the hands of the Scotch. Could Leslie secure

the other, at the mouth of the glen, he would have it in his

power to attack when he pleased. The temptation was too strong

for him; be gradually moved his army down from the hills

towards its own right flank, thereby bringing it on the narrow

ground between the hill and the brook, intending with his

right to secure the passage at Broxmouth, Cromwell and Lambert

saw the movement, saw that it gave them a corresponding

advantage if they suddenly crossed the glen at Broxmouth, and

fell upon Leslie's right wing, while his main body was

entangled in the narrow ground before mentioned. The attack

was immediately decided upon, and [next morning] early on the

3rd of September carried out with perfect success. The Scotch

horse of the right wing were driven in confusion back upon

their main body, whom they trampled under foot, and the whole

army was thus rolled back upon itself in inextricable

confusion."

J. F. Bright,

History of England,

period 2, pages 694-696.

"The pursuit extended over a distance of eight miles, and the

total loss of the Scots amounted to 3,000 killed and 10,000

prisoners, while 30 guns and 15,000 stand of arms were taken;

the casualties of the English army did not exceed 20 men. Of

the prisoners, 5,000, being wounded, old men or boys, were

allowed to return home; the remaining 5,000 were sent into

England, whence, after enduring terrible hardships, they were,

as had been the prisoners taken at Preston, sold either as

slaves to the planters or as soldiers to the Venetians. On the

day following that of the battle, Lambert pushed on to

Edinburgh with six regiments of horse and one of foot;

Cromwell himself, after a rest of a few days, advanced on the

capital, which at once surrendered to the victors. The example

thus set was followed by Leith, but Edinburgh Castle still

held out [until the following December] against the English.

The remnant of the Scottish army (but 1,300 horse remained of

the 6,000 who took part in the battle) retired on Stirling,

while Charles himself took up his residence at Perth."

N. L. Walford,

Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,

chapter 8.

ALSO IN:

A. Bisset,

Omitted Chapters of the History of England,

chapter 6.

T. Carlyle,

Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,

part 6.

{2870}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (August).

Charles' rash advance into England.

Cromwell's pursuit and crushing victory at Worcester.

"Lesley was gathering the wreck of his army about him at

Stirling. Charles, with the Scottish authorities, had retired

to Perth. The Presbyterian party became divided; and the

royalists obtained a higher influence in the direction of the

national policy. Charles, without further question of his real

intentions, was crowned at Scone on the 1st of January, 1651.

After a three months' blockade, and then a bombardment,

Edinburgh Castle was surrendered to Cromwell on the 18th of

December. He had little to do to make himself master of

Scotland on the south of the Forth. On the 4th of February the

army marched towards Stirling, but returned without any

result, driven to the good quarters of Edinburgh by terrible

storms of sleet and snow. The Lord-General became seriously

ill through this exposure. But on the 5th of June he was out

again; and at the end of the month was vigorously prosecuting

the campaign. The Scottish army was entrenched at Stirling.

The king had been invited to take its command in person.

Cromwell, on the 2nd of August, had succeeded in possessing

himself of Perth. At that juncture the news reached him that

the royal camp at Stirling was broken up, on the 31st of July;

and that Charles was on his march southward, at the head of

11,000 men, his lieutenant-general being David Lesley. Argyll

was opposed to this bold resolution, and had retired to

Inverary. Charles took the western road by Carlisle; and when

on English ground issued a proclamation offering pardon to

those who would return to their allegiance—exempting from his

promised amnesty Bradshaw, Cromwell, and Cook. He was also

proclaimed king of England, at the head of his army: and

similar proclamation was made at Penrith and other

market-towns. Strict discipline was preserved, and although

the presence of Scots in arms was hateful to the people, they

were not outraged by any attempts at plunder. Charles,

however, had few important accessions of strength. There was

no general rising in his favour. The gates of Shrewsbury were

shut against him. At Warrington, his passage of the Mersey was

opposed by Lambert and Harrison, who had got before him with

their cavalry. On the 22nd of August Charles reached

Worcester, the parliamentary garrison having evacuated the

city. He there set up his standard, and a summons went forth

for all male subjects of due age to gather round their

Sovereign Lord, at the general muster of his forces on the

26th of August. An inconsiderable number of gentlemen came,

with about 200 followers. Meanwhile Cromwell had marched

rapidly from Scotland with 10,000 men, leaving behind him

6,000 men under Monk. The militias of the counties joined him

with a zeal which showed their belief that another civil war

would not be a national blessing. On the 28th of August the

General of the Commonwealth was close to Worcester, with

30,000 men." On the 3d of September (the anniversary of the

victory of Dunbar, won just a year before), he attacked the

royalist army and made an end of it. "'We beat the enemy from

hedge to hedge [he wrote to parliament] till we beat him into

Worcester. The enemy then drew all his forces on the other

side the town, all but what he had lost; and made a very

considerable fight with us, for three hours' space; but in the

end we beat him totally, and pursued him to his royal fort,

which we took,—and indeed have beaten his whole army.' The

prisoners taken at the battle of Worcester, and in the

subsequent flight, exceeded 7,000. They included some of the

most distinguished leaders of the royalists in England and

Scotland. Courts-martial were held upon nine of these; and

three, amongst whom was the earl of Derby, were executed."

Charles Stuart escaped by flight, with his long cavalier locks

cut close and his royal person ignobly disguised, wandering

and hiding for six weeks before he reached the coast and got

ship for France. The story of his adventures—his concealment

in the oak at Boscobel, his ride to Bristol as a serving man,

with a lady on the pillion behind him, &c., &c.,—has been told

often enough.

C. Knight,

Crown History of England,

chapter 27.

ALSO IN:

T. Carlyle,

Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,

part 6, letters 96-124.

Earl of Clarendon,

History of the Rebellion,

book 13 (volume 5).

A. Bisset,

Omitted Chapters of English History,

chapters 10-11 (volume 2).

F. P. Guizot,

History of Oliver Cromwell,

book 2 (volume 1).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (August-September).

The conquest completed by Monk.

When Cromwell followed Charles and his Scottish army into

England, to destroy them at Worcester, he left Monk in

Scotland, with a few thousand men, and that resolute general

soon completed the conquest of the kingdom. He met with most

resistance at Dundee. "Dundee was a town well fortified,

supplied with a good garrison under Lumisden, and full of all

the rich furniture, the plate, and money of the kingdom, which

had been sent thither as to a place of safety. Monk appeared

before it: and having made a breach, gave a general assault.

He carried the town; and, following the example and

instructions of Cromwell, put all the inhabitants to the

sword, in order to strike a general terror into the kingdom.

Warned by this example, Aberdeen, St. Andrew's, Inverness, and

other towns and forts, yielded, of their own accord, to the

enemy. … That kingdom, which had hitherto, through all ages,

by means of its situation, poverty, and valour, maintained its

independence, was reduced to total subjection."

D. Hume,

History of England,

chapter 60 (volume 5).

ALSO IN:

J. Browne,

History of the Highlands,

volume 2, chapter 4.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1654.

Incorporated with England by Protector Cromwell.

In 1654, "Cromwell completed another work which the Long

Parliament and the Barebone Parliament had both undertaken and

left unfinished. Under favour of the discussions which had

arisen between the great powers of the Commonwealth, the

Scottish royalists had once more conceived hopes, and taken up

arms. … The insurrection, though chiefly confined to the

Highlands, descended occasionally to ravage the plains; and

towards the beginning of February, 1654, Middleton had been

sent from France, by Charles II., to attempt to give, in the

king's name, that unity and consistency of action in which it

had until then been deficient.

{2871}

No sooner had he been proclaimed Protector, than Cromwell took

decisive measures to crush these dangers in their infancy: he

despatched to Ireland his second son, Henry, an intelligent,

circumspect, and resolute young man, and to Scotland, Monk,

whom that country had already once recognized as her

conqueror. Both succeeded in their mission. … Monk, with his

usual prompt and intrepid boldness, carried the war into the

very heart of the Highlands, established his quarters there,

pursued the insurgents into their most inaccessible retreats,

defeated Middleton and compelled him to re-embark for the

Continent, and, after a campaign of four months, returned to

Edinburgh at the end of August, 1654, and began once more,

without passion or noise, to govern the country which he had

twice subjugated. Cromwell had reckoned beforehand on his

success, for, on the 12th of April, 1654, at the very period

when he ordered Monk to march against the Scottish insurgents,

be had, by a sovereign ordinance, incorporated Scotland with

England, abolished all monarchical or feudal jurisdiction in

the ancient realm of the Stuarts, and determined the place

which its representatives, as well as those of Ireland, should

occupy in the common Parliament of the new State."

F. P. Guizot,

History of Oliver Cromwell,

book 5 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

J. Lingard,

History of England,

volume 11, chapter 1.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.

The restored King and the restored prelatical Church.

The oppression of the Covenanters.

"In Scotland the restoration of the Stuarts had been hailed

with delight; for it was regarded as the restoration of

national independence. And true it was that the yoke which

Cromwell had imposed was, in appearance, taken away, that the

Scottish Estates again met in their old hall at Edinburgh, and

that the Senators of the College of Justice again administered

the Scottish law according to the old forms. Yet was the

independence of the little kingdom necessarily rather nominal

than real: for, as long as the King had England on his side,

he had nothing to apprehend from disaffection in his other

dominions. He was now in such a situation that he could renew

the attempt which had proved destructive to his father without

any danger of his father's fate. … The government resolved to

set up a prelatical church in Scotland. The design was

disapproved by every Scotchman whose judgment was entitled to

respect. … The Scottish Parliament was so constituted that it

had scarcely ever offered any serious opposition even to Kings

much weaker than Charles then was. Episcopacy, therefore, was

established by law. As to the form of worship, a large

discretion was left to the clergy. In some churches the

English Liturgy was used. In others, the ministers selected

from that Liturgy such prayers and thanksgivings as were

likely to be least offensive to the people. But in general the

doxology was sung at the close of public worship, and the

Apostles' Creed was recited when baptism was administered. By

the great body of the Scottish nation the new Church was

detested both as superstitious and as foreign; as tainted with

the corruptions of Rome, and as a mark of the predominance of

England. There was, however, no general insurrection. The

country was not what it had been twenty-two years before.

Disastrous war and alien domination had tamed the spirit of

the people. … The bulk of the Scottish nation, therefore,

sullenly submitted, and, with many misgivings of conscience,

attended the ministrations of the Episcopal clergy, or of

Presbyterian divines who had consented to accept from the

government a half toleration known by the name of the

Indulgence. But there were, particularly in the western

lowlands, many fierce and resolute men who held that the

obligation to observe the Covenant was paramount to the

obligation to obey the magistrate. These people, in defiance

of the law, persisted in meeting to worship God after their

own fashion. The Indulgence they regarded, not as a partial

reparation of the wrongs inflicted by the State on the Church,

but as a new wrong, the more odious because it was disguised

under the appearance of a benefit. Persecution, they said,

could only kill the body; but the black Indulgence was deadly

to the soul. Driven from the towns, they assembled on, heaths

and mountains. Attacked by the civil power, they without

scruple repelled force by force. At every conventicle they

mustered in arms. They repeatedly broke out into open

rebellion. They were easily defeated and mercilessly punished:

but neither defeat nor punishment could subdue their spirit.

Hunted down like wild beasts, tortured till their bones were

beaten fiat, imprisoned by hundreds, hanged by scores, exposed

at one time to the license of soldiers from England, abandoned

at another time to the mercy of troops of marauders from the

Highlands, they still stood at bay, in a mood so savage that

the boldest and mightiest oppressor could not but dread the

audacity of their despair."

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 2 (volume 1).

The Scottish Parliament by which Episcopacy was established at

the king's bidding is known as the Drunken Parliament. "Every

man of them, with one exception, is said to have been

intoxicated at the time of passing it [October 1, 1662]. Its

effect was that 350 ministers were ejected from their livings.

The apparatus of ecclesiastical tyranny was completed by a

Mile Act, similar to the Five Mile Act of England, forbidding

any recusant minister to reside within twenty miles of his own

parish, or within three miles of a royal borough."

J. F. Bright,

History of England,

period 2, page 729.

"The violence of the drunken parliament was finally shown in

the absurdity of what was called the 'Act Rescissory,' by

which every law that had been passed in the Scottish

parliament during twenty-eight years was wholly annulled. The

legal foundations of Presbytery were thus swept away."

C. Knight,

Crown History of England,

chapter 29.

ALSO IN:

J. Aikman,

Annals of the Persecution in Scotland,

volume 1, books 2-5.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1669-1679.

Lauderdale's despotism.

The Highland host.

"A new Parliament was assembled [October 19, 1669] at

Edinburgh, and Lauderdale was sent down commissioner. … It

were endless to recount every act of violence and arbitrary

authority exercised during Lauderdale's administration. All

the lawyers were put from the bar, nay banished, by the king's

order, twelve miles from the capital, and by that means the

whole justice of the kingdom was suspended for a year, till

these lawyers were brought to declare it as their opinion that

all appeals to Parliament were illegal. A letter was procured

from the king, for expelling twelve of the chief magistrates

of Edinburgh, and declaring them incapable of an public

office, though their only crime had been their want of

compliance with Lauderdale. …

{2872}

The private deportment of Lauderdale was as insolent and

provoking as his public administration was violent and

tyrannical. Justice likewise was universally perverted by

faction and interest: and from the great rapacity of that

duke, and still more of his duchess, all offices and favours

were openly put to sale. No one was allowed to approach the

throne who was not dependent on him; and no remedy could be

hoped for or obtained against his manifold oppressions. … The

law enacted against conventicles had called them seminaries of

rebellion. This expression, which was nothing but a flourish

of rhetoric, Lauderdale and the privy council were willing to

understand in a literal sense; and because the western

counties abounded in conventicles, though otherwise in

profound peace, they pretended that these counties were in a

state of actual war and rebellion. They made therefore an

agreement with some highland chieftains to call out their

clans, to the number of 8,000 men; to these they joined the

guards, and the militia of Angus: and they sent the whole to

live at free quarters upon the lands of such as had refused

the bonds [engaging them as landlords to restrain their

tenants from attending conventicles] illegally required of

them. The obnoxious counties were the most populous and most

industrious in Scotland. The highlanders were the people the

most disorderly and the least civilized. It is easy to imagine

the havoc and destruction which ensued. … After two months'

free quarter, the highlanders were sent back to their hills,

loaded with the spoils and the execrations of the west. … Lest

the cry of an oppressed people should reach the throne, the

council forbad, under severe penalties, all noblemen or

gentlemen of landed property to leave the kingdom. … It is

reported that Charles, after a full hearing of the debates

concerning Scottish affairs, said, 'I perceive that Lauderdale

has been guilty of many bad things against the people of

Scotland; but I cannot find that he has acted anything

contrary to my interest.'"

D. Hume,

History of England,

chapter 66 (volume 6).

ALSO IN:

G. Burnet,

History of My Own Time,

books 2-3.

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapter 78 (volume 7).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (May-June).

The Defeat of Claverhouse at Drumclog.

"The public indignation which these measures [under

Lauderdale] roused was chiefly directed against the Archbishop

of St. Andrews [Dr. James Sharp], who was generally regarded

as their author or instigator, and was doubly obnoxious as the

Judas of the Presbyterian Church." On the 3d of May, 1679, the

Archbishop was dragged from his carriage on Magus Moor, three

miles from St. Andrews, and murdered, by a band of twelve

Covenanters, headed by Hackston of Rathillet, and Balfour of

Burley, his brother-in-law. "The great body of the

Presbyterians, though doubtless thinking that 'the loon was

weel away,' condemned this cruel and bloody deed as a foul

murder; and they could not fail to see that it would greatly

increase the severity of the persecution against their party.

… It was now declared a treasonable act to attend a

conventicle, and orders were issued to the commanders of the

troops in the western district to disperse all such meetings

at the point of the sword. … Towards the end of May

preparations were made to hold a great conventicle on a moor

in the parish of Avondale, near the borders of Lanarkshire.

The day selected for the service was the first of June. No

secret was made of the arrangement, and it became known to

John Graham of Claverhouse, the 'Bloody Claverhouse,' as he

was called, who commanded a body of dragoons, stationed at

Glasgow, for the purpose of suppressing the Covenanters in

that district. … Having been apprised of the intended meeting,

he hastened towards the spot at the head of his own troop of

horse and two companies of dragoons. … The Covenanters had

assembled on the farm of Drumclog, in the midst of a high and

moorland district out of which rises the wild craggy eminence

of Loudoun Hill, in whose vicinity Robert Bruce gained his

first victory. … The preacher, Thomas Douglas, had proceeded

only a short way with his sermon when a watchman posted on an

adjoining height fired his gun as a signal that the enemy was

approaching. The preacher paused in his discourse, and closed

with the oft-quoted words—'You have got the theory; now for

the practice.' The women and children were sent to the rear.

The armed men separated from the rest of the meeting and took

up their position. … Claverhouse and his dragoons were

descending the slope of the opposite eminence, called Calder

Hill, and with a loud cheer they rushed towards the morass and

fired a volley at the Covenanters. It was returned with great

effect, emptying a number of saddles. The dragoons made

several unsuccessful attempts to cross the marsh, and flanking

parties sent to the right and to the left were repulsed with

considerable loss. At this juncture John Nisbet [an old

soldier of the Thirty Years' War] cried out, 'Jump the ditch

and charge the enemy.' The order was instantly obeyed.

Balfour, at the head of the horsemen, and Cleland, with a

portion of the infantry, crossed the marsh and attacked the

dragoons with such fury that they were thrown into confusion

and took to flight, leaving from forty to fifty of their

number dead on the field. Claverhouse himself had his horse

killed under him and narrowly escaped his pursuers. … The

victory at Drumclog roused the whole country. Great numbers

poured in to join the victors, and in a short time their ranks

had swelled to upwards of 6,000 men."

J. Taylor,

The Scottish Covenanters,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

M. Morris,

Claverhouse,

chapter 4.

Sir W. Scott,

Old Morality.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (June).

Monmouth's success at Bothwell Bridge.

"The King was for suppressing the insurrection immediately by

forces from England to join those in Scotland, and the Duke of

Monmouth to command them all. … The Duke of Monmouth, after a

friendly parting with the King, who had been displeased with

him, set out from London, June 18, for Scotland, where he

arrived in three days, with an expedition considered

incredible, and took the command. The Covenanters were 5,000

or 6,000 strong, and had taken up a position six miles from

Hamilton, at Bothwell Bridge, which they barricaded and

disputed the Duke's passage. These Covenanters were

irresolute. An attempt to negotiate was made, but they were

told that no proposal could be received from rebels in arms.

One half hour was allowed. The Covenanters went on consuming

their time in theological controversy, considering 'the Duke

to be in rebellion against the Lord and his people.'

{2873}

While thus almost unprepared, they were entirely defeated in

an action, 22d of June, which, in compliment to the Duke of

Monmouth, was too proudly called the battle of Bothwell

Bridge. Four hundred Covenanters were killed, and 1,200 made

prisoners. Monmouth was evidently favourable to them. … The

Duke would not let the dragoons pursue and massacre those (as

Oldmixon calls them) Protestants. … The same historian adds,

that the Duke of York talked of Monmouth's expedition to

Scotland, as a courting the people there, and their friends in

England, by his sparing those that were left alive; and that

Charles himself said to Monmouth, 'If I had been there, we

would not have had the trouble of prisoners.' The Duke

answered, 'I cannot kill men in cold blood; that's work only

for butchers.' The prisoners who promised to live peaceably

were set at liberty; the others, about 270, were transported

to our plantations, but were all cast away at sea! The Duke of

Lauderdale's creatures pressed the keeping the army some time

in Scotland, with a design to have them eat it up; but the

Duke of Monmouth sent home the militia, and put the troops

under discipline; so that all the country was sensible he had

preserved them from ruin. The Duke asked the King to grant an

indemnity for what was past, and liberty to the Covenanters to

hold their meetings under the King's license; but these

softening measures fell with Monmouth, and rage and slaughter

again reigned when the Duke of York obtained the government of

Scotland."

G. Roberts,

Life of Monmouth,

chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapter 79 (volume 7).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.

The pitiless rule of James II.

The hunting of the Cameronians.

Claverhouse's brutalities.

In 1681 the government of Scotland was committed to the king's

brother, the duke of York (afterwards James II.), as viceroy.

"Succeeding the duke of Monmouth, who was universally beloved,

he was anxious to exhibit as a statesman that capacity which

he thought he had given sufficient proof of as a general and

as a naval commander. In assuming the direction of the affairs

of Scotland, he at first affected moderation; but at a very

early period an occasion presented itself for displaying

severity; he was then pitiless. A few hundred presbyterians,

under the conduct of two ministers, Cameron and Cargill,

having taken arms and declared that they would acknowledge

neither the king nor the bishops, he sent the troops against

them. The insurgents, who called themselves Cargillites and

Cameronians, were beaten, and a great number of them killed.

The prisoners, taken to Edinburgh, were tortured and put to

death. The duke was present at the executions, which he

witnessed with an unmoved countenance, and as though they were

curious experiments."

A. Carrel,

History of the Counter-Revolution in England,

chapter 2.

"Unlike the English Puritans, the great majority of the

Scottish Presbyterians were staunch supporters of monarchy. …

Now, however, owing to the 'oppression which maketh a wise man

mad,' an extreme party arose among them, who not only

condemned the Indulgence and refused to pay cess, but publicly

threw off their allegiance to the King, on the ground of his

violation of his coronation oath, his breach of the Covenant

which he solemnly swore to maintain, his perfidy, and his

'tyranny in matters civil.' A declaration to this effect was

publicly read, and then affixed (June 22d, 1680) to the market

cross of Sanquhar in Dumfriesshire, by Richard Cameron and

Donald Cargill, two of the most distinguished Covenanting

ministers, accompanied by an armed party of about twenty

persons. … These acts of the 'Society men,' or Cameronians, as

they were called after their leader, afforded the government a

plausible pretext for far more severe measures than they had

yet taken against the Hillmen, whom they hunted for several

weeks through the moors and wild glens of Ayr and Galloway."

J. Taylor,

The Scottish Covenanters,

chapter 4.

"He [James II.], whose favourite theme had been the injustice

of requiring civil functionaries to take religious tests,

established in Scotland, when he resided there as Viceroy, the

most rigorous religious test that has ever been known in the

empire. He, who had expressed just indignation when the

priests of his own faith were hanged and quartered, amused

himself with hearing Covenanters shriek and seeing them writhe

while their knees were beaten flat in the boots. In this mood

he became King, and he immediately demanded and obtained from

the obsequious Estates of Scotland, as the surest pledge of

their loyalty, the most sanguinary law that has ever in our

islands been enacted against Protestant Nonconformists. With

this law the whole spirit of his administration was in perfect

harmony. The fiery persecution, which had raged when he ruled

Scotland as vicegerent, waxed hotter than ever from the day on

which he he came sovereign. Those shires in which the

Covenanters were most numerous were given up to the license of

the army. … Preeminent among the bands which oppressed and

wasted these unhappy districts were the dragoons commanded by

John Graham of Claverhouse. The story ran that these wicked

men used in their revels to play at the torments of hell, and

to call each other by the names of devils and damned souls.

The chief of this Tophet, a soldier of distinguished courage

and professional skill, but rapacious and profane, of violent

temper and obdurate heart, has left a name which, wherever the

Scottish race is settled on the face of the globe, is

mentioned with a peculiar energy of hatred. To recapitulate

all the crimes by which this man, and men like him, goaded the

peasantry of the Western Lowlands into madness, would be an

endless task."

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

J. Cunningham,

History of the Church of Scotland,

volume 2, chapter 6.

M. Morris,

Claverhouse.

J. Aikman,

Annals of the Persecution in Scotland,

volume 2, books 5-12.

A Cloud of Witnesses.

J. Howie,

The Scots Worthies.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1685.

Argyll's invasion.

Monmouth's rebellion.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1687.

Declarations of Indulgence by James II.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.

{2874}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.

The Revolution.

Fall of the Stuarts and their Bishops.

Presbyterianism finally restored and established.

"At the first prospect of invasion from Holland [by William of

Orange], James had ordered the regiments on duty in Scotland to

march southward. The withdrawal of the troops was followed by

outbreaks in various parts. In Glasgow the Covenanters rose,

and proclaimed the Prince of Orange king. In Edinburgh riots

broke out. The chapel of Holyrood Palace was dismantled, and

the Romish bishops and priests fled in fear for their lives.

On hearing that William had entered into London, the leading

Whigs, under the Duke of Hamilton, repaired thither, and had

an interview with him. He invited them to meet in Convention.

This they accordingly did, and on January 9, 1689, it was

resolved to request William to summon a meeting of the

Scottish Estates for the 14th of March, and in the interim to

administer the government. To this William consented. The

Estates of Scotland met on the appointed day. All the bishops,

and a great number of the peers were adherents of James. After

a stormy debate, the Duke of Hamilton was elected President.

But the minority (Jacobites) was a large one. … The Duke of

Gordon still held Edinburgh Castle for James, and when the

minority found it hopeless to carry their measures, he

proposed they should with him withdraw from Edinburgh and hold

a rival Convention at Stirling. But these intentions were

discovered, many Jacobites were arrested, and many others,

amongst them Viscount Dundee, escaped to the Highlands. In the

end, the crown was offered to William and Mary on the same

terms on which it had been offered by the English Convention.

The offer was accompanied by a claim of rights, almost

identical with the English declaration, but containing the

additional clause, that 'prelacy was a great and insupportable

grievance.' On April 11, 1689, William and Mary were solemnly

proclaimed at the Cross of Edinburgh. It was high time some

form of government should be settled, for, throughout the

Lowlands, scenes of mob violence were daily witnessed. The

Presbyterians, so long down-trodden, rose in many a parish.

The Episcopal clergy were ejected, in some cases with

bloodshed. The 'rabbling,' as it is called in Scotch history,

continued for some months, until the Presbyterian Church was

reinstated by law as the Established Church of Scotland, in

June 1690."

E. Hale,

The Fall of the Stuarts,

chapter 13.

"Episcopacy was now thrown down; but Presbytery was yet to be

built up. … Months passed away, and the year 1690 began. King

William was quite prepared to establish Presbytery, but he was

most unwilling to abolish patronage. Moreover, he was desirous

that the foundations of the new Church should be as widely

laid as possible, and that it should comprehend all the

ministers of the old Church who chose to conform to its

discipline. But he began to see that some concession was

necessary, if a Church was to be built up at all. On the 25th

of April the Parliament met which was to give us the

Establishment which we still enjoy. Its first act was to

abolish the Act 1669, which asserted the king's supremacy over

all persons and in all causes. Its second act was to restore

all the Presbyterian ministers who had been ejected from their

livings for not complying with Prelacy. This done, the

parliament paused in its full career of ecclesiastical

legislation, and abolished the Lords of the Articles, who for

so many centuries had managed the whole business of the Scotch

Estates, and ordained that the electors of commissioners to

the Estates should take the Oath of Allegiance before

exercising the franchise. The next act forms the foundation of

our present Establishment. It ratifies the 'Westminster

Confession of Faith'; it revives the Act 1592; it repeals all

the laws in favour of Episcopacy; it legalizes the ejections

of the western rabble; it declares that the government of the

Church was to be vested in the ministers who were outed for

nonconformity, on and after the 1st January 1661, and were now

restored, and those who had been or should be admitted by

them; it appoints the General Assembly to meet; and empowers

it to nominate visitors to purge out all insufficient,

negligent, scandalous, and erroneous ministers, by due course

of ecclesiastical process. In this act the Presbyterians

gained all that they could desire, as Presbytery was

established, and the government of the Church was placed

entirely in their hands. By this act, the Westminster

Confession became the creed of the Church, and is recorded at

length in the minutes of the parliament. But the Catechisms

and the 'Directory of Worship' are not found by its side. A

pamphleteer of the day declares that the Confession was read

amid much yawning and weariness, and, by the time it was

finished, the Estates grew restive, and would hear no more. It

is at least certain that the Catechisms and Directory are not

once mentioned, though the Presbyterian ministers were very

anxious that they should. From this it would appear that,

while the State has fixed the Church's faith, it has not fixed

the Church's worship. … The Covenants were utterly ignored,

though there were many in the Church who would have wished

them revived."

J. Cunningham,

Church History of Scotland,

volume 2, chapter 7.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 July).

War in the Highlands.

The Battle of Killiecrankie.

"The duke of Gordon still held out the castle of Edinburgh for

James; and the viscount Dundee [Graham of Claverhouse], the

soul of the Jacobite party in Scotland, having collected a

small but gallant army of Highlanders, threatened with

subjection the whole northern part of the kingdom. Dundee, who

had publicly disavowed the authority of the Scottish

convention, had been declared an outlaw by that assembly; and

general Mackay was sent against him with a body of regular

troops. The castle of Blair being occupied by the adherents of

James, Mackay resolved to attempt its reduction. The viscount,

apprised of the design of his antagonist, summoned up all his

enterprising spirit, and by forced marches arrived at Athol

before him. He was soon [July 27, 1689] informed that Mackay's

vanguard had cleared the pass of Killicranky; a narrow defile,

formed by the steep sides of the Grampian hills, and a dark,

rapid, and deep river. Though chagrined at this intelligence

he was not disconcerted. He despatched Sir Alexander Maclean

to attack the enemy's advanced party while he himself should

approach with the main body of the Highlanders. But before

Maclean had proceeded a mile, Dundee received information that

Mackay had marched through the pass with his whole army. He

commanded Maclean to halt, and boldly advanced with his

faithful band, determined to give battle to the enemy."

Mackay's army, consisting of four thousand five hundred foot,

and two troops of horse, was formed in eight battalions, and

ready for action when Dundee came in view. His own brave but

undisciplined followers, of all ranks and conditions, did not

exceed 3,300 men. "These he instantly ranged in hostile array.

{2875}

They stood inactive for several hours in sight of the enemy,

on the steep side of a hill, which faced the narrow plain

where Mackay had formed his line, neither party choosing to

change its ground. But the signal for battle was no sooner

given, than the Highlanders rushed down the hill in deep

columns; and having discharged their muskets with effect, they

had recourse to the broadsword, their proper weapon, with

which they furiously attacked the enemy. Mackay's left wing

was instantly broken, and driven from the field with great

slaughter by the Macleans, who formed the right of Dundee's

army. The Macdonalds, who composed his left, were not equally

successful: Colonel Hasting's regiment of English foot

repelled their most vigorous efforts, and obliged them to

retreat. But Maclean and Cameron, at the head of part of their

respective clans, suddenly assailed this gallant regiment in

flank, and put it to the rout. Two thousand of Mackay's army

were slain; and his artillery, baggage, ammunition,

provisions, and even king William's Dutch standard, fell into

the hands of the Highlanders. But their joy, like a smile upon

the cheek of death, delusive and insincere, was of short

duration. Dundee was mortally wounded by a musket shot as he

was pursuing the fugitives; he expired soon after his victory,

and with him perished the hopes of James in Scotland. The

castle of Edinburgh had already surrendered to the convention;

and the Highlanders, discouraged by the loss of a leader whom

they loved and almost adored, gradually dispersed themselves,

and returned to their savage mountains, to bewail him in their

songs. His memory is still dear to them; he is considered as

the last of their heroes; and his name, even to this day, is

seldom mentioned among them without a sigh or a tear."

W. Russell,

History of Modern Europe,

part 2, letter 17 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

J. Browne,

History of the Highlands,

volume 2, chapters 6-7.

M. Morris,

Claverhouse,

chapter 11.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 (August).

Cameronian victory at Dunkeld.

After the victory and death of Dundee at Killiecrankie, the

command of his Highlanders had devolved upon Cannon, an Irish

officer. "With an army increased to 4,000 men, he continued to

coast along the Grampians, followed by Mackay; the one afraid

to descend from the mountains, and the other to quit, with his

cavalry, the advantage of the open plains. Returning by a

secret march to Dunkeld [August 21], he surrounded the

regiment of Cameronians, whose destruction appeared so

inevitable that they were abandoned by a party of horse to

their fate. But the Cameronians, notwithstanding the loss of

Cleland, their gallant commander, defended themselves … with

such desperate enthusiasm that the highlanders, discouraged by

the repulse, and incapable of persevering fortitude, dispersed

and returned to their homes."

M. Laing,

History of Scotland, 1603-1707,

book 10 (volume 4).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1692.

The Massacre of Glenco.

A scheme, originating with Lord Breadalbane, for the pacifying

of the Highlanders, was approved by King William and acted

upon, in 1691. It offered a free pardon and a sum of money to

all the chiefs who would take the oath of allegiance to

William and Mary before the first of January, 1692, and it

contemplated the extirpation of such clans as refused. "The

last man to submit to government was Macdonald of Glenco.

Towards the end of December he applied to the governor of Fort

William, who refused, as not being a civil magistrate, to

administer the oaths; but dispatched him in haste, with an

earnest recommendation to the Sheriff of Argyle. From the

snows and other interruptions which he met with on the road,

the day prescribed for submission had elapsed, before he

reached Inverary, the county town. The benefit of the

indemnity was strictly forfeited; the sheriff was moved,

however, by his tears and entreaties, to receive his oath of

allegiance, and to certify the unavoidable cause of his delay.

But his oath was industriously suppressed, by the advice

particularly of Stair the president; the certificate was

erased from the list presented to the privy council; and it

appears that an extensive combination was formed for his

destruction. The earl of Breadalbane, whose lands he had

plundered, and … Dalrymple, the secretary, … persuaded William

that Glenco was the chief obstacle to the pacification of the

highlands. Perhaps they concealed the circumstance that he had

applied within due time for the oaths to government, and had

received them since. But they procured instructions, signed,

and for their greater security, countersigned by the king

himself, to proceed to military execution against such rebels

as had rejected the indemnity, and had refused to submit on

assurance of their lives. As these instructions were found

insufficient, they obtained an additional order, signed, and

also countersigned, by the king, 'that if Glenco and his clan

could well be separated from the rest, it would be a proper

vindication of public justice to extirpate that sect of

thieves.' But the directions given by Dalrymple far exceeded

even the king's instructions. … Glenco, assured of an

indemnity, had remained at home, unmolested for a month, when

a detachment arrived from Fort William, under Campbell of

Glenlyon, whose niece was married to one of his sons. The

soldiers were received on assurance of peace and friendship;

and were quartered among the inhabitants of the sequestered

vale. Their commander enjoyed for a fortnight the daily

hospitality of his nephew's table. They had passed the evening

at cards together, and the officers were to dine with his

father next day. Their orders arrived that night, to attack

their defenceless hosts while asleep at midnight, and not to

suffer a man, under the age of seventy, to escape their

swords. From some suspicious circumstances the sons were

impressed with a sudden apprehension of danger, and discovered

their approach; but before they could alarm their father, the

massacre spread through the whole vale. Before the break of

day, a party, entering as friends, shot Glenco as he rose from

his bed. His wife was stript naked by the soldiers, who tore

the rings with their teeth from her fingers; and she expired

next morning with horror and grief. Nine men were bound and

deliberately shot at Glenlyon's quarters; his landlord was

shot by his orders, and a young boy, who clung to his knees

for protection, was stabbed to death. At another part of the

vale the inhabitants were shot while sitting around their

fire; women perished with their children in their arms; an old

man of eighty was put to the sword; another, who escaped to a

house for concealment, was burnt alive.

{2876}

Thirty-eight persons were thus inhumanly massacred by their

inmates and guests. The rest, alarmed by the report of

musquetry, escaped to the hills, and were preserved from

destruction by a tempest that added to the horrors of the

night. … The carnage was succeeded by rapine and desolation.

The cattle were driven off or destroyed. The houses, to fulfil

Dalrymple's instructions, were burnt to the ground; and the

women and children, stript naked, were left to explore their

way to some remote and friendly habitation, or to perish in

the snows. The outcry against the massacre of Glenco was not

confined to Scotland; but, by the industry of the Jacobites,

it resounded with every aggravation through Europe. Whether

the inhuman rigour or the perfidious execution of the orders

were considered, each part of the bloody transaction

discovered a deliberate, treacherous, and an impolitic

cruelty, from which the king himself was not altogether

exempt. Instead of the terror which it was meant to inspire,

the horror and universal execration which it excited rendered

the highlanders irreconcilable to his government, and the

government justly odious to his subjects."

M. Laing,

History of Scotland, 1603-1707,

book 10 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 18 (volume 4).

J. Browne,

History of the Highlands,

volume 2, chapter 10.

G. Burnet,

History of My Own Time,

book 5 (volume 4), 1692.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1695-1699.

The Darien scheme.

King William urges a Union of the kingdoms.

"The peace of Ryswic was succeeded by an event which had well

nigh created a civil war between Scotland and England. As the

writers of no nation are more marked by grandeur and meanness

of composition in the same person, and the actors in public

life by grandeur and meanness of character in the same person,

than those of England; so the proceedings of the national

assembly of England, the noblest that ever was on earth,

except that of Rome, are often tinctured with a strange

mixture of the great and the little. Of this truth an instance

appeared at this time, in the proceedings of parliament with

regard to the Scots colony of Darien, settled by Mr. Paterson.

… Paterson, having examined the places, satisfied himself that

on the isthmus of Darien there was a tract of country running

across from the Atlantic to the South Sea, which the Spaniards

had never possessed, and inhabited by a people continually at

war with them; … that the two seas were connected by a ridge

of hills, which, by their height, created a temperate climate;

… that roads could be made with ease along the ridge, by which

mules, and even carriages, might pass from the one sea to the

other in the space of a day, and that consequently this

passage seemed to be pointed out by the finger of nature, as a

common centre, to connect together the trade and intercourse

of the universe. … By this obscure Scotsman a project was

formed to settle, on this neglected spot, a great and powerful

colony, not as other colonies have for the most part been

settled, by chance, and unprotected by the country from whence

they went, but by system, upon foresight, and to receive the

ample protection of those governments to whom he was to offer

his project. And certainly no greater idea has been formed

since the time of Columbus. … Paterson's original intention

was to offer his project to England, as the country which had

the most interest in it." Receiving no encouragement, however,

in London, nor in Holland, nor Germany, to which countries he

repaired, he returned finally to Scotland, and there awakened

the interest of several influential gentlemen, including Mr.

Fletcher of Salton, the Marquis of Tweddale, Lord Stair, and

others. "These persons, in June 1695, procured a statute from

parliament, and afterwards a charter from the crown in terms

of it, for creating a trading company to Africa and the new

world, with power to plant colonies and build forts, with

consent of the inhabitants, in places not possessed by other

European nations. Paterson, now finding the ground firm under

him, … threw his project boldly upon the public, and opened a

subscription for a company. The frenzy of the Scots nation to

sign the solemn league and covenant never exceeded the

rapidity with which they ran to subscribe to the Darien

company. The nobility, the gentry, the merchants, the people,

the royal burghs, without the exception of one, most of the

other public bodies, subscribed. Young women threw their

little fortunes into the stock, widows sold their jointures to

get the command of money for the same purpose. Almost in an

instant £400,000 were subscribed in Scotland, although it be

now known that there was not at that time above £800,000 of

cash in the kingdom. … The English subscribed £300,000, and

the Dutch and Hamburghers £200,000 more. … In the mean time,

the jealousy of trade, which has done more mischief to the

trade of England than all other causes put together, created

an alarm in England; and the houses of lords and commons,

without previous inquiry or reflection, on the 13th December

of the year 1695, concurred in a joint address to the King

against the establishment of the Darien company, as

detrimental to the interest of the East India company. Soon

after, the commons impeached some of their own countrymen for

being instrumental in erecting the company. … The King's

answer was 'that he had been ill-advised in Scotland.' He soon

after changed his Scottish ministers, and sent orders to his

resident at Hamburgh to present a memorial to the senate, in

which he disowned the company, and warned them against all

connections with it. … The Scots, not discouraged, were rather

animated by this oppression; for they converted it into a

proof of the envy of the English, and of their consciousness

of the great advantages which were to flow to Scotland from

the colony. The company proceeded to build six ships in

Holland, from 36 to 60 guns, and they engaged 1,200 men for

the colony; among whom were younger sons of many of the noble

and most ancient families of Scotland, and sixty officers who

had been disbanded at the peace." The first colony sailed from

Leith, July 26, 1698, and arrived safely at Darien in two

months. They "fixed their station at Acta, calling it New St.

Andrew, … and the country itself New Caledonia. … The first

public act of the colony was to publish a declaration of

freedom of trade and religion to all nations. This luminous

idea originated with Paterson.

{2877}

But the Dutch East India company having pressed the King, in

concurrence with his English subjects, to prevent the

settlement of Darien, orders had been sent from England to the

governors of the West Indian and American colonies, to issue

proclamations against giving assistance, or even to hold

correspondence with the colony; and these were more or less

harshly expressed, according to the tempers of the different

governors. The Scots, trusting to far different treatment, and

to the supplies which they expected from those colonies, had

not brought provisions enough with them; they fell into

diseases, from bad food, and from want of food. … They

lingered eight months, awaiting, but in vain, for assistance

from Scotland, and almost all of them either died out or

quitted the settlement. Paterson, who had been the first that

entered the ship at Leith, was the last who went on board at

Darien." To complete the destruction of the undertaking, the

Spanish government, which had not moved in opposition before,

now bestirred itself against the Scottish company, and entered

formal complaints at London (May 3, 1699). "The Scots,

ignorant of the misfortunes of their colony, but provoked at

this memorial [of Spain], sent out another colony soon after

of 1,300 men, to support an establishment which was now no

more." This last colony, after gallant fighting and great

suffering, was expelled from Darien by a Spanish expedition,

and "not more than thirty, saved from war, shipwreck, or

disease, ever saw their own country again. … While the second

colony of the Scots were exposing themselves, far from their

country, in the cause, mediately or immediately, of all who

spoke the English language, the house of lords of England were

a second time addressing the King at home against the

settlement itself. … He answered the address of the lords, on

the 12th of February 1699, in the following words: 'His

Majesty does apprehend that difficulties may too often arise,

with respect to the different interests of trade between his

two kingdoms, unless some way he found out to unite them more

nearly and completely; and therefore his Majesty takes this

opportunity of putting the house of peers in mind of what he

recommended to his parliament soon after his accession to the

throne, that they would consider of an union between the two

kingdoms.'"

Sir J. Dalrymple,

Memorials of Great Britain,

part 3, book 6 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

J. H. Burton,

History of the Reign of Queen Anne,

chapter 4 (volume l).

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter. 24 (volume 5).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

Hostility to England.

The Act of Security.

The Scottish Plot.

"This Parliament of 1703 was not in a temper of conciliation

towards England. Glencoe and Darien were still watchwords of

strife. The failure of the negotiations for Union necessarily

produced exasperation. Whilst Marlborough was fighting the

battles of the Allies, the Scottish Parliament manifested a

decided inclination to the interests of France, by removing

restrictions on the importation of French wines. The 'Act for

the Security of the Kingdom' was a more open declaration not

only of the independence of Scotland, but of her disposition

to separate wholly from England—to abrogate, on the first

opportunity, that union of the crowns which had endured for a

century. The Act of Settlement, by which the crown of England

was to pass in the Protestant line to the electress Sophia and

her descendants, was not to be accepted; but, on the demise of

queen Anne without issue, the Estates of Scotland were to name

a successor from the Protestant descendants of the Stuart

line, and that successor was to be under conditions to secure

'the religious freedom and trade of the nation from English or

any foreign influence.' For four months this matter was

vehemently debated in the Scottish Parliament. The Act of

Security was carried, but the Lord High Commissioner refused

his assent. Following this legislative commotion came what was

called in England the Scottish plot—a most complicated affair

of intrigue and official treachery, with some real treason at

the bottom of it. [This Scottish Plot, otherwise called the

Queensberry Plot, was a scheme to raise the Highland clans for

the Pretender, abortively planned by one Simon Fraser.] The

House of Lords in England took cognizance of the matter, which

provoked the highest wrath in Scotland, that another nation

should interfere with her affairs. … When the Scottish Estates

reassembled in 1704 they denounced the proceedings of the

House of Lords, as an interference with the prerogative of the

queen of Scotland; and they again passed the Security Act. The

royal assent was not now withheld; whether from fear or from

policy on the part of the English ministry is not very clear.

The Parliament of England then adopted a somewhat strong

measure of retaliation. The queen was addressed, requesting

her to put Carlisle, Newcastle, Tynemouth, and Hull in a state

of defence, and to send forces to the border. A Statute was

passed which in the first place provided for a treaty of

Union; and then enacted that until the Scottish Parliament

should settle the succession to the crown in the same line as

that of the English Act of Settlement, no native of Scotland,

except those domiciled in England, or in the navy or army,

should acquire the privileges of a natural-born Englishman;

and prohibiting all importations of coals, cattle, sheep, or

linen from Scotland. It was evident that there must be Union

or War."

C. Knight,

Popular History of England,

volume 5, chapter 21.

ALSO IN:

J. H. Burton,

History of the Reign of Queen Anne,

chapters 4 and 7 (volume 1).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

The Union with England.

To avert war between Scotland and England by a complete

political Union of the two kingdoms in one became now the

greatest object of the solicitude of the wiser statesmen on

both sides. They used their influence to so good an effect

that, in the spring of 1706, thirty-one Commissioners on the

part of each kingdom were appointed to negotiate the terms of

Union. The Commissioners held their first meeting on the 16th

of April, and were in session until the 22d of July, when the

Articles of Union agreed upon by them received the signature

of twenty-seven of the English and twenty-six of the Scots. On

the 16th of the following January (1707) these Articles were

ratified with amendments by the Scottish Parliament. The

English Parliament adopted them as amended a month later, and

on the 6th of March the Union was perfected by the royal

assent, given solemnly by the Queen, in presence of the Lords

and Commons of England. "It was agreed that Great Britain

should be the designation of the united island; the name of

Scotland to be merged in the name of North Britain. It was

agreed that the Crosses of St. George and St. Andrew should be

conjoined in the flag of the united kingdom.

{2878}

It was agreed that the arms of the two countries—the three

lions passant and guardant Or, and the lion rampant Or, within

a double tressure flory and counterflory, Gules—should be

quartered with all heraldic honours. It was agreed that the

united kingdom should have a new Great Seal. As regards the

House of Commons, the English party proposed that Scotland

should be represented by 38 members. Even Scottish writers

have observed that if taxation be taken as the measure of

representation, and if it be remembered that the Scots of that

time had asked and been allowed to limit their share of the

Land-tax to one-fortieth of the share of England, it would

follow that, as an addition to the 513 members of Parliament

returned by England, Scotland was entitled to demand no more

than 13. But even 38 seemed by no means adequate to the claims

on other grounds of that ancient and renowned kingdom. The

Scottish Commissioners stood out for an increase, and the

English Commissioners finally conceded 45. The Peers of

England were at this juncture 185 and the Peers of Scotland

154. It was intended that the latter should send

representatives to the former, and the proportion was settled

according to the precedent that was just decided. The 45

members from Scotland when added to the 513 from England would

make one-twelfth of the whole; and 16 Peers from Scotland when

added to the 185 from England would also make about

one-twelfth of the whole. Sixteen was therefore the number

adopted; and the mode of election both of Commoners and Peers

was left to be determined by the Parliament of Scotland,

before the day appointed for the Union, that is the first of

May 1707. By this treaty Scotland was to retain her heritable

jurisdiction, her Court of Session and her entire system of

law. The Presbyterian Church as by law established was to

continue unaltered, having been indeed excluded from debate by

the express terms of the Commission."

Earl Stanhope,

History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,

chapter 8.

ALSO IN:

J. H. Burton,

History of the Reign of Queen Anne,

chapter 7 (volume 1).

Sir W. Scott,

Tales of a Grandfather: Scotland,

series 2, chapters 12.

H. Hallam,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 17 (volume 3).

The text of the Act of Union may be found in the

Parliamentary History,

volume 6, appendix 2.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.

Hostility to the Union.

Spread of Jacobitism.

"In Scotland it [the Union] was regarded with an almost

universal feeling of discontent and dishonour. The Jacobite

party, who had entertained great hopes of eluding the act for

settling the kingdom upon the family of Hanover, beheld them

entirely blighted; the Whigs, or Presbyterians, found

themselves forming part of a nation in which Prelacy was an

institution of the state; the Country party, who had nourished

a vain but honourable idea of maintaining the independence of

Scotland, now saw it, with all its symbols of ancient

sovereignty, sunk and merged under the government of England.

All the different professions and classes of men saw each

something in the obnoxious treaty which affected their own

interest. … There was, therefore, nothing save discontent and

lamentation to be heard throughout Scotland, and men of every

class vented their complaints against the Union the more

loudly, because their sense of personal grievances might be

concealed, and yet indulged under popular declamations

concerning the dishonour done to the country. … Almost all the

dissenting and Cameronian ministers were anti-unionists, and

some of the more enthusiastic were so peculiarly vehement,

that long after the controversy had fallen asleep, I have

heard my grandfather say (for your grandfather, Mr. Hugh

Littlejohn, had a grandfather in his time), that he had heard

an old clergyman confess he could never bring his sermon, upon

whatever subject, to a conclusion, without having what he

called a 'blaud,' that is a slap, at the Union. … The

detestation of the treaty being for the present the ruling

passion of the times, all other distinctions of party, and

even of religious opinions in Scotland, were laid aside, and a

singular coalition took place, in which Episcopalians,

Presbyterians, Cavaliers, and many friends of the revolution,

drowned all former hostility in the predominant aversion to

the Union. … For a time almost all the inhabitants of Scotland

were disposed to join unanimously in the Restoration, as it

was called, of James the Second's son to the throne of his

fathers; and had his ally, the King of France, been hearty in

his cause, or his Scottish partisans more united among

themselves, or any leader amongst them possessed of

distinguished talent, the Stewart family might have

repossessed themselves of their ancient domain of Scotland,

and perhaps of England also." Early in 1708 an attempt was

made to take advantage of this feeling in Scotland, on behalf

of the Pretender, by a naval and military expedition from

France, fitted out by the French king. It was vulgarly

frustrated by an attack of measles, which prostrated the

Stuart adventurer (the Chevalier de St. George) at Dunkirk,

until the English government had warning enough to be too well

prepared.

Sir W. Scott,

Tales of a Grandfather: Scotland,

series 3, chapters 1-2.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

The Jacobite rising.

In 1715 "there were Jacobite risings both in Scotland and in

England. Early in September John Erskine, Earl of Mar—who some

years before had been a Whig and helped to bring about the

Union—raised the standard of rebellion in Braemar, and in a

short time found himself in command of a large Highland army.

But Mar was very slow in his movements, and lingered for six

weeks in Perth. The Duke of Argyle, famous as both a warrior

and a statesman, was sent from London to deal with this

danger; and, going to Stirling, used the time which Mar was

wasting in gathering round him soldiers and loyal Low-landers.

While things stood thus in the far north a few hundred

Jacobites took up arms in Northumberland under Mr. Forster and

Lord Derwentwater. Joining with some Southern Scots raised by

Lord Kenmure, and some Highlanders whom Mar had sent to their

aid, they marched to Preston, in Lancashire. The fate of the

two risings was settled on the same day. At Preston the

English Jacobites and their Scottish allies had to give

themselves up to a small body of soldiers under General

Carpenter. At Sheriffmuir, about eight miles north of

Stirling, the Highlanders, whom Mar had put in motion at last,

met Argyle's little army in battle, and, though not utterly

beaten, were forced to fall back to Perth. There Mar's army

soon dwindled to a mere handful of men. Just when things

seemed at the worst the Pretender himself landed in Scotland.

{2879}

But he altogether lacked the daring and high spirit needful to

the cause at the time; and his presence at Perth did not even

delay the end, which was now sure. Late in January 1716

Argyle's troops started from Stirling northwards; and the

small Highland force broke up from Perth and went to Montrose.

Thence James Edward and Mar slipped away unnoticed, and sailed

to France; and the Highlanders scampered off to their several

homes. Of the rebels that were taken prisoners about forty

were tried and put to death; and many were sent beyond the

seas. Derwentwater and Kenmure were beheaded; the other

leaders of rank either were forgiven or escaped from prison."

J. Rowley,

The Settlement of the Constitution,

book 3, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

J. McCarthy,

History of the Four Georges,

volume 1, chapter 7.

J. H. Jesse,

Memoirs of the Pretenders,

volume 1, chapters 3-4.

Earl Stanhope,

History of England, 1713-1783,

chapters 5-6 (volume l).

Mrs. K. Thomson,

Memoirs of the Jacobites,

volumes 1-2.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1736.

The Porteous Riot.

See EDINBURGH: A. D. 1736.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.

The Young Pretender's invasion.

The last rising of the Jacobites.

"As early as 1744 Charles Edward [known as 'the Young

Pretender'], the grandson of James II., was placed by the

French government at the head of a formidable armament. But

his plan of a descent on Scotland was defeated by a storm

which wrecked his fleet, and by the march of the French troops

which had sailed in it to the war in Flanders. In 1745,

however, the young adventurer again embarked with but seven

friends in a small vessel and landed on a little island of the

Hebrides. For three weeks he stood almost alone; but on the

29th of August the clans rallied to his standard in

Glenfinnan. … His force swelled to an army as he marched

through Blair Athol on Perth, entered Edinburgh in triumph,

and proclaimed 'James the Eighth' at the Town Cross: and two

thousand English troops who marched against him under Sir John

Cope were broken and cut to pieces on the 21st of September by

a single charge of the clansmen at Preston Pans. Victory at

once doubled the forces of the conqueror. The Prince was now

at the head of 6,000 men; but all were still Highlanders. …

After skilfully evading an army gathered at Newcastle, he

marched through Lancashire, and pushed on the 4th of December

as far as Derby. But here all hope of success came to an end.

Hardly a man had risen in his support as he passed through the

districts where Jacobitism boasted of its strength. …

Catholics and Tories abounded in Lancashire, but only a single

squire took up arms. … The policy of Walpole had in fact

secured England for the House of Hanover. The long peace, the

prosperity of the country, and the clemency of the Government,

had done their work. … Even in the Highlands the Macleods rose

in arms for King George, while the Gordons refused to stir,

though roused by a small French force which landed at

Montrose. To advance further south was impossible, and Charles

fell rapidly back on Glasgow; but the reinforcements which he

found there raised his army to 9,000 men, and on the 23rd

January, 1746, he boldly attacked an English army under

General Hawley, which had followed his retreat and had

encamped near Falkirk. Again the wild charge of his

Highlanders won victory for the Prince, but victory was as

fatal as defeat. The bulk of his forces dispersed with their

booty to the mountains, and Charles fell sullenly back to the

north before the Duke of Cumberland. On the 16th of April the

armies faced one another on Culloden Moor, a few miles

eastward of Inverness. The Highlanders still numbered 6,000

men, but they were starving and dispirited. … In a few moments

all was over, and the Stuart force was a mass of hunted

fugitives. Charles himself after strange adventures escaped

[in the disguise of a female servant, attending the famous

Flora Macdonald] to France. In England fifty of his followers

were hanged; three Scotch lords, Lovat, Balmerino, and

Kilmarnock, brought to the block; and forty persons of rank

attainted by Act of Parliament. More extensive measures of

repression were needful in the Highlands. The feudal tenures

were abolished. The hereditary jurisdictions of the chiefs

were bought up and transferred to the Crown. The tartan, or

garb of the Highlanders, was forbidden by law. These measures,

followed by a general Act of Indemnity, proved effective for

their purpose."

J. R. Green,

Short History of the English People,

chapter 10, section 1.

ALSO IN:

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),

History of England, 1713-1783,

chapters 26-29 (volume 3).

R. Chambers,

History of the Rebellion of 1745.

Mrs. K. Thomson,

Memoirs of the Jacobites,

volumes 2-3.

Chevalier de Johnstone,

Memoirs of the Rebellion of 1745.

J. H. Jesse,

Memoirs of the Pretenders.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1779.

No-Popery Riots.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1832.

Representation in Parliament increased by the Reform Bill.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.

The Disruption of the Church.

Formation of the Free Church.

"Lay patronage was … inconsistent with the conception and the

fundamental principles of the Presbyterian Church, and she

opposed and rejected it, and fought against it. It was

abolished shortly after the Revolution of 1688, but again

restored by the British Parliament in 1712, contrary to the

letter and the spirit of the Treaty of Union, and to all

conceptions of a wise policy toward the Scottish nation. … An

internal struggle arose between the party who held firmly to

these sentiments and the new party—called 'the Moderate

party.' … In the middle of the 18th century the opposite views

of the popular and the moderate parties had become distinct.

The chief point of polity in dispute was the settlement of

ministers in parishes against the wishes of the congregations.

Cases of this character were constantly coming before the

presbyteries and general assemblies; and in 1733 it was on

matters arising from such cases that a secession took place. …

In 1773 there were upwards of two hundred dissenting

congregations, besides Episcopalians and Roman Catholics. … As

an attempt to redress the evils involved in patronage, the

popular party proposed, in the assembly of 1833, that when a

majority of a congregation objected to the minister presented

by the patron, the presbytery should not proceed with the

settlement. … It was on this reasonable regulation [passed

into an act, called the Veto Act, by the Assembly of 1834]

that the struggle which issued in the Disruption was fought,

although there were other principles involved in the

conflict."

{2880}

In 1839, a case arising in the parish church of Auchterarder,

in Perthshire, led to a decision in the Court of Session

against the legality of the Veto Act, and this decision, on

appeal, was affirmed by the House of Lords. "For several years

the country rang with the clamour and talk of non-intrusion

and spiritual independence, and the excitement was intense.

Pamphlets, speeches and ballads were circulated through the

kingdom in hundreds of thousands. The engrossing subject

attracted the attention of every household, and many a family

became divided in religious sentiments." Finally, in 1843,

finding no prospect of legislation from Parliament to free the

Church of Scotland from the odious fetters of patronage, the

popular party resolved upon a general secession from it. This

occurred in a memorable scene at the opening of the Assembly,

in Edinburgh, on the 18th of May, 1843. The Moderator of the

body, Dr. Welsh, read a protest against further proceedings in

the Assembly, because of certain acts, sanctioned by the

Government of the country, which had infringed on the

liberties of the constitution of the Church. He then left the

chair and walked out of the church. "Instantly Dr. Chalmers,

Dr. Gordon, and the whole of those in the left side of the

Church, rose and followed him. Upwards of two hundred

ministers walked out, and they were joined outside by three

hundred clergymen and other adherents. Dr. Welsh wore his

Moderator's dress, and when he appeared on the street, and the

people saw that principle had risen above interest, shouts of

triumph rent the air such as had not been heard in Edinburgh

since the days of the Covenant. They walked through Hanover

Street to Canonmills, where a large hall was erected for the

reception of the disestablished assembly. They elected Dr.

Chalmers Moderator, and formed the first General Assembly of

'The Free Church of Scotland.' Four hundred and seventy-four

ministers left the Establishment in 1843; they were also

joined by two hundred probationers, nearly one hundred

theological students of the University of Edinburgh, three

fourths of those in Glasgow, and a majority of those in

Aberdeen. The Disruption was an accomplished fact."

J. Mackintosh,

Scotland,

chapter 19.

"It is not every nation, it is not every age, which can

produce the spectacle of nearly 500 men leaving their homes,

abandoning their incomes, for the sake of opinion. It is

literally true that disruption was frequently a sentence of

poverty, and occasionally of death, to the ministers of the

Church. Well, then, might a great Scotchman of that time [Lord

Jeffrey] say that he was proud of his country, proud of the

heroism and self-denial of which her pastors proved capable.

But well also might a Scotchman of the present time say that

he was proud of the success which Voluntaryism achieved. It

was the good fortune of the Church that in the hour of her

trial she had a worthy leader. Years before, while ministering

to a poor congregation in Glasgow, Chalmers had insisted on

the cardinal doctrine that the poor should be made to help

themselves. He applied the same principle to the Scotch

Church. He … called on his friends around him to 'organise,

organise, organise.' It is not, however, the Church alone

which deserves commendation. The nation supported the Church.

… In the four years which succeeded the disruption, the Free

Church raised £1,254,000, and built 654 churches. Her

ministrations were extended to every district and almost every

parish in the land."

S. Walpole,

History of England from 1815,

chapter 21 (volume 4).

"In 1874 the Patronage Act of 1712 was repealed, but it was

too late to be of much use, and Scottish Presbyterianism

remains split up into different camps. Some of the older

secessions were in 1847 joined together to form the United

Presbyterian Church, mostly distinguished from the Free Church

by its upholding as a theory the 'Voluntary Principle.'"

T. F. Tout,

History of England from 1689,

page 238.

ALSO IN:

T. Brown,

Annals of the Disruption.

R. Buchanan,

The Ten Years' Conflict.

W. Hanna,

Memoirs of Thomas Chalmers,

volume 3, chapter 18

and volume 4, chapters 6-25.

P. Bayne,

Life and Letters of Hugh Miller,

book 5 (volume 2).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1868.

Parliamentary Reform.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1884.

Enlargement of the Suffrage.

Representation of the People Act.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

----------SCOTLAND: End--------

SCOTS,

Deliverance of Roman Britain by Theodosius from the.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.

SCOTT, Dred, The case of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.

SCOTT, General Winfield.

In the War of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);

1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

SCOTT, General Winfield.

The Mexican campaign of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

SCOTT, General Winfield.

Defeat in Presidential Election.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

SCOTT, General Winfield

Retirement from military service.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

SCOTTI.

SCOTS.

See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.

SCOTTISH PLOT, The.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

SCOURGE OF GOD, The.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

SCREW PROPELLER, Invention of the.

See STEAM NAVIGATION: ON THE OCEAN.

SCRIBES, The.

"The Scribes or 'Lawyers,' that is, the learned in the

Pentateuch. … It is evident that in the Scribes, rather than

in any of the other functionaries of the Jewish Church, is the

nearest original of the clergy of later times."

Dean Stanley,

Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,

lecture 44.

"The learned men after Ezra were called 'Sopherim' (singular

'Sopher'), Scribes; because to be a skilled writer was the

first criterion of a man of learning. To transcribe the

authenticated Law as deposited in the temple was one of the

Scribe's occupations. His next occupations were to read,

expound and teach it. The text was without vowel points,

without divisions of words, verses and chapters; hence it was

nearly hieroglyphic, so that the correct reading thereof was

traditional, and had to be communicated from master to

disciple. As the Great Synod legislated by expounding and

extending the Law, these additions also had to be taught

orally."

I. M. Wise,

History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth,

period 1, chapter 4.

SCROOBY, The Separatist Church at.

See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.

SCRUPULA.

See As.

{2881}

SCRUTIN DE LISTE.

A term applied in France to the mode of electing deputies by a

general ticket in each department—that is, in groups—instead

of singly, in separate districts.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

SCUTAGE.

The origin of this tax is implied in its title; it was derived

from the 'service of the shield' (scutum)—one of the

distinguishing marks of feudal tenure—whereby the holder of a

certain quantity of land was bound to furnish to his lord the

services of a fully-armed horseman for forty days in the year.

The portion of land charged with this service constituted a

'knight's fee,' and was usually reckoned at the extent of five

hides, or the value of twenty pounds annually."

K. Norgate,

England Under the Angevin Kings,

volume 1, chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

W. Stubbs,

The Early Plantagenets,

page 54.

SCUTARI: A. D. 1473-1479.

Stubborn resistance and final surrender to the Turks.

See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

SCUTUM.

A long wooden shield, covered with leather, having the form of

a cylinder cut in half, which the Romans are said to have

adopted from the Samnites.

E. Guhl and W. Koner,

Life of the Greeks and Romans,

section 107.

SCYRI, The.

The Scyri were a tribe known to the Greeks as early as the

second century B. C. They were then on the shores of the Black

Sea. In the fifth century of the Christian era, after the

breaking up of the Hunnish empire of Attila, they appeared

among the people occupying the region embraced in modern

Austria,—on the Hungarian borders. They seem to have spoken

the Gothic language.

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and her Invaders,

book 3, chapter 8 (volume 2).

SCYRIS, The dynasty of the.

See ECUADOR: THE ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.

SCYTALISM AT ARGOS, The.

The city of Argos was the scene of a terrible outbreak of mob

violence (B. C. 370) consequent on the discovery of an

oligarchical conspiracy to overturn the democratic

constitution. The furious multitude, armed with clubs, slew

twelve hundred of the more prominent citizens, including the

democratic leaders who tried to restrain them. "This was the

rebellion at Argos known under the name of the Scytalism

(cudgelling): an event hitherto unparalleled in Greek

history,—so unprecedented, that even abroad it was looked upon

as an awful sign of the times, and that the Athenians

instituted a purification of their city, being of opinion that

the whole Hellenic people was polluted by these horrors."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 6, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 78.

SCYTHIANS, The.

"Their name, unnoticed by Homer, occurs for the first time in

the Hesiodic poems. When the Homeric Zeus in the Iliad turns

his eye away from Troy towards Thrace, he sees, besides the

Thracians and Mysians, other tribes, whose names cannot be

made out, but whom the poet knows as milk-eaters and

mare-milkers. The same characteristic attributes, coupled with

that of 'having waggons for their dwelling-houses,' appear in

Hesiod connected with the name of the Scythians. … Herodotus,

who personally visited the town of Olbia, together with the

inland regions adjoining to it, and probably other Grecian

settlements in the Euxine (at a time which we may presume to

have been about 450-440 B. C.)—and who conversed with both

Scythians and Greeks competent to give him information—has

left us far more valuable statements respecting the Scythian

people, dominion, and manners, as they stood in his day. His

conception of the Scythians, as well as that of Hippokrates,

is precise and well-defined—very different from that of the

later authors, who use the word almost indiscriminately to

denote all barbarous Nomads. His territory called Scythia is a

square area, twenty days' journey or 4,000 stadia (somewhat

less than 500 English miles) in each direction—bounded by the

Danube (the course of which river he conceives in a direction

from Northwest to Southeast), the Euxine, and the Palus Mæotis

with the river Tanais, on three sides respectively—and on the

fourth or north side by the nations called Agathyrsi, Neuri,

Androphagi and Melanchlæni. … The whole area was either

occupied by or subject to the Scythians. And this name

comprised tribes differing materially in habits and

civilization. The great mass of the people who bore it,

strictly Nomadic in their habits—neither sowing nor planting,

but living only on food derived from animals, especially

mare's-milk and cheese—moved from place to place, carrying

their families in waggons covered with wicker and leather,

themselves always on horseback with their flocks and herds,

between the Borysthenes [the Dnieper] and the Palus Mæotis

[sea of Azov]. … It is the purely Nomadic Scythians whom he

[Herodotus] depicts, the earliest specimens of the Mongolian

race (so it seems probable) known to history, and prototypes

of the Huns and Bulgarians of later centuries."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 17.

"The Scythians Proper of Herodotus and Hippocrates extended

from the Danube and the Carpathians on the one side, to the

Tanais or Don upon the other. The Sauromatæ, a race at least

half-Scythic, then succeeded, and held the country from the

Tanais to the Wolga. Beyond this were the Massagetæ, Scythian

in dress and customs, reaching down to the Jaxartes on the

east side of the Caspian. In the same neighbourhood were the

Asiatic Scyths or Sacæ, who seem to have bordered upon the

Bactrians."

G. Rawlinson,

Five Great Monarchies: Assyria,

chapter 9, footnote.

For an account of the Scythian expedition of Darius, B. C. 508.

See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, of Athens.

"The Athenian State also possessed slaves of its own. Such

slaves were, first of all, the so-called Scythæ or archers, a

corps at first of 300, then of 600 or even 1,200 men, who were

also called Speusinii, after a certain Speusinus, who first

(at what time is uncertain) effected the raising of the corps.

They served as gendarmes or armed police, and their

guard-house was at first in the market, afterwards in the

Areopagus. They were also used in war, and the corps of

Hippotoxotæ or mounted archers 200 strong, which is named in

the same connection with them, likewise without doubt

consisted of slaves."

G. F. Schömann,

Antiquity of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

A. Boeckh,

Public Economy of Athens: The State,

book 2, chapter 11.

SEARCH, The Right of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.

SEBASTE.

See SAMARIA: REBUILDING OF THE CITY BY HEROD.

{2882}

SEBASTIAN, King of Portugal, A. D. 1557-1578.

SEBASTOPOL:

The Name.

"The Greeks translated the name of Augustus into Sebastos …,

in consequence of which a colony founded by Augustus on the

shores of the Black Sea was called Sebastopolis."

H. N. Humphreys,

History of the Art of Printing,

page 68.

SEBASTOPOL: A. D. 1854-1855.

Siege and capture by the English, French, and Sardinians.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER); and 1854-1856.

SECESH.

See Boys IN BLUE.

SECESSION, AMERICAN WAR OF.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER), and after.

SECESSIONS OF THE ROMAN PLEBS.

During the prolonged struggle of the plebeians of Rome to

extort civil and political rights from the originally

governing order, the patricians, they gained their end on

several occasions by marching out in a body from the city,

refusing military service and threatening to found a new city.

The first of these secessions was about 494 B. C. when they

wrung from the patricians the extraordinary concession of the

Tribunate.

See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

The second was B. C. 449, when the tyranny of the Decemvirs

was overthrown. The third was four years later, on the demand

for the Canuleian Law. The last was B. C. 286, and resulted in

the securing of the Hortensian Laws.

See ROME: B. C. 445-400; and 286.

SECOFFEE INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SECOND EMPIRE (French), The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852, to 1870 (SEPTEMBER).

SECOND REPUBLIC (French), The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, to 1851-1852.

SECULAR CLERGY.

The secular clergy of the monastic ages "was so called because

it lived in the world, in the 'siècle.' It was composed of all

the ecclesiastics who were not under vows in a religious

community. The ecclesiastical members of communities, or

inhabitants of convents, composed the 'regular clergy.'"

E. de Bonnechose,

History of France,

epoch 2, book 1, chapter 6, foot-note.

See, also, BENEDICTINE ORDERS.

SECULAR GAMES AT ROME, The.

The Ludi Sæculares, or secular games, at Rome, were supposed

to celebrate points of time which marked the successive ages

of the city. According to tradition, the first age was

determined by the death of the last survivor of those who were

born in the year of the founding of Rome. Afterwards, the

period became a fixed one; but whether it was 100 or 110 years

is a debated question. At all events, during the period of the

empire, the secular games were celebrated five times (by

Augustus, Claudius, Domitian, Severus and Philip) with

irregularity, as suited the caprice of the emperors. The last

celebration was in the year A. U. 1000—A. D. 247.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 35, with footnote.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 7.

SECURITY, The Act of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

SEDAN, The French Catastrophe at.

See FRANCE; A. D. 1870 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SEDAN: The Sovereign Principality and its extinction.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.

SEDGEMOOR, Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

SEFAVEAN DYNASTY, The.

See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

SEGESVAR, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

SEGNI, The.

The Segni were a tribe in ancient Gaul who occupied a region

on the Rhine supposed to be indicated by the name of the

modern small town of Sinei or Segnei, a small town in the

territory of Namur on the Meuse above Liège.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 4, chapter 8.

SEGONTIACI, The.

A tribe of ancient Britons living near the Thames.

SEGONTIUM.

"One of the most important Roman towns in Wales, the walls of

which are still visible at Caer Seiont, near Caernarvon, on

the coast of the Irish Sea."

T. Wright,

Celt, Roman and Saxon,

chapter 5.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

SEGUSIAVI, The.

One of the tribes of Gaul which occupied the ancient Forez

(departments of the Rhone and the Loire) and extended to the

left bank of the Saone.

Napoleon III.,

History of Cæsar,

book 3, chapter 2, foot-note.

SEISACHTHEIA OF SOLON, The.

See DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.

SEJANUS, The malign influence of.

See ROME: A. D. 14-37.

SELAH.

The city in the rocks—Petra—of the Edomites, Idumeans, or

Nabatheans.

See NABATHEANS.

SELDJUKS, OR SELJUKS, The.

See TURKS: THE SELJUKS.

SELECTMEN.

In 1665 the General Court or Town Meeting of Plymouth Colony

enacted that "'in every Towne of this Jurisdiction there be

three or five Celectmen chosen by the Townsmen out of the

freemen such as shal be approved by the Court; for the better

managing of the afaires of the respective Townships; and that

the Celect men in every Towne or the major parte of them are

heerby Impowered to heare and determine all debtes and

differences arising between pson and pson within theire

respective Townships not exceeding forty shillings,' &c. … The

origin of the title 'Selectmen' it is difficult to determine.

It may possibly be referred to the tun-gerefa of the old

Anglo-Saxon township, who, with 'the four best men,' was the

legal representative of the community, or to the 'probi

homines' of more ancient times. The prefix 'select' would seem

to indicate the best, the most approved, but, as in the

Massachusetts Colony, they were called, as early as 1642.

'selected townsmen,' it is probable that without reference to

any historic type they were merely the men appointed, chosen,

selected from the townsmen, to have charge of town affairs."

W. T. Davis,

Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth,

pages 84-85.

See, also, TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING.

SELEUCIA.

Seleucia, about forty-five miles from Babylon, on the Tigris,

was one of the capitals founded by Seleucus Nicator. "Many

ages after the fall of [the Macedonian or Seleucid Empire in

Asia] … Seleucia retained the genuine characters of a Grecian

colony—arts, military virtue, and the love of freedom.

{2883}

The independent republic was governed by a senate of three

hundred nobles; the people consisted of 600,000 citizens; the

walls were strong, and, as long as concord prevailed among the

several orders of the State, they viewed with contempt the

power of the Parthian; but the madness of faction was

sometimes provoked to implore the dangerous aid of the common

enemy, who was posted almost at the gates of the colony." The

Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, grew up at a distance of only

three miles from Seleucia. "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."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 8.

See, also, CTESIPHON; SELEUCIDÆ; and MEDAIN.

----------SELEUCIDÆ: Start--------

SELEUCIDÆ, The Empire of the.

The struggle for power which broke out after his death among

the successors of Alexander the Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C.

323-316 to 297-280) may be regarded as having been brought to

a close by the battle of Ipsus. "The period of fermentation

was then concluded, and something like a settled condition of

things brought about. A quadripartite division of Alexander's

dominions was recognised, Macedonia, Egypt, Asia Minor, and

Syria (or south-western Asia) becoming thenceforth distinct

political entities. … Of the four powers thus established, the

most important … was the kingdom of Syria (as it was called),

or that ruled for 247 years by the Seleucidæ. Seleucus

Nicator, the founder of this kingdom, was one of Alexander's

officers, but served without much distinction through the

various campaigns by which the conquest of the East was

effected. At the first distribution of provinces (B. C. 323)

among Alexander's generals after his death, he received no

share; and it was not until B. C. 320, when upon the death of

Perdiccas a fresh distribution was made at Triparadisus, that

his merits were recognised, and he was given the satrapy of

Babylon. … Seleucus led the flower of the eastern provinces to

the field of Ipsus (B. C. 301), and contributed largely to the

victory, thus winning himself a position among the foremost

potentates of the day. By the terms of the agreement made

after Ipsus, Seleucus was recognised as monarch of an the

Greek conquests in Asia, with the sole exceptions of Lower

Syria and Asia Minor. The monarchy thus established extended

from the Holy Land and the Mediterranean on the west, to the

Indus valley and the Bolor mountain-chain upon the east, and

from the Caspian and Jaxartes towards the north, to the

Persian gulf and Indian Ocean towards the south. It comprised

Upper Syria, Mesopotamia, parts of Cappadocia and Phrygia,

Armenia, Assyria, Media, Babylonia, Susiana, Persia, Carmania,

Sagartia, Hyrcania, Parthia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Aria,

Zarangia, Arachosia, Sacastana, Gedrosia, and probably some

part of India."

G. Rawlinson,

Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 3.

The original capital of the great Empire of Seleucus was

Babylon; but not satisfied with it he founded and built the

city of Seleucia, about forty miles from Babylon, on the

Tigris. Even there he was not content, and, after the battle

of Ipsus, he created, within a few years, the magnificent city

of Antioch, in the valley of the Orontes, and made it his

royal residence. This removal of the capital from the center

of his dominions to the Syrian border is thought to have been

among the causes which led to the disintegration of the

kingdom. First Bactria, then Parthia, fell away, and the

latter, in time, absorbed most of the Seleucid empire.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapters 58-60 (volumes 7-8).

ALSO IN:

J. P. Mahaffy,

The Story of Alexander's Empire.

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on Ancient History,

volume 3.

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 281-224.

Wars with the Ptolemies and civil wars.

Decay of the empire.

"Antiochus Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to

his father [murdered B. C. 281—see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280]

at the age of 40, received the surname of Soter [Saviour] from

his complete victory [time and place unknown] over the Gauls

at the time when they had crossed the Bosporus [see GALATIA].

… He reigned little more (?) than twenty years. At the

beginning of his reign, Antiochus carried on wars with

Antigonus and Ptolemy Ceraunus [see MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244],

which, however, were soon brought to a close. The war with

Antigonus had commenced as early as the time of Demetrius; it

was a maritime war, in which nothing sufficiently important

was done; both parties felt that it was only a useless waste

of strength, and soon concluded peace. Antiochus was wise

enough altogether to abstain from interfering in the affairs

of Europe. In Asia he apparently enlarged the dominion of his

father, and his magnificent empire extended from the mountains

of Candahar as far as the Hellespont; but many parts of it,

which his father had left him in a state of submission,

asserted their independence, as e. g., Cappadocia and Pontus

under Ariarathes, and so also Armenia and several other

countries in the midst of his empire; and he was obliged to be

satisfied with maintaining a nominal supremacy in those parts.

There can be no doubt that in his reign Bactria also became

independent under a Macedonian king. Even Seleucus had no

longer ruled over the Indian states, which, having separated

from the empire, returned to their own national institutions.

With Ptolemy Philadelphus [Egypt] he at first concluded peace,

and was on good terms with him; but during the latter years of

his reign he was again involved in war with him, although

Ptolemy undoubtedly was far more powerful; and this war was

protracted until the reign of his son Antiochus. … The

Egyptians carried on the war on the offensive against Asia

Minor, where they already possessed a few places, and

principally at sea. The Syrians conquered Damascus, though

otherwise the war was unfavourable to them; they did not carry

it on with energy, and the Egyptians at that time conquered

Ephesus, the coast of Ionia, Caria, Pamphylia, and probably

Cilicia also; the Cyclades likewise fell into their hands

about that period. … On the death of Antiochus Soter (Olymp.

129, 3) [B. C. 252] the government passed into the hands of

his surviving son, … Antiochus Theos, one of the most

detestable Asiatic despots." Peace with Egypt was brought

about by the marriage of Antiochus Theos to Berenice, daughter

of Ptolemy Philadelphus; but in order to marry her he was

obliged to divorce and send away his wife Laudice, or Laodice.

{2884}

After Ptolemy Philadelphus died, however (B. C. 248), Laodice

returned, "recovered her whole influence, and Berenice, with

her child, was sent to Antioch"—the royal residence of

Antiochus then being at Ephesus. The next year Antiochus, who

had been ill for a long time—"in a perpetual state of

intoxication"—died, perhaps of poison. Laodice "caused a waxen

image of him to be placed in a bed, and thus deceived the

courtiers, who were obliged to stand at a respectful

distance," while she, "with her sons, took possession of the

government, and adopted measures to rid herself of Berenice.

But the citizens of Antioch sided with Berenice, and … she for

a time remained in possession of Antioch. … But she was

betrayed by the nobles …; her child was dragged from her arms

and murdered before her eyes; she then fled into the temple at

Daphne, and was herself murdered there in the asylum. The two

brothers, Seleucus Callinicus and Antiochus Hierax, then

assumed the crown; but they seem to have divided the empire,

and Antiochus obtained Asia Minor. … Ptolemy Euergetes, the

third among the Ptolemies, and the last in the series that

deserves praise, now rose in just indignation at the fate of

his unhappy sister (Olymp. 133, 3) [B. C. 246]. He marched out

with all the forces of his empire, and wherever he went the

nations declared in his favour. … 'All the Ionian, Cilician,

and other towns, which were already in arms to support

Berenice,' joined Euergetes, and he traversed the whole of the

Syrian empire. … He himself proceeded as far as Babylon.

Media, Persia, and the upper satrapies, southern Chorassan and

Sistan as far as Cabul, all of which belonged to Syria,

submitted to him. He was equally successful in Asia Minor: the

acropolis of Sardes, a part of Lydia, and Phrygia Major, alone

maintained themselves. Even the countries on the coast of

Thrace … were conquered by the Egyptians. … Seleucus

Callinicus, in the meantime, probably maintained himself in

the mountainous districts of Armenia, in Aderbidjan. 'His

brother, Antiochus, deserted him, and negotiated with

Ptolemy.' In the conquered countries, Ptolemy everywhere

exercised the rights of a conqueror in the harsh Egyptian

manner. … While he was thus levying contributions abroad, an

insurrection broke out in Egypt, which obliged him to return."

He, thereupon, divided his conquests, "retaining for himself

Syria as far as the Euphrates, and the coast districts of Asia

Minor and Thrace, so that he had a complete maritime empire.

The remaining territories he divided into two states: the

country beyond the Euphrates was given, according to St.

Jerome on Daniel (xi. 7 foll.), to one Xanthippus, who is

otherwise unknown, and western Asia was left to Antiochus

Hierax. It would seem that after this he never visited those

countries again. After he had withdrawn, a party hostile to

him came forward to oppose him. … The confederates formed a

fleet, with the assistance of which, and supported by a

general insurrection of the Asiatics, who were exasperated

against the Egyptians on account of their rapacity, Seleucus

Callinicus rallied again. He recovered the whole of upper

Asia, and for a time he was united with his brother Antiochus

Hierax. … Ptolemy being pressed on all sides concluded a truce

of ten years with Seleucus on the basis 'uti possidetis.' Both

parties seem to have retained the places which they possessed

at the time, so that all the disadvantage was on the side of

the Seleucidae, for the fortified town of Seleucia, e. g.,

remained in the hands of the Egyptians, whereby the capital

was placed in a dangerous position. 'A part of Cilicia, the

whole of Caria, the Ionian cities, the Thracian Chersonesus,

and several Macedonian towns likewise continued to belong to

Egypt.' During this period, a war broke out between the

brothers Seleucus and Antiochus. … The war between the two

brothers lasted for years: its seat was Asia Minor. …

'Seleucus established himself in upper Asia, where the

Parthians, who during the war between the brothers had subdued

Sistan and lower Chorassan, were in the possession of Media,

Babylonia and Persia.'" In the end, Antiochus was overcome,

and fled into Thrace. "But there he was taken prisoner by a

general of Euergetes, 'and orders were sent from Alexandria to

keep him in safe custody'; for in the mean time a peace had

been concluded between Seleucus and Ptolemy, by which the

Egyptian empire in its immense extent was strengthened again."

Antiochus Hierax then escaped and took refuge among the Gauls,

but was murdered for the jewels that he carried with him.

"Notwithstanding its successful enterprises, Egypt had been

shaken by the war to its foundations and had lost its

strength. … The empire was already in a state of internal

decay, and even more so than that of Syria. The death of

Euergetes [B. C. 221] decided its downfall. 'But in Syria too

the long wars had loosened the connection among the provinces

more than ever, and those of Asia Minor, the jewels of the

Syrian crown, were separated from the rest. For while Seleucus

was in Upper Asia, Achaeus, his uncle, availed himself of the

opportunity of making himself an independent satrap in western

Asia.' Seleucus did not reign long after this. He was

succeeded by his son Seleucus Ceraunus (Olymp. 138, 2) [B. C.

227] who marched against the younger Achaeus, but was murdered

by a Gaul named Apaturius, at the instigation of the same

Achaeus (Olymp. 130, 1) [B. C. 224]. He had reigned only three

years, and resided in western Asia. He was succeeded by his

younger brother Antiochus, surnamed the Great. … Under

Antiochus the Syrian empire revived again and acquired a great

extent, especially in the south. Although he was not a great

man, his courtiers, not without reason, gave him the surname

of the Great, because he restored the empire. This happened at

the time when Antigonus Doson [king of Macedonia] died.

Achaeus, in Asia Minor, was in a state of insurrection; the

satrap of Media was likewise revolting, and the Syrian empire

was confined to Syria, Babylonia, and Persia. During this

confusion, new sovereigns ascended the thrones everywhere. In

Macedonia, Philip succeeded; in Egypt, Ptolemy Philopator; in

Media, Molon; and in Bactria a consolidated Macedonian dynasty

had already established itself."

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on Ancient History,

lectures 103-104 (volume 3).

{2885}

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 224-187.

The reign of Antiochus the Great.

His early successes.

His disastrous war with the Romans.

His diminished kingdom.

His death.

Antiochus the Great first proved his military talents in the

war against the rebellious brothers Molo and Alexander, the

satraps of Media and Persia (B. C. 220). "He next renewed the

old contest with Egypt for the possession of Cœle-Syria and

Palestine, and was forced to cede those provinces to Ptolemy

Philopator, as the result of his decisive defeat at Raphia,

near Gaza, in the same year in which the battle of the

Trasimene lake (between Hannibal and the Romans] was fought

(B. C. 217). Meanwhile, Achæus, the governor of Asia Minor,

had raised the standard of independence; but after an

obstinate resistance he was defeated and taken at Sardis, and

put to death by Antiochus (B. C. 214). This success in the

West encouraged Antiochus, like his father, to attempt the

reconquest of the East, and with greater appearance at least

of success. But a seven years' war (B. C. 212-205) only

resulted in his acknowledgment of the independence of the

Parthian monarchy (B. C. 205). The same year witnessed not

only the crisis of the Hannibalic War, but the death of

Ptolemy Philopator; and the opportunity offered by the latter

event effectually withdrew Antiochus from direct participation

in the great conflict. The league which he made with Philip

[Philip V., king of Macedonia, who had then just concluded a

peace with the Romans, ending the 'First Macedonian War'—see

GREECE: B. C. 214-146], instead of being a well-concerted plan

for the exclusion of the Romans from Asia, was only intended

to leave him at liberty to pursue his designs against Egypt,

while Philip bore the brunt of the war with Attalus [king of

Pergamus, or Pergamum] and the Romans. During the crisis of

the Macedonian War, he prosecuted a vigorous attack upon

Cilicia, Cœle-Syria, and Palestine, while the Romans hesitated

to engage in a new contest to protect the dominions of their

youthful ward [Ptolemy V. Epiphanes, the infant king of Egypt,

whose guardians had placed him under the protection of the

Roman senate]. At length a decisive victory over the Egyptians

at Panium, the hill whence the Jordan rises, was followed by a

peace which gave the coveted provinces to Antiochus [see JEWS:

B. C. 332-167], while the youthful Ptolemy was betrothed to

Cleopatra, the daughter of the Syrian king (B. C. 198). It

must not be forgotten that, the transference of these

provinces from Egypt, which had constantly pursued a tolerant

policy towards the Jews, led afterwards to the furious

persecution of that people by Antiochus Epiphanes, and their

successful revolt under the Maccabees [see JEWS: B. C.

166-40]. The time seemed now arrived for Antiochus to fly to

the aid of Philip, before he should be crushed by the Romans;

but the Syrian king still clung to the nearer and dearer

object of extending his power over the whole of Asia Minor. …

He collected a great army at Sardis, while his fleet advanced

along the southern shores of Asia Minor, so that he was

brought into collision both with Attalus and the Rhodians, the

allies of Rome. … Though the Rhodians succeeded in protecting

the chief cities of Caria, and Antiochus was repelled from

some important places by the resistance of the inhabitants, he

became master of several others, and among the rest of Abydos

on the Hellespont. Even the conquest of his ally Philip was in

the first instance favourable to his progress; for the

hesitating policy of the Romans suffered him to occupy the

places vacated by the Macedonian garrisons." It was not until

191 B. C. that the fatuity of the Syrian monarch brought him

into collision with the legions of Rome. He had formed an

alliance with the Ætolians in Greece, and he had received into

his camp the fugitive Carthaginian, Hannibal; but petty

jealousies forbade his profiting by the genius of the great

unfortunate soldier. He entered Greece with a small force in

192 B. C., occupied the pass of Thermopylæ, and entrenched

himself there, waiting reinforcements which did not come to

him. Even the Macedonians were arrayed against him. Early in

the following year he was attacked in this strong position by

the Roman consul Manius Acilius Glabrio, Despite the immense

advantages of the position he was defeated overwhelmingly and

his army almost totally destroyed (B. C. 191). He fled to

Chalcis and from Chalcis to Asia; but he had not escaped the

long arm of wrathful Rome, now roused against him. For the

first time, a Roman army crossed the Hellespont and entered

the Asiatic world, under the command of the powerful Scipios,

Africanus and his brother. At the same time a Roman fleet, in

co-operation with the navy of Rhodes, swept the coasts of Asia

Minor. After some minor naval engagements, a great battle was

fought off the promontory of Myonnesus, near Ephesus, in which

the Syrians lost half their fleet (B. C. 190). … On land

Antiochus fared no better. A vast and motley host which he

gathered for the defense of his dominions was assailed by L.

Scipio at Magnesia, under Mount Sipylus (B. C. 190), and

easily destroyed, some 50,000 of its dead being left on the

field. This ended the war and stripped Antiochus of all his

former conquests in Asia Minor. Much of the territory taken

from him was handed over to the king of Pergamum, faithful

ally and friend of Rome; some to the republic of Rhodes, and

some was left undisturbed in its political state, as organized

in the minor states of Cappadocia, Bithynia and the rest. "As

the battle of Magnesia was the last, in ancient history, of

those unequal conflicts, in which oriental armies yielded like

unsubstantial shows to the might of disciplined freedom, so it

sealed the fate of the last of the great oriental empires; for

the kingdom left to the heirs of Seleucus was only strong

enough to indulge them in the luxuries of Antioch and the

malignant satisfaction of persecuting the Jews. All resistance

ceased in Asia Minor; that great peninsula was ceded as far as

the Taurus and the Halys, with whatever remained nominally to

Antiochus in Thrace; and, with characteristic levity, he

thanked the Romans for relieving him of the government of too

large a kingdom. … Never, perhaps, did a great power fall so

rapidly, so thoroughly, and so ignominiously as the kingdom of

the Seleucidæ under this Antiochus the Great. He himself was

soon afterwards slain by the indignant inhabitants of Elymaïs

at the head of the Persian Gulf, on occasion of the plundering

of a temple of Bel, with the treasures of which he had sought

to replenish his empty coffers (B. C. 187), … The petty

princes of Phrygia soon submitted to the power and exactions

of the new lords of Western Asia; but the powerful Celtic

tribes of Galatia made a stand in the fastnesses of Mount

Olympus." They were overcome, however, and the survivors

driven beyond the Halys. "That river, fixed by the treaty with

Antiochus as the eastern limit of Roman power, in Asia, was

respected as the present terminus of their conquests, without

putting a bound to their influence."

{2886}

Eumenes, king of Pergamus, "was justly rewarded for his

sufferings and services by the apportionment of the greater

part of the territories ceded by Antiochus to the

aggrandizement of his kingdom. Pergamus became the most

powerful state of Western Asia, including nearly the whole of

Asia Minor up to the Halys and the Taurus, except Bithynia and

Galatia on the one side, and on the other Lycia and the

greater part of Caria, which went to recompense the fidelity

of the Rhodians; and to these Asiatic possessions were added,

in Europe, the Thracian Chersonese and the city of

Lysimachia."

P. Smith,

History of the World: Ancient,

chapter 27 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

J. P. Mahaffy,

The Story of Alexander's Empire,

chapters 24 and 28.

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 5, chapter 2.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 65.

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 150.

Conquest by the Parthians of Media, Persia, Susiana,

Babylonia and Assyria.

See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 64.

Pompeius in the East.

Syria absorbed in the dominion of Rome.

In 64, B. C. having finished the Mithridatic War, driving the

Pontic king across the Euxine into the Crimea, Pompeius Magnus

marched into Syria to settle affairs in that disordered

region.

See ROME: B. C. 69-63.

He had received from the Roman senate and people, under the

Manilian Law, an extraordinary commission, with supreme powers

in Asia, and by virtue of this authority he assumed to dispose

of the eastern kingdoms at will. The last of the Seleucid

kings of Syria was deprived of his throne at Pompey's command,

and Syria was added to the dominions of Rome. He then turned

his attention to Judæa.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 3, chapters 9-10.

See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

----------SELEUCIDÆ: End--------

SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

SELGOVÆ, The.

A tribe which, in Roman times, occupied the modern county of

Dumfries, Scotland.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

SELIM I.,

Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1512-1520.

Selim II., Turkish Sultan, 1566-1574.

Selim III., Turkish Sultan, 1789-1807.

SELINUS, Destruction of (B. C. 409).

See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

SELJUKS.

See TURKS (SELJUKS).

SELLA CURULIS.

See CURULE CHAIR.

SELLASIA, Battle of.

The last and decisive battle in what was called the Kleomenic

War—fought B. C. 221. The war had its origin in the resistance

of Sparta, under the influence of its last heroic king,

Kleomenes, to the growing power of the Achaian League, revived

and extended by Aratos. In the end, the League, to defeat

Kleomenes, was persuaded by Aratos to call in Antigonus Doson,

king of Macedonia, and practically to surrender itself, as an

instrument in his hands, for the subjugation of Sparta and all

Peloponnesus. The deed was accomplished on the field of

Sellasia. Kleomenes fled to Egypt; "Sparta now, for the first

time since the return of the Hêrakleids, opened her gates to a

foreign conqueror."

E. A. Freeman,

History of Federal Government,

chapter 7, section 4.

ALSO IN:

Plutarch,

Kleomenes.

See, also, GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

SELLI, The.

See HELLAS.

SEMINARA, Battle of (1503).

See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

SEMINOLES.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SEMINOLES,

and MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;

also, FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818, 1835-1843.

----------SEMITES: Start--------

SEMITES, The

"The 'Semitic Race' owes its name to a confusion of ethnology

with philology. A certain family of speech, composed of

languages closely related to one another and presupposing a

common mother-tongue, received the title of 'Semitic' from the

German scholar Eichhorn. There was some justification for such

a name. The family of speech consists of Hebrew and

Phoenician, of Aramaic, of Assyrian and Babylonian, of

Arabian, of South Arabian and of Ethiopic or Ge'ez. Eber,

Aram, and Asshur were all sons of Shem, and the South Arabian

tribes claimed descent from Joktan. In default of a better

title, therefore, 'Semitic' was introduced and accepted in

order to denote the group of languages of which Hebrew and

Aramaic form part. But whatever justification there may have

been for speaking of a Semitic family of languages there was

none for speaking of a Semitic race. To do so was to confound

language and race, and to perpetuate the old error which

failed to distinguish between the two. Unfortunately, however,

when scholars began to realise the distinction between

language and race, the mischief was already done. 'The Semitic

race' had become, as it were, a household term of ethnological

science. It was too late to try to displace it; all we can do

is to define it accurately and distinguish it carefully from

the philological term, 'the Semitic family of speech.' … There

are members of the Semitic race who do not speak Semitic

languages, and speakers of Semitic languages who do not belong

to the Semitic race. … It is questionable whether the

Phoenicians or Canaanites were of purely Semitic ancestry, and

yet it was from them that the Israelites learned the language

which we call Hebrew. … Northern Arabia was the early home of

the Semitic stock, and it is in Northern Arabia that we still

meet with it but little changed. … The Bedawin of Northern

Arabia, and to a lesser extent the settled population of the

Hijaz, may therefore be regarded as presenting us with the

purest examples of the Semitic type. But even the Bedawin are

not free from admixture."

A. H. Sayce,

The Races of the Old Testament,

chapter 4.

"The following is a scheme of the divisions of the Semitic

race. It is based partly upon the evidence afforded by

linguistic affinity, and partly upon geographical and

historical distribution:

A. Northern Semites.

I. Babylonian:

a. Old Babylonian

b. Assyrian

c. Chaldæan

II. Aramæan:

a. Mesopotamian

b. Syrian.

III. Canaanitic

a. Canaanites

b. Phœnicians

IV. Hebraic

a. Hebrews

b. Moabites

c. Ammonites

d. Edomites

B. Southern Semites.

I. Sabæans

II. Ethiopians

III. Arabs.

{2887}

It should be said with regard to the foregoing classification,

that it has been made as general as possible, since it is a

matter of great difficulty to make clear-cut divisions on an

exact ethnological basis. If a linguistic classification were

attempted, a scheme largely different would have to be

exhibited. … Again it should be observed that the mixture of

races which was continually going on in the Semitic world is

not and cannot be indicated by our classification. The

Babylonians, for example, received a constant accession from

Aramæans encamped on their borders, and even beyond the

Tigris; but these, as well as non-Semitic elements from the

mountains and plains to the east, they assimilated in speech

and customs. The same general remark applies to the Aramæans

of Northern Mesopotamia and Syria, while the peoples of

Southern and Eastern Palestine, and in fact all the

communities that bordered on the Great Desert, from the

Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, were continually absorbing

individuals or tribes of Arabian stock. Finally, it must be

remarked that in some sub-divisions it is necessary to use a

geographical instead of a properly racial distinction; and

that is, of course, to be limited chronologically. Thus, for

instance, it is impossible to devise a single strictly

ethnological term for the two great divisions of the Aramæans.

It is now pretty generally admitted that the home of the

Semitic race, before its separation into the historical

divisions, was Northern Arabia. … The historical distribution

of the several families is thus best accounted for. … While

among the Southern Semites the various Arab tribes remained

for the most part in their desert home for thousands of years

as obscure Bedawin, and the Sabæans cultivated the rich soil

of the southwest and the southern coast of Arabia, and there

developed cities and a flourishing commerce, and the nearly

related Ethiopians, migrating across the Red Sea, slowly built

up in Abyssinia an isolated civilization of their own, those

branches of the race with which we are immediately concerned,

after a lengthened residence in common camping grounds, moved

northward and westward to engage in more important

enterprises. The Babylonians, occupying the region which the

Bible makes known to us as the scene of man's creation, and

which historical research indicates to have been the seat of

the earliest civilization, made their home on the lands of the

Lower Euphrates and Tigris, converting them through

canalization and irrigation into rich and powerful kingdoms

finally united under the rule of Babylon. Before the union was

effected, emigrants from among these Babylonians settled along

the Middle Tigris, founded the city of Asshur, and later still

the group of cities known to history as Nineveh. The Assyrians

then, after long struggles, rose to pre-eminence in Western

Asia, till after centuries of stern dominion they yielded to

the new Babylonian regime founded by the Chaldæans from the

shores of the Persian Gulf. The Canaanites, debarred from the

riches of the East, turned northwestward at an unknown early

date, and while some of them occupied and cultivated the

valleys of Palestine, others seized the maritime plain and the

western slope of Lebanon. On the coast of the latter region

they took advantage of the natural harbours wanting in the

former, and tried the resources and possibilities of the sea.

As Phœnicians of Sidon and Tyre, they became the great

navigators and maritime traders for the nations, and sent

forth colonies over the Mediterranean. …

See PHŒNICIA.

Meanwhile the pasture lands between the Tigris and the

Euphrates and between the southern desert and the northern

mountains were gradually being occupied by the Aramæans, who

advanced with flocks and herds along the Euphrates. … While

the bulk of the Aramæans adhered to the old pastoral life

among the good grazing districts in the confines of the

desert, a large number, favoured by their intermediate

position between urban and nomadic settlements, addicted

themselves to the carrying trade between the East and the

West. … This remarkable people, however, never attained to

political autonomy on a large scale in their Mesopotamian

home, to which for long ages they were confined. After the

decline of the Hettite principalities west of the Euphrates

[see HITTITES], to which they themselves largely contributed,

they rapidly spread in that quarter also. They mingled with

the non-Semitic Hettite inhabitants of Carchemish and Hamath,

formed settlements along the slopes of Amanus and

Anti-Lebanon, and created on the northeast corner of Palestine

a powerful state with Damascus as the centre, which was long a

rival of Israel, and even stood out against the might of

Assyria. Thus the Aramæans really acted a more prominent

political part to the west than they did to the east of the

Euphrates, and accordingly they have been popularly most

closely associated with the name 'Syria.' At the same time

they did not abandon their old settlements between the Rivers.

… As the latest of the historical divisions of the race to

form an independent community, the Hebraic family made their

permanent settlement in and about Palestine.

See JEWS.

Their common ancestors of the family of Terah emigrated from

Southern Babylonia more than two thousand years before the

Christian era. It is highly probable that they were of Aramæan

stock."

J. F. McCurdy,

History, Prophecy and the Monuments,

book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

"The Hebrews … divided the country of Aram [between the

[Mediterranean and the Euphrates] into several regions;

1st Aram Naharaim, or 'Aram of the two rivers,' that is, the

Mesopotamia of the Greeks, between the Euphrates and the

Tigris;

2d Aram properly so called, that is, Syria, whose most ancient

and important city was Damascus; and

3d Aram Zobah, or the region in which in later times was

formed the kingdom of Palmyra."

F. Lenormant and E. Chevalier,

Manual of the Ancient History of the East,

book 1, chapter 4.

"The Semitic home is distinguished by its central position in

geography—between Asia and Africa, and between the Indian

Ocean and the Mediterranean, which is Europe; and the rôle in

history of the Semitic race has been also intermediary. The

Semites have been the great middlemen of the world. Not

second-rate in war, they have risen to the first rank in

commerce and religion. They have been the carriers between

East and West, they have stood between the great ancient

civilizations and those which go to make up the modern world;

while by a higher gift, for which their conditions neither in

place nor in time fully account, they have been mediary

between God and man, and proved the religious teachers of the

world, through whom have come its three highest faiths, its

only universal religions."

George Adam Smith,

Historical Geography of the Holy Land,

page 5.

{2888}

"If we ask what the Semitic peoples have contributed to this

organic and living whole which is called civilization, we

shall find, in the first place, that, in polity, we owe them

nothing at all. Political life is perhaps the most peculiar

and native characteristic of the Indo-European nations. These

nations are the only ones that have known liberty, that have

reconciled the State with the independence of the individual.

… In art and poetry what do we owe to them? In art nothing.

These tribes have but little of the artist; our art comes

entirely from Greece. In poetry, nevertheless, without being

their tributaries, we have with them more than one bond of

union. The Psalms have become in some respects one of our

sources of poetry. Hebrew poetry has taken a place with us

beside Greek poetry, not as having furnished a distinct order

of poetry, but as constituting a poetic ideal, a sort of

Olympus where in consequence of an accepted prestige

everything is suffused with a halo of light. … Here again,

however, all the shades of expression, all the delicacy, all

the depth is our work. The thing essentially poetic is the

destiny of man; his melancholy moods, his restless search

after causes, his just complaint to heaven. There was no

necessity of going to strangers to learn this. The eternal

school here is each man's soul. In science and philosophy we

are exclusively Greek. The investigation of causes, knowledge

for knowledge's own sake, is a thing of which there is no

trace previous to Greece, a thing that we have learned from

her alone. Babylon possessed a science, but it had not that

pre-eminently scientific principle, the absolute fixedness of

natural law. … We owe to the Semitic race neither political

life, art, poetry, philosophy, nor science. What then do we

owe to them? We owe to them religion. The whole world, if we

except India, China, Japan, and tribes altogether savage, has

adopted the Semitic religions. The civilized world comprises

only Jews, Christians, and Mussulmans. The Indo-European race

in particular, excepting the Brahmanic family and the feeble

relics of the Parsees, has gone over completely to the Semitic

faiths. What has been the cause of this strange phenomenon?

How happens it that the nations who hold the supremacy of the

world have renounced their own creed to adopt that of the

people they have conquered? The primitive worship of the

Indo-European race … was charming and profound, like the

imagination of the nations themselves. It was like an echo of

nature, a sort of naturalistic hymn, in which the idea of one

sole cause appears but occasionally and uncertainly. It was a

child's religion, full of artlessness and poetry, but destined

to crumble at the first demand of thought. Persia first

effected its reform (that which is associated with the name of

Zoroaster) under influences and at an epoch unknown to us.

Greece, in the time of Pisistratus, was already dissatisfied

with her religion, and was turning towards the East. In the

Roman period, the old pagan worship had become utterly

insufficient. It no longer addressed the imagination; it spoke

feebly to the moral sense. The old myths on the forces of

nature had become changed into fables, not unfrequently

amusing and ingenious; but destitute of all religious value.

It is precisely at this epoch that the civilized world finds

itself face to face with the Jewish faith. Based upon the

clear and simple dogma of the divine unity, discarding

naturalism and pantheism by the marvellously terse phrase: 'In

the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,'

possessing a law, a book, the depository of grand moral

precepts and of an elevated religious poetry, Judaism had an

incontestable superiority, and it might have been foreseen

then that some day the world would become Jewish, that is to

say would forsake the old mythology for Monotheism."

E. Renan,

Studies of Religious History and Criticism,

pages 154-160.

SEMITES:

Primitive Babylonia.

"The Babylonians were … the first of the Semites to enter the

arena of history, and they did so by virtue of the

civilization to which they attained in and through their

settlements on the Lower Euphrates and Tigris. … The

unrivalled fertility of the soil of Babylonia was the result

not only of the quality of the soil, but of the superadded

benefits of the colossal system of drainage and canalization

which was begun by the ingenuity of the first civilized

inhabitants. Of the natural elements of fertility, the

Euphrates contributed by far the larger share. … The …

formations of clay, mud, and gypsum, comprising elements of

the richest soil, are found in such profusion in Babylonia

that in the days of ancient civilization it was the most

fruitful portion of the whole earth with the possible

exception of the valley of the Nile. It was roughly reckoned

by Herodotus to equal in productiveness half the rest of Asia.

… The rise of the Semites in Babylonia, like all other

origins, is involved in obscurity. The earliest authentic

records, drawn as they are from their own monuments, reveal

this gifted race as already in possession of a high degree of

civilization, with completed systems of national religion, a

language already long past its formative period, and a stage

of advancement in art that testifies to the existence of a

wealthy class of taste and leisure, to whom their nomadic

ancestry must have been little more than a vague tradition.

The same records also show this Semitic people to have

extended their sway in Western Asia as far as the

Mediterranean coastland many centuries before Phœnicians or

Hebrews or Hettites came before the world in any national or

corporate form. Questions of deep interest arise in connection

with such facts as these. It is asked: Did the Babylonian

Semites develop the elements of their civilization alone, or

did they inherit that of another race? … In the absence of

direct evidence to the contrary, we are entitled to assume

that the same race who in historical times gave proof of high

mental endowments reached their unique level of intellectual

attainment by a process of self-education. A contrary opinion

is held by many scholars of high rank. I refer to the

well-known theory that the Semitic Babylonians acquired their

civilization from another people who preceded them in the

occupation and cultivation of the country.

See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

{2889}

This hypothetical race is named Sumerian from the term Sumer,

generally, but erroneously, supposed to be the designation of

Southern Babylonia. With this in the Inscriptions is coupled

the name of Akkad, another geographical term properly

connoting Northern Babylonia. This appellation has given rise

to the name 'Akkadian;' used by most of these modern

authorities to designate a supposed subdivision of the same

people, speaking a dialect of the main Sumerian language. …

The Sumerian theory has played a great role in linguistic and

ethnological research during the last twenty years. The

general aspect of the supposed language led at once to its

being classed with the agglutinative families of speech, and

the inevitable 'Turanian' conveniently opened its hospitable

doors. … While we are … obliged, until further light shall

have been cast upon the subject, to assume that the earliest

type of Babylonian culture was mainly of Semitic origin, it

would be rash to assert that people of that race were the sole

occupants of the lower River country in prehistoric times, or

that they received no important contributions to their

development from any outside races. … It … remains for us to

assume it to be possible that an antecedent or contemporanous

people bore a small share with the Semites in the early

development of the country, and that, as a result of their

contact with the stronger race, they bequeathed to it some of

the elements of the surviving religion, mythology, and popular

superstition."

J. F. McCurdy,

History, Prophecy and the Monuments,

book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

"As to the ancient history of Babylon, it is well to learn to

be patient and to wait. The progress of discovery and

decipherment is so rapid, that what is true this year is shown

to be wrong next year. … This is no discredit to the valiant

pioneers in this glorious campaign. On the contrary it speaks

well for their perseverance and for their sense of truth. I

shall only give you one instance to show what I mean by

calling the ancient periods of Babylonian history also

constructive rather than authentic. My friend Professor Sayce

claims 4000 B. C. as the beginning of Babylonian literature.

Nabonidus, he tells us (Hibbert Lectures, page 21), in 550 B.

C. explored the great temple of the Sun god at Sippara. This

temple was believed to have been founded by Naram Sin, the son

of Sargon. Nabonidus, however, lighted upon the actual

foundation-stone—a stone, we are told, which had not been seen

by any of his predecessors for 3,200 years. On the strength of

this the date of 3,200 + 550 years, that is, 3750 B. C., is

assigned to Naram Sin, the son of Sargon. These two kings,

however, are said to be quite modern, and to have been

preceded by a number of so-called Proto-Chaldæan kings, who

spoke a Proto-Chaldæan language, long before the Semitic

population had entered the land. It is concluded, further,

from some old inscriptions on diorite, brought from the

Peninsula of Sinai to Chaldæa, that the quarries of Sinai,

which were worked by the Egyptians at the time of their third

dynasty, say six thousand years ago, may have been visited

about the same time by these Proto-Chaldæans. 4000 B. C., we

are told, would therefore be a very moderate initial epoch for

Babylonian and Egyptian literature. I am the very last person

to deny the ingeniousness of these arguments, or to doubt the

real antiquity of the early civilization of Babylon or Egypt.

All I wish to point out is, that we should always keep before

our eyes the constructive character of this ancient history

and chronology. To use a foundation-stone, on its own

authority, as a stepping-stone over a gap of 3,200 years, is

purely constructive chronology, and as such is to be carefully

distinguished from what historians mean by authentic history,

as when Herodotus or Thucydides tells us what happened during

their own lives or before their own eyes."

F. Max Müller,

On the "Enormous Antiquity" of the East

(Nineteenth Century, 1891).

"Dr. Tiele rejects the name 'Accadian,' which has been adopted

by so many Assyriologists, and is strongly indisposed to admit

Turanian affinities. Yet he is so_far from accepting the

alternative theory of Halévy and Guyard, that this so-called

Accadian, or Sumerian, is only another way of writing

Assyrian, that he can scarcely comprehend how a man of

learning and penetration can maintain such a strange position.

He seems to consider a positive decision in the present stage

of the inquiry premature; but pronounces the hypothesis which

lies at the basis of the Accadian theory, namely, that the

peculiarities of the cuneiform writing are explicable only by

the assumption that it was originally intended for another

language than the Assyrian, to be by far the most probable. He

calls this language, which may or may not have been

non-Semitic, 'Old Chaldee,' because what was later on called

Chaldaea 'was certainly its starting-point in Mesopotamia.'

The superiority of this name to 'Accadian' or 'Sumerian' is

not very obvious, as the name 'Chaldee' is not found before

the ninth century B. C., while the oldest title of the

Babylonian kings is 'king of Sumir and Accad.' In the

interesting account of the provinces and cities of Babylonia

and Assyria, … two identifications which have found much

favour with Assyriologists are mentioned in a very sceptical

way. The 'Ur' of Abraham is generally believed, with Schrader,

to be the 'El Mughair' of the Arabs. Dr. Tiele coldly observes

that this identification, though not impossible, is not

proved. Again, the tower of Babel is identified by Schrader

either with Babil on the left side of the river, or with Birs

Nimrud (Borsippa) on the right side. Dr. Tiele considers the

latter site impossible, because Borsippa is always spoken of

as a distinct place, and was too distant from Babylon for the

supposed outer wall of the great city to enclose it. He also

rejects Schrader's theory that the name Nineveh in later times

included Dur Sargon (Khorsabad), Resen, and Calah, as well as

Nineveh proper. The history is divided into four periods:

1. The old Babylonian period, from the earliest days down to

the time when Assyria was sufficiently strong and independent

to contend with Babylon on equal terms.

2. The first Assyrian period down to the accession of

Tiglath-pileser II. in 745 B. C.

3. The Second Assyrian Period, from 745 B. C. to the Fall of

Nineveh.

4. The New Babylonian Empire.

In treating of the first period, Dr. Tiele makes no attempt to

deal with the Deluge Tablets as a source of historical

knowledge, putting them on one side apparently as purely

mythical. He despairs of tracing Babylonian culture to its

earliest home. The belief that it originated on the shores of

the Persian Gulf seems to him uncertain, but he is not able to

fill the gap with any other satisfactory hypothesis.

Babylonian history begins for him with Sargon I., whom he

regards as most probably either of Semitic descent or a

representative of Semitic sovereignty. He is sceptical about

the early date assigned to this king by Nabunahid, the

thirty-eighth century B. C., and is disposed to regard the

quaint story of his concealment when an infant in a basket of

reeds as a solar myth; but he is compelled to admit as solid

fact the amazing statements of the inscriptions about his

mighty empire 'extending from Elam to the coast of the

Mediterranean and the borders of Egypt, nay, even to Cyprus.'

So early as 1850 B. C., he thinks, the supremacy of Babylon

had been established for centuries."

Review of Dr. Tiele's History of Babylonia and Assyria

(Academy, January 1, 1887).

ALSO IN:

The Earliest History of Babylonia

(Quarterly Review, October, 1894, reviewing

"Découvertes en Chaldée, par Ernest de Sarsec).

{2890}

SEMITES:

The First Babylonian Empire.

"It is with the reign of Hammurabi that the importance of

Babylonia—the country owning Babel as its capital—begins. …

Hammurabi (circ. 2250 B. C.) is the sixth on the Babylonian

list [i. e. a list of kings found among the inscriptions

recovered from the mounds of ruined cities in Mesopotamia].

The great majority of the inscriptions of his long reign of

fifty-five years refer to peaceful works." As, for example,

"the famous canal inscription: 'I am Hammurabi, the mighty

king, king of Ka-dingirra (Babylon), the king whom the regions

obey, the winner of victory for his lord Merodach, the

shepherd, who rejoices his heart. When the gods Anu and Bel

granted me to rule the people of Sumer and Akkad, and gave the

sceptre into my hand, I dug the canal called "Hammurabi, the

blessing of the people," which carries with it the overflow of

the water for the people of Sumer and Akkad. I allotted both

its shores for food. Measures of corn I poured forth. A

lasting water supply I made for the people of Sumer and Akkad.

I brought together the numerous troops of the people of Sumer

and Akkad, food and drink I made for them; with blessing and

abundance I gifted them. In convenient abodes I caused them to

dwell. Thenceforward I am Hammurabi, the mighty king, the

favourite of the great gods. With the might accorded me by

Merodach I built a tall tower with great entrances, whose

summits are high like … at the head of the canal "Hammurabi,

the blessing of the people." I named the tower Sinmuballit

tower, after the name of my father, my begetter. The statue of

Sinmuballit, my father, my begetter, I set up at the four

quarters of heaven.' … Rings bearing the legend 'Palace of

Hammurabi' have been found in the neighbourhood of Bagdad, and

presumably indicate the existence of a royal residence there."

E. J. Simcox,

Primitive Civilizations,

volume 1, pages 282-283.

"The canal to which this king boasts of having given his name,

the 'Nahar-Hammourabi,' was called in later days the royal

canal, 'Nahar Malcha.' Herodotus saw and admired it, its good

condition was an object of care to the king himself, and we

know that it was considerably repaired by Nebuchadnezzar. When

civilization makes up its mind to re-enter upon that country,

nothing more will be needed for the re-awakening in it of life

and reproductive energy, than the restoration of the great

works undertaken by the contemporaries of Abraham and Jacob."

G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,

History of Art in Chaldæa and Assyria,

volume 1, page 40.

"After a reign of fifty-five years, Chammurabi [or Hammurabi]

bequeathed the crown of Babylon and the united kingdoms of

Babylonia to his son Samsu-iluna (B. C. 2209-2180). This

ruler, reigning in the spirit of his father, developed still

further the national system of canalization. … Five kings

after Chammurabi, till 2098 B. C., complete the list of the

eleven kings of this first dynasty, who reigned in all 304

years. The epoch made memorable by the deeds and enterprise of

Chammurabi is followed by a period of 368 years, of the

occurrences of which absolutely nothing is known, except the

names and regnal years of another list of eleven kings

reigning in the city of Babylon. … The foreign non-Semitic

race, which for nearly six centuries (c. 1730-1153), from this

time onward, held a controlling place in the affairs of

Babylonia, are referred to in the inscriptions by the name

Kassē. These Kasshites came from the border country between

Northern Elam and Media, and were in all probability of the

same race as the Elamites. The references to them make them

out to be both mountaineers and tent-dwellers. … The political

sway of the foreign masters was undisputed, but the genius of

the government and the national type of culture and forms of

activity were essentially unchanged. … Through century after

century, and millennium after millennium, the dominant genius

of Babylonia remained the same. It conquered all its

conquerors, and moulded them to its own likeness by the force

of its manifold culture, by the appliances as well as the

prestige of the arts of peace. … The Babylonians were not able

to maintain perpetually their political autonomy or integrity,

not because they were not brave or patriotic," but because

"they were not, first and foremost, a military people. Their

energies were mainly spent in trade and manufacture, in

science and art. … The time which the native historiographers

allow to the new [Kasshite] dynasty is 577 years. … This

Kasshite conquest of Babylonia … prevented the consolidation

of the eastern branch of the Semites, by alienating from

Babylonia the Assyrian colonists. … Henceforth there was

almost perpetual rivalry and strife between Assyria and the

parent country. Henceforth, also, it is Assyria that becomes

the leading power in the West."

J. F. McCurdy,

History, Prophecy and the Monuments,

book 2, chapter 3,

and book 4, chapter 1 (volume 1).

"The Kassites gave a dynasty to Babylonia which lasted for 576

years (B. C. 1806-1230). The fact that the rulers of the

country were Kassites by race, and that their army largely

consisted of Kassite troops, caused the neighbouring

populations to identify the Babylonians with their conquerors

and lords. Hence it is that in the tablets of Tel el-Amarna,

the Canaanite writers invariably term the Babylonians the

'Kasi.' The 'Kasi' or Cush, we are told, had overrun Palestine

in former years and were again threatening the Egyptian

province. In calling Nimrod, therefore, a son of Cush the Book

of Genesis merely means that he was a Babylonian. But the

designation takes us back to the age of the Tel el-Amarna

tablets. It was not a designation which could have belonged to

that later age, when the Babylonians were known to the

Israelites as the 'Kasdim' only. Indeed there is a passage in

the Book of Micah (chapter 5) which proves plainly that in

that later age 'the land of Nimrod' was synonymous not with

Babylonia but with Assyria. The Nimrod of Genesis must have

come down to us from the time when the Kassite dynasty still

reigned over Babylonia. …

{2891}

Nimrod was not satisfied with his Babylonian dominions. 'Out

of that land he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh,

and Rehoboth 'Ir (the city boulevards), and Calah and Resen.'

… The city of Asshur had been long in existence when Nimrod

led his Kassite followers to it, and so made its

'high-priests' tributary to Babylon. It stood on the high-road

to the west, and it is not surprising, therefore, that the

Kassite kings, after making themselves masters of the future

kingdom of Assyria, should have continued their victorious

career as far as the shores of the Mediterranean. We may

conjecture that Nimrod was the first of them who planted his

power so firmly in Palestine as to be remembered in the

proverbial lore of the country, and to have introduced that

Babylonian culture of which the Tel el-Amarna tablets have

given us such abundant evidence."

A. H. Sayce,

The Higher Criticism, and the Verdict of the Monuments,

chapter 3.

It was during the Kasshite domination in Babylonia that Ahmes,

founder of the eighteenth dynasty in Egypt, expelled the

Hyksos intruders from that country; and "his successors,

returning upon Asia the attack which they had thence received,

subjugating, or rather putting to ransom, all the Canaanites

of Judea, Phœnicia, and Syria, crossed the Euphrates and the

Tigris.

See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400.

Nineveh twice fell into their power, and the whole Semitic

world became vassal to the Pharaohs. The influence of Egypt

was real though temporary, but in the reciprocal dealings

which were the result of the conquests of the Tutnes [or

Thothmes] and the Amenhoteps, the share of the Semites was on

the whole the larger. Marriages with the daughters of kings or

vassal governors brought into Egypt and established Asiatic

types, ideas, and customs on the Theban throne. Amenhotep IV.

was purely Semitic; he endeavoured to replace the religion of

Ammon by the sun-worship of Syria. In 1887 were discovered the

fragments of a correspondence exchanged between the kings of

Syria, Armenia, and Babylonia, and the Pharaohs Amenhotep III.

and IV.

See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1500-1400.

All these letters are written in cuneiform character and in

Semitic or other dialects; it is probable that the answers

were drawn up in the same character and in the same languages.

For the rest, the subjugated nations had soon recovered.

Saryoukm I. had reconstituted the Chaldean empire; the

Assyrians, ever at war on their eastern and western frontiers,

had more than once crossed the Upper Euphrates and penetrated

Asia Minor as far as Troad, where the name Assaracus seems to

be a relic of an Assyrian dynasty. The Hittites or Khetas

occupied the north of Syria; and when Ramses II., Sesostris,

desired in the 15th century to renew the exploits of his

ancestors, he was checked at Kadech by the Hittites and forced

to retreat after an undecided battle. The great expansion of

Egypt was stopped, at least towards the north. The Semitic

peoples, on the contrary, were everywhere in the ascendant."

A. Lefèvre,

Race and Language,

pages 205-206.

SEMITES:

The Assyrian Empire.

"According to all appearance it was the Egyptian conquest

about sixteen centuries B. C., that led to the partition of

Mesopotamia. Vassals of Thothmes and Rameses, called by

Berosus the 'Arab kings,' sat upon the throne of Babylon. The

tribes of Upper Mesopotamia were farther from Egypt, and their

chiefs found it easier to preserve their independence. At

first each city had its own prince, but in time one of these

petty kingdoms absorbed the rest, and Nineveh became the

capital of an united Assyria. As the years passed away the

frontiers of the nation thus constituted were pushed gradually

southwards until all Mesopotamia was brought under one

sceptre. This consummation appears to have been complete by

the end of the fourteenth century, at which period Egypt,

enfeebled and rolled back upon herself, ceased to make her

influence felt upon the Euphrates. Even then Babylon kept her

own kings, but they had sunk to be little more than hereditary

satraps receiving investiture from Nineveh. Over and over

again Babylon attempted to shake off the yoke of her

neighbour; but down to the seventh century her revolts were

always suppressed, and the Assyrian supremacy re-established

after more or less desperate conflicts. During nearly half a

century, from about 1060 to 1020 B. C., Babylon seems to have

recovered the upper hand. The victories of her princes put an

end to what is called the First Assyrian Empire. But after one

or two generations a new family mounted the northern throne,

and, toiling energetically for a century or so to establish

the grandeur of the monarchy, founded the Second Assyrian

Empire. The upper country regained its ascendency by the help

of military institutions whose details now escape us, although

their results may be traced throughout the later history of

Assyria. From the tenth century onwards the effects of these

institutions become visible in expeditions made by the armies

of Assyria, now to the shores of the Persian Gulf or the

Caspian, and now through the mountains of Armenia into the

plains of Cappadocia, or across the Syrian desert to the

Lebanon and the coast cities of Phœnicia. The first princes

whose figured monuments—in contradistinction to mere

inscriptions—have come down to us, belonged to those days. The

oldest of all was Assurnazirpal, whose residence was at Calach

(Nimroud). The bas-reliefs with which his palace was decorated

are now in the Louvre and the British Museum, most of them in

the latter. … To Assurnazirpal's son Shalmaneser III. belongs

the obelisk of basalt which also stands in the British Museum.

… Shalmaneser was an intrepid man of war. The inscriptions on

his obelisk recall the events of thirty-one campaigns waged

against the neighbouring peoples under the leadership of the

king himself. … Under the immediate successors of Shalmaneser

the Assyrian prestige was maintained at a high level by dint

of the same lavish bloodshed and truculent energy; but towards

the eighth century it began to decline. There was then a

period of languor and decadence, some echo of which, and of

its accompanying disasters, seems to have been embodied by the

Greeks in the romantic tale of Sardanapalus. No shadow of

confirmation for the story of a first destruction of Nineveh

is to be found in the inscriptions, and, in the middle of the

same century, we again find the Assyrian arms triumphant under

the leadership of Tiglath Pileser II., a king modelled after

the great warriors of the earlier days. This prince seems to

have carried his victorious arms as far east as the Indus, and

west as the frontiers of Egypt.

{2892}

And yet it was only under his second successor, Saryoukin, or,

to give him his popular name, Sargon, the founder of a new

dynasty, that Syria, with the exception of Tyre, was brought

into complete submission after a great victory over the

Egyptians (721-704). … His son Sennacherib equalled him both

as a soldier and as a builder. He began by crushing the rebels

of Elam and Chaldæa with unflinching severity; in his anger he

almost exterminated the inhabitants of Babylon, the perennial

seat of revolt; but, on the other hand, he repaired and

restored Nineveh. Most of his predecessors had been absentees

from the capital, and had neglected its buildings. … He chose

a site well within the city for the magnificent palace which

Mr. Layard has been the means of restoring to the world. This

building is now known as Kouyoundjik, from the name of the

village perched upon the mound within which the buildings of

Sennacherib were hidden. Sennacherib rebuilt the walls, the

towers, and the quays of Nineveh at the same time, so that the

capital, which had never ceased to be the strongest and most

populous city of the empire, again became the residence of the

king—a distinction which it was to preserve until the fast

approaching date of its final destruction. The son of

Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and his grandson, Assurbanipal [long

identified with the Sardanapalus of the Greeks; but Prof.

Sayce now finds the Sardanapalus of Greek romance in a rebel

king, Assur-dain-pal, who reigned B. C. 827-820, and whose

name and history fit the tale], pushed the adventures and

conquests of the Assyrian arms still farther. They subdued the

whole north of Arabia, and invaded Egypt more than once. …

There was a moment when the great Semitic Empire founded by

the Sargonides touched even the Ægæan, for Cyges, king of

Lydia, finding himself menaced by the Cimmerians, did homage

to Assurbanipal, and sued for help against those foes to all

civilization."

G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,

A History of Art in Chaldæa and Assyria,

chapter 1, section 5 (volume 1).

"The power of Assurbanipal was equal to the task of holding

under control the subjects of Assyria at all points. He boasts

of having compelled the king of Tyre to drink sea-water to

quench his thirst. The greatest opposition he met with was in

Elam, but this too he was able to suppress. … Assurbanipal

says that he increased the tributes, but that his action was

opposed by his own brother, whom he had formerly maintained by

force of arms in Babylon, This brother now seduced a great

number of other nations and princes from their allegiance. …

The king of Babylon placed himself, so to speak, at their

head. … The danger was immensely increased when the king set

up by Assurbanipal in Elam joined the movement. It was

necessary to put an end to this revolt, and this was effected

for once without much difficulty. … Thereupon the rebellious

brother in Babylon has to give way. The gods who go before

Assurbanipal have, as he says, thrust the king of Babylon into

a consuming fire and put an end to his life. His adherents …

are horribly punished. … The provinces which joined them are

subjected to the laws of the Assyrian gods. Even the Arabs,

who have sided with the rebels, bow before the king, whilst of

his power in Egypt it is said that it extended to the sources

of the Nile. His dominion reached even to Asia Minor. …

Assyria is the first conquering power which we encounter in

the history of the world. The most effective means which she

brought to bear in consolidating her conquests consisted in

the transportation of the principal inhabitants from the

subjugated districts to Assyria, and the settlement of

Assyrians in the newly acquired provinces. … The most

important result of the action of Assyria upon the world was

perhaps that she limited or broke up the petty sovereignties

and the local religions of Western Asia. … It was … an event

which convulsed the world when this power, in the full current

of its life and progress, suddenly ceased to exist. Since the

10th century every event of importance had originated in

Assyria; in the middle of the 7th she suddenly collapsed. … Of

the manner in which the ruin of Nineveh was brought about we

have nowhere any authentic record. … Apart from their

miraculous accessories, the one circumstance in which … [most

of the accounts given] agree, is that Assyria was overthrown

by the combination of the Medes and Babylonians. Everything

else that is said on the subject verges on the fabulous; and

even the fact of the alliance is doubtful, since Herodotus,

who lived nearest to the period we are treating of, knows

nothing of it, and ascribes the conquest simply to the Medes."

L. von Ranke,

Universal History: The Oldest Historical Group of Nations,

chapter 3.

SEMITES:

The last Babylonian Empire and its overthrow.

The story, briefly told, of the alliance by which the Assyrian

monarchy is said to have been overthrown, is as follows: About

626 or 625, B. C., a new revolt broke out in Babylonia, and

the Assyrian king sent a general named Nabu-pal-usur or

Nabopolassar to quell it. Nabu-pal-usur succeeded in his

undertaking, and seems to have been rewarded by being made

governor of Babylon. But his ambition aimed higher, and he

mounted the ancient Babylonian throne, casting off his

allegiance to Assyria and joining her enemies. "He was wise

enough to see that Assyria could not be completely crushed by

one nation, and he therefore made a league with Pharaoh Necho,

of Egypt, and asked the Median king, Cyaxares, to give his

daughter, Amytes, to Nebuchadnezzar, his son, to wife. Thus a

league was made, and about B. C. 609 the kings marched against

Assyria. They suffered various defeats, but eventually the

Assyrian army was defeated, and Shalman, the brother of the

king of Assyria, [was] slain. The united kings then besieged

Nineveh. During the siege the river Tigris rose and carried

away the greater part of the city wall. The Assyrian king

gathered together his wives and property in the palace, and

setting fire to it, all perished in the flames. The enemies

went into the city and utterly destroyed all they could lay

their hands upon. With the fall of Nineveh, Assyria as a power

practically ceased to exist." About 608 B. C. Nebuchadnezzar

succeeded his father on the throne. "When he had become

established in the kingdom he set his various captives, Jews,

Phœnicians, Syrians, and Egyptians, at work to make Babylon

the greatest city in the world. And as a builder he remains

almost unsurpassed."

E. A. Wallis Budge,

Babylonian Life and History,

chapter 5.

{2893}

"The Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar occupied a square of which each

side was nearly fifteen miles in length, and was bisected by

the Euphrates diagonally from northwest to southeast. This

square was enclosed by a deep moat, flooded from the river.

The clay excavated in digging the moat, moulded into bricks

and laid in bitumen, formed the walls of the city. These

walls, more than 300 feet high and more than 70 thick, and

protected by parapets, afforded a commodious driveway along

their top of nearly 60 miles, needing only aerial bridges over

the Euphrates river. The waters of the river were forced to

flow through the city between quays of masonry which equaled

the walls in thickness and height. The walls were pierced at

equal intervals for a hundred gates, and each gateway closed

with double leaves of ponderous metal, swinging upon bronze

posts built into the wall. Fifty broad avenues, crossing each

other at right angles, joined the opposite gates of the city,

and divided it into a checkerboard of gigantic squares. The

river quays were pierced by 25 gates like those in the outer

walls. One of the streets was carried across the river upon an

arched bridge, another ran in a tunnel beneath the river bed,

and ferries plied continually across the water where the other

streets abutted. The great squares of the city were not all

occupied by buildings. Many of them were used as gardens and

even farms, and the great fertility of the soil, caused by

irrigation, producing two and even three crops a year,

supplied food sufficient for the inhabitants in case of siege.

Babylon was a vast fortified province rather than a city. …

There is a curious fact which I do not remember to have seen

noticed, and of which I will not here venture to suggest the

explanation. Babylon stands in the Book of Revelation as the

emblem of all the abominations which are to be destroyed by

the power of Christ. But Babylon is the one city known to

history which could have served as a model for John's

description of the New Jerusalem: 'the city lying four

square,' 'the walls great and high,' the river which flowed

through the city, 'and in the midst of the street of it, and

on either side of the river the tree of life, bearing twelve

manner of fruits;' 'the foundations of the wall of the city

garnished with all manner of precious stones,' as the base of

the walls inclosing the great palace were faced with glazed

and enameled bricks of brilliant colors, and a broad space

left that they might be seen,—these characteristics, and they

are all unique, have been combined in no other city."

W. B. Wright,

Ancient Cities,

pages 41-44.

"Undoubtedly, one of the important results already obtained

from the study of the native chronicles of Babylon is the

establishment, on grounds apart from the question of the

authenticity of the Book of Daniel, of the historical

character of Belshazzar. The name of this prince had always

been a puzzle to commentators and historians. The only native

authority on Babylonian history—Berosus—did not appear to

have mentioned such a person. … According to the extracts from

the work of Berosus preserved for us in the writings of these

authors, the following is the history of the last King of

Babylon. His name was Nabonidus, or Nabonedus, and he first

appears as the leader of a band of conspirators who determined

to bring about a change in the government. The throne was then

occupied by the youthful Laborosoarchod (for this is the

corrupt Greek form of the Babylonian Lâbâshi-Marduk), who was

the son of Neriglissar, and therefore, through his mother, the

grandson of the great Nebuchadnezzar; but, in spite of his

tender age, the new sovereign who had only succeeded his

father two months before, had already given proof of a bad

disposition. … When the designs of the conspirators had been

carried out, they appointed Nabonidus king in the room of the

youthful son of Neriglissar. … We next hear that in the

seventeenth year of Nabonidus, Cyrus, who had already

conquered the rest of Asia, marched upon Babylon, B. C. 538.

See PERSIA B. C. 549-521.

The native forces met the Persians in battle, but were put to

flight, with their king at their head, and took refuge behind

the ramparts of Borsippa. Cyrus thereupon entered Babylon, we

are told, and threw down her walls. … Herodotus states that

the last king of Babylon was the son of the great

Nebuchadnezzar—to give that monarch his true name—for in so

doing he bears out, so far as his testimony is of any value,

the words of the Book of Daniel, which not only calls

Belshazzar son of Nebuchadnezzar, but also introduces the wife

of the latter monarch as being the mother of the ill-fated

prince who closed the long line of native rulers. Such being

the only testimony of secular writers, there was no

alternative but to identify Belshazzar with Nabonidus. … Yet

the name Nabonidus stood in no sort of relation to that of

Belshazzar; and the identification of the two personages was,

undoubtedly, both arbitrary and difficult. The cuneiform

inscriptions brought to Europe from the site of Babylon and

other ancient cities of Chaldæa soon changed the aspect of the

problem. … Nabonidus, or, in the native form, Nabu naïd, that

is to say, 'Nebo exalts,' is the name given to the last native

king of Babylon in the contemporary records inscribed on clay.

This monarch, however, was found to speak of his eldest son as

bearing the very name preserved in the Book of Daniel, and

hitherto known to us from that source alone. … 'Set the fear

of thy great godhead in the heart of. Belshazzar, my firstborn

son, my own offspring; and let him not commit sin, in order

that he may enjoy the fulness of life.' … 'Belshazzar, my

firstborn son, … lengthen his days; let him not commit sin. …'

These passages provide us, in an unexpected manner, with the

name which had hitherto been known from the Book of Daniel,

and from that document alone; but we were still in the dark as

to the reason which could have induced the author to represent

Belshazzar as king of Babylon. … In 1882 a cuneiform

inscription was for the first time interpreted and published

by Mr. Pinches; it had been disinterred among the ruins of

Babylon by Mr. Hormuzd Russam. This document proved to contain

the annals of the king whose fate we have just been

discussing—namely, Nabonidus. Though mutilated in parts, it

allowed us to learn some portions of his history, both before

and during the invasion of Babylonia by Cyrus; and one of the

most remarkable facts that it added to our knowledge was that

of the regency—if that term may be used—of the king's son

during the absence of the sovereign from the Court and army.

Here, surely, the explanation of the Book of Daniel was found:

Belshazzar was, at the time of the irruption of the Persians,

acting as his father's representative; he was commanding the

Babylonian army and presiding over the Babylonian Court. When

Cyrus entered Babylon, doubtless the only resistance he met

with was in the royal palace, and there it was probably

slight. In the same night Belshazzar was taken and slain."

B. T. A. Evetts,

New Light on the Bible and the Holy Land,

chapter 11, part 2.

{2894}

Cyrus the Great, in whose vast empire the Babylonian kingdom

was finally swallowed up, was originally "king of Anzan in

Elam, not of Persia. Anzan had been first occupied, it would

appear, by his great-grandfather Teispes the Achaemenian. The

conquest of Astyages and of his capital Ekbatana took place in

B. C. 549, and a year or two later Cyrus obtained possession

of Persia." Then, B. C. 538, came the conquest of Babylonia,

invited by a party in the country hostile to its king,

Nabonidos. Cyrus "assumed the title of 'King of Babylon,' thus

claiming to be the legitimate descendant of the ancient

Babylonian kings. He announced himself as the devoted

worshipper of Bel and Nebo, who by the command of Merodach had

overthrown the sacrilegious usurper Nabonidos, and he and his

son accordingly offered sacrifices to ten times the usual

amount in the Babylonian temples, and restored the images of

the gods to their ancient shrines. At the same time he allowed

the foreign populations who had been deported to Babylonia to

return to their homes along with the statues of their gods.

Among these foreign populations, as we know from the Old

Testament, were the Jews."

A. H. Sayce,

Primer of Assyriology,

pages 74-78.

SEMITES:

Hebraic branch.

See JEWS, AMMONITES; MOABITES; and EDOMITES.

SEMITES:

Canaanitic branch.

See JEWS: EARLY HISTORY; and PHŒNICIANS.

SEMITES:

Southern branches.

See ARABIA; ETHIOPIA; and ABYSSINIA.

----------SEMITES: End--------

SEMITIC LANGUAGES.

"There is no stronger or more unchanging unity among any group

of languages than that which exists in the Semitic group. The

dead and living languages which compose it hardly differ from

each other so much as the various Romance or Sclavonic

dialects. Not only are the elements of the common vocabulary

unchanged, but the structure of the word and of the phrase has

remained the same. … The Semitic languages form two great

branches, each subdivided into two groups. The northern branch

comprehends the Aramaic-Assyrian group and the Canaanitish

group; the southern … includes the Arabic group, properly so

called, and the Himyarite group. The name Aramaic is given to

two dialects which are very nearly allied—Chaldean and Syriac.

… The Aramaic which was spoken at the time of Christ was

divided into two sub-dialects: that of Galilee, which

resembled the Syriac pronunciation, and that of Jerusalem, of

which the pronunciation was more marked and nearer to

Chaldean. Jesus and his disciples evidently spoke the dialect

of their country. … Syriac, in its primitive state, is unknown

to us, as also Syro-Chaldean. … Assyrian is a discovery of

this century. … To the Canaanitish group belong Phœnician,

Samaritan, the languages of the left bank of the Jordan,

notably Moabite. … and lastly, Hebrew. The first and the last

of these dialects are almost exactly alike. … Arabic, being

the language of Islam, has deeply penetrated all the Mussulman

nations, Turkish, Persian, and Hindustani. … Himyarite reigned

to the south of Arabic; it was the language of the Queen of

Sheba, and is now well known through a great number of

inscriptions, and is perhaps still spoken under the name of

Ekhili in the district of Marah. … It is in Abyssinia that we

must seek for the last vestiges of Himyarite. Several

centuries before our era, the African coast of the Red Sea had

received Semitic colonies, and a language known as Ghez or

Ethiopian."

A. Lefèvre,

Race and Language,

pages 213-223.

SEMNONES, The.

"The Semnones were the chief Suevic clan. Their settlements

seem to have been between the Elbe and Oder, coinciding as

nearly as possible with Brandenburg, and reaching possibly

into Prussian Poland."-

Church and Brodribb,

Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

SEMPACH, Battle of (1386).

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

SEMPRONIAN LAWS.

The laws proposed and carried at Rome by the Gracchi, who were

of the Sempronian gens, are often so referred to.

See ROME: B. C. 133-121.

SENA, The Druidic oracle of.

A little island called Sena—modern Sein—off the extreme

western coast of Brittany, is mentioned by Pomponius Mela as

the site of a celebrated oracle, consulted by Gaulish

navigators and served by nine virgin priestesses.

E. H. Bunbury,

History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 23, section 2 (volume 2).

SENATE, Canadian.

See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

SENATE, French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

SENATE, Roman.

"In prehistoric times, the clans which subsequently united to

form cantons had each possessed a monarchical constitution of

its own. When the clan governments were merged in that of the

canton, the monarchs ('reges') of these clans became senators,

or elders, in the new community. In the case of Rome the

number of senators was three hundred, because in the

beginning, as tradition said, there were three hundred clans.

In regal times the king appointed the senators. Probably, at

first, he chose one from each clan, honoring in this way some

man whose age had given him experience and whose ability made

his opinion entitled to consideration. Afterward, when the

rigidity of the arrangement by clans was lost, the senators

were selected from the whole body of the people, without any

attempt at preserving the clan representation. Primarily the

senate was not a legislative body. When the king died without

having nominated his successor, the senators served

successively as 'interreges' ('kings for an interval'), for

periods of five days each, until a 'rex' was chosen. … This

general duty was the first of the senate's original functions.

Again, when the citizens had passed a law at the suggestion of

the king, the senate had a right ('patrum auctoritas') to veto

it, if it seemed contrary to the spirit of the city's

institutions. Finally, as the senate was composed of men of

experience and ability, the king used to consult it in times

of personal doubt or national danger."

A. Tighe,

Development of the Roman Constitution,

chapter 3.

{2895}

Of the Roman Senate as it became in the great days of the

Republic—at the close of the Punic Wars and after—the

following is an account: "All the acts of the Roman Republic

ran in the name of the Senate and People, as if the Senate

were half the state, though its number seems still to have

been limited to Three Hundred members. The Senate of Rome was

perhaps the most remarkable assembly that the world has ever

seen. Its members held their seats for life; once Senators

always Senators, unless they were degraded for some

dishonourable cause. But the Senatorial Peerage was not

hereditary. No father could transmit the honour to his son.

Each man must win it for himself. The manner in which seats in

the Senate were obtained is tolerably well ascertained. Many

persons will be surprised to learn that the members of this

august body, all —or nearly all—owed their places to the votes

of the people. In theory, indeed, the Censors still possessed

the power really exercised by the Kings and early Consuls, of

choosing the Senators at their own will and pleasure. But

official powers, however arbitrary, are always limited in

practice; and the Censors followed rules established by

ancient precedent. … The Senate was recruited from the lists

of official persons. … It was not by a mere figure of speech

that the minister of Pyrrhus called the Roman Senate 'an

Assembly of Kings.' Many of its members had exercised

Sovereign power; many were preparing to exercise it. The power

of the Senate was equal to its dignity. … In regard to

legislation, they [it] exercised an absolute control over the

Centuriate Assembly, because no law could be submitted to its

votes which had not originated in the Senate. … In respect to

foreign affairs, the power of the Senate was absolute, except

in declaring War or concluding treaties of Peace,—matters

which were submitted to the votes of the People. They assigned

to the Consuls and Prætors their respective provinces of

administration and command; they fixed the amount of troops to

be levied every year from the list of Roman citizens, and of

the contingents to be furnished by the Italian allies. They

prolonged the command of a general or superseded him at

pleasure. … In the administration of home affairs, all the

regulation of religious matters was in their hands. … All the

financial arrangements of the State were left to their

discretion. … They might resolve themselves into a High Court

of Justice for the trial of extraordinary offences."

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 4, chapter 35 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 6, chapter 2.

See, also, ROME: B. C. 146; and CONSCRIPT FATHERS.

SENATE, United States.

"The Senate is composed of two Senators from each State, and

these Senators are chosen by the State Legislatures. The

representation is then equal, each State having two Senators

and each Senator having one vote; and no difference is made

among the States on account of size, population, or wealth.

The Senate is not, strictly speaking, a popular body, and the

higher qualifications demanded of its members, and the longer

period of service, make it the more important body of the two.

The Senate is presumedly more conservative in its action, and

acts as a safeguard against the precipitate and changing

legislation that is more characteristic of the House of

Representatives, which, being chosen directly by the people,

and at frequent intervals, is more easily affected by and

reflects the prevailing temper of the times. The Senate is

more intimately connected with the Executive than is the lower

body. The President must submit to the Senate for its approval

the treaties he has contracted with foreign powers; he must

ask the advice and consent of the Senate in the appointment of

ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the

Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States

whose appointments have not been otherwise provided for. … The

Senate has sole power to try all impeachments, but it cannot

originate proceedings of impeachment. … In case a vacancy

occurs when the State Legislature is not in session, the

governor may make a temporary appointment; but at the next

meeting of the Legislature the vacancy must be filled in the

usual way. The presiding officer of the Senate is the

Vice-President of the United States. He is elected in the same

manner as the President, for were he chosen from the Senate

itself, the equality of representation would be broken. He has

no vote save when the Senate is equally divided, and his

powers are very limited."

W. C. Ford,

The American Citizen's Manual,

part 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

The Federalist,

Numbers 62-66.

J. Story,

Commentaries on the Constitution,

chapter 10 (volume 2).

J. Bryce,

The American Commonwealth,

chapters 10-12 (volume 1).

See, also, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

SENATUS-CONSULTUM.

SENATUS-DECRETUM.

"A proposition sanctioned by a majority of the [Roman] Senate,

and not vetoed by one of the Tribunes of the Plebs, who might

interrupt the proceedings at any stage, was called

Senatus-Consultum or Senatus-Decretum, the only distinction

between the terms being that the former was more

comprehensive, since Senatus-Consultum might include several

orders or Decreta."

W. Ramsay,

Manual of Roman Antiquity,

chapter 6.

SENCHUS MOR, The.

One of the books of the ancient Irish laws, known as the

Brehon Laws.

SENECAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SENECAS.

SENEFFE, Battle of (1674).

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

SENLAC OR HASTINGS, Battle of.

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

SENNACHIES.

One of the names given to the Bards, or Ollamhs, of the

ancient Irish.

SENONES, The.

A strong tribe in ancient Gaul whose territory was between the

Loire and the Marne. Their chief town was Agedincum—modern

Sens.

Napoleon III.,

History of Cæsar,

book 3, chapter 2, foot-note.

The Senones were also prominent among the Gauls which crossed

the Alps, settled Cisalpine Gaul and contested northern Italy

with the Romans.

See ROME: B. C. 390-347, and 295-191.

SENS, Origin of.

See SENONES.

SENTINUM, Battle of (B. C. 295).

See ROME: B. C. 343-290, and B. C. 295-191.

SEPARATISTS.

See INDEPENDENTS.

SEPHARDIM, The.

Jews descended from those who were expelled from Spain in 1492

are called the Sephardim.

See JEWS: 8-15TH CENTURIES.

SEPHARVAIM.

See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.

SEPHER YETZIRA, The.

See CABALA.

SEPOY: The name.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

{2896}

SEPOY MUTINY,

of 1763, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

Of 1806.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

Of 1857-1858.

See INDIA: A. D. 1857, to 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

SEPT, OR CLAN.

See CLANS.

SEPTA.

See CAMPUS MARTIUS.

SEPTEMBER LAWS, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840.

SEPTEMBER MASSACRES AT PARIS.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SEPTENNATE IN FRANCE, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.

SEPTENNIAL ACT, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1716.

SEPTIMANIA:

Under the Goths.

See GOTHIA, IN GAUL;

also GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419; and 419-451.

SEPTIMANIA: A. D. 715-718.

Occupation by the Moslems.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

SEPTIMANIA: A. D. 752-759.

Recovery from the Moslems.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 752-759.

SEPTIMANIA: 10th Century.

The dukes and their successors.

See TOULOUSE: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

SEPTUAGINT, The.

"We have in the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Hebrew Old

Testament, the first great essay in translation into Greek, a

solitary specimen of the ordinary language spoken and

understood in those days [at Alexandria 3d century B. C.].

There is a famous legend of the origin of the work by order of

the Egyptian king, and of the perfect agreement of all the

versions produced by the learned men who had been sent at his

request from Judæa. Laying aside these fables, it appears that

the books were gradually rendered for the benefit of the many

Jews settled in Egypt, who seem to have been actually

forgetting their old language. Perhaps Philadelphus gave an

impulse to the thing by requiring a copy for his library,

which seems to have admitted none but Greek books."

J. P. Mahaffy,

Story of Alexander's Empire,

chapter 14.

ALSO IN:

W. Robertson Smith,

The Old Testament in the Jewish Church,

lecture 4.

F. W. Farrar,

History of Interpretation (

Bampton Lectures, 1885), lecture 3.

SEQUANA, The.

The ancient name of the river Seine.

SEQUANI, The.

See GAULS.

SERAI.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

SERAPEUM, at Alexandria.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246, and A. D. 389;

also LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA.

SERAPEUM, at Memphis.

"The Serapeum is one of the edifices of Memphis [Egypt]

rendered famous by a frequently quoted passage of Strabo, and

by the constant mention made of it on the Greek papyri. It had

long been sought for, and we had the good fortune to discover

it in 1851. Apis, the living image of Osiris revisiting the

earth, was a bull who, while he lived, had his temple at

Memphis (Mitrahenny), and, when dead, had his tomb at

Sakkarah. The palace which the bull inhabited in his lifetime

was called the Apieum; the Serapeum was the name given to his

tomb."

A. Mariette,

Monuments of Upper Egypt,

page 88.

SERAPHIM, OR "BLUE RIBBON," The order of the.

"There is no doubt whatever of the antiquity of this Order,

yet it is very difficult to arrive at the exact date of the

foundation. General opinion, though without positive proof,

ascribes its origin, about the year 1280, to King Magnus I.

[of Sweden], who is said to have instituted it at the

persuasion of the Maltese Knights. Another account ascribes

the foundation to Magnus's grandson, Magnus Erichson. … King

Frederick I. revived the Order, as also those of the Sword and

North Star, on the 28th April, 1748."

Sir B. Burke,

The Book of Orders of Knighthood,

page 329.

SERBONIAN BOG.

"There is a lake between Cœlo-Syria and Egypt, very narrow,

but exceeding deep, even to a wonder, two hundred furlongs in

length, called Serbon: if any through ignorance approach it

they are lost irrecoverably; for the channel being very

narrow, like a swaddling-band, and compassed round with vast

heaps of sand, great quantities of it are cast into the lake,

by the continued southern winds, which so cover the surface of

the water, and make it to the view so like unto dry land, that

it cannot possibly be distinguished; and therefore many,

unacquainted with the nature of the place, by missing their

way, have been there swallowed up, together with whole armies.

For the sand being trod upon, sinks down and gives way by

degrees, and like a malicious cheat, deludes and decoys them

that come upon it, till too late, when they see the mischief

they are likely to fall into, they begin to support and help

one another, but without any possibility either of returning

back or escaping certain ruin."

Diodorus

(Booth's translation)

book 1, chapter 3.

According to Dr. Brugsch, the lake Serbon, or Sirbonis, so

graphically described by Diodorus, but owing its modern

celebrity to Milton's allusion (Paradise Lost, ii.

502-4), is in our days almost entirely dried up. He

describes it as having been really a lagoon, on the

northeastern coast of Egypt, "divided from the Mediterranean

by a long tongue of land which, in ancient times, formed the

only road from Egypt to Palestine." It is Dr. Brugsch's theory

that the exodus of the Israelites was by this route and that

the host of Pharaoh perished in the Serbonian quicksands.

H. Brugsch,

History of Egypt,

volume 2, appendix.

SERBS, The.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,

7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, ETC.).

SERES.

See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

SERFDOM.

SERFS.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN.

SERGIUS I.,

Pope, A. D. 687-701.

Sergius II., Pope, 844-847.

Sergius III., Pope, 904-911.

Sergius IV., Pope, 1009-1012.

SERINGAPATAM: A. D. 1792.

Siege by the English.

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

SERINGAPATAM: A. D. 1799.

Final capture by the English.

Death of Sultan Tippoo.

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

SERJEANTS-AT-LAW.

See TEMPLARS: THE ORDER IN ENGLAND.

SERPUL, Treaty of (1868).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1850-1876.

SERRANO, Ministry and Regency of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

SERTORIUS, in Spain.

See SPAIN: B. C. 83-72.

{2897}

SERVI.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: ENGLAND; also, CATTANI.

SERVIA.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

SERVIAN CONSTITUTION.

The first important modification of the primitive Roman

constitution, ascribed to King Servius Tullius.

See COMITIA CENTURIATA.

SERVIAN WALL OF ROME, The.

See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

SERVILES, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

SERVITES, The.

The order of the "Religious Servants of the Holy Virgin,"

better known as Servites, was founded in 1233 by seven

Florentine merchants. It spread rapidly in its early years,

and has a considerable number of houses still existing.

SESQUIPES.

See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

SESTERTIUS, The.

See AS.

SESTOS, OR SESTUS, Siege and capture of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.

SESTUNTII, The.

See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

SETTE POZZI, OR MALVASIA, Battle of (1263).

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

SETTLEMENT, Act of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701, and IRELAND: A. D. 1660-1665.

SEVASTOS.

The Greek form, in the Byzantine Empire, of the title of

"Augustus." "It was divided into four gradations, sevastos,

protosevastos, panhypersevastos, and sevastokrator."

G. Finlay,

History Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453,

book 3, chapter 2, section 1.

SEVEN BISHOPS, The: Sent to the Tower.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.

SEVEN BOROUGHS, The.

See FIVE BOROUGHS. THE.

SEVEN CHAMPIONS OF CHRISTENDOM, The.

St. George, for England,

St. Denis, for France,

St. James, for Spain,

St. Anthony, for Italy,

St. Andrew, for Scotland,

St. Patrick, for Ireland, and

St. David, for Wales,

were called, in mediæval times, the Seven Champions of

Christendom.

SEVEN CITIES, The Isle of the.

See ANTILLES.

SEVEN CITIES OF CIBOLA.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

SEVEN DAYS RETREAT, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

SEVEN GATES OF THEBES, The.

See THEBES, GREECE: THE FOUNDING OF THE CITY.

SEVEN HILLS OF ROME, The.

"The seven hills were not occupied all at once, but one after

the other, as they were required. The Palatine held the 'arx'

of the primitive inhabitants, and was the original nucleus of

the town, round which a wall or earthern rampart was raised by

Romulus. The hill of Saturn, afterwards the Capitoline, is

said to have been united, after the death of Titus Tatius, by

Romulus; who drew a second wall or earthern rampart round the

two hills. The Aventine, which was chiefly used as a pasture

ground, was added by Ancus Martius, who settled the population

of the conquered towns of Politorium, Tellena, and Ficana upon

it. According to Livy, the Cælian Hill was added to the city

by Tullus Hostilius. The population increasing, it seemed

necessary to further enlarge the city. Servius Tullius, Livy

tells us, added two hills, the Quirinal and the Viminal,

afterwards extending it further to the Esquiline, where, he

says, to give dignity to the place, he dwelt himself. The city

having reached such an extent, a vast undertaking was planned

by the king, Servius, to protect it. A line of wall [the

Servian Wall] was built to encircle the seven hills over which

the city had extended."

H. M. Westropp,

Early and Imperial Rome,

pages 56-57.

SEVEN ISLANDS, The Republic of the.

See IONIAN ISLANDS: To 1814.

SEVEN LIBERAL ARTS, The.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM.

SEVEN MOUNTS, The.

See PALATINE HILL; and QUIRINAL.

SEVEN PINES, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

SEVEN PROVINCES, The Union of the.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

SEVEN REDUCTIONS, The War of the.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

SEVEN RIVERS, The Land of the.

See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

SEVEN WEEKS WAR, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

SEVEN WISE MEN OF GREECE.

"The name and poetry of Solon, and the short maxims, or

sayings, of Phokylidês, conduct us to the mention of the Seven

Wise Men of Greece. Solon was himself one of the seven, and

most if, not all of them were poets, or composers in verse. To

most of them is ascribed also an abundance of pithy repartees,

together with one short saying, or maxim, peculiar to each,

serving as a sort of distinctive motto. … Respecting this

constellation of Wise Men—who, in the next century of Grecian

history, when philosophy came to be a matter of discussion and

argumentation, were spoken of with great eulogy—all the

statements are confused, in part even contradictory. Neither

the number nor the names are given by all authors alike.

Dikæarchus numbered ten, Hermippus seventeen: the names of

Solon the Athenian, Thalês the Milesian, Pittakus the

Mitylenean, and Bias the Prienean, were comprised in all the

lists —and the remaining names as given by Plato were

Kleobulus of Lindus in Rhodes, Myson of Chênæ, and Cheilon of

Sparta. We cannot certainly distribute among them the sayings,

or mottoes, upon which in later days the Amphiktyons conferred

the honour of inscription in the Delphian temple:

'Know thyself,'

'Nothing too much,'

'Know thy opportunity,'

'Suretyship is the precursor of ruin.'

… Dikæarchus, however, justly observed that these seven or ten

persons were not wise men, or philosophers, in the sense which

those words bore in his day, but persons of practical

discernment in reference to man and society,—of the same turn

of mind as their contemporary the fabulist Æsop, though not

employing the same mode of illustration. Their appearance

forms an epoch in Grecian history, inasmuch as they are the

first persons who ever acquired an Hellenic reputation

grounded on mental competency apart from poetical genius or

effect—a proof that political and social prudence was

beginning to be appreciated and admired on its own account."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 29.

{2898}

SEVEN WONDERS OF THE WORLD.

See RHODES, THE COLOSSUS OF.

----------SEVEN YEARS WAR: Start--------

SEVEN YEARS WAR:

Its causes and provocations.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756;

and ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.

SEVEN YEARS WAR:

Campaigns in America.

See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;

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

OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, and 1755;

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

SEVEN YEARS WAR:

English Naval Operations.

See CANADA: A. D. 1755;

ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST),

and 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

SEVEN YEARS WAR:

Campaigns in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1756, to 1761-1762.

SEVEN YEARS WAR:

The conflict in India.

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

SEVEN YEARS WAR:

The Treaties which ended the war.

The Peace of Paris and the Peace of Hubertsburg.

Negotiations for a peace between England, France, and Spain

were brought to a close by the signing of preliminaries at

Fontainebleau, November 3, 1762. In the course of the next

month, a conference for the arrangement of terms between

Prussia, Austria and Saxony was begun at Hubertsburg, a

hunting-seat of the Elector of Saxony, between Leipsic and

Dresden. "The definitive Peace of Paris, between France,

Spain, England, and Portugal, was signed February 10th 1763.

Both France and England abandoned their allies, and neither

Austria nor Prussia was mentioned in the treaty." But it was

stipulated that all territories belonging to the Elector of

Hanover, the Landgrave of Hesse, and the Count of Lippe

Bücheburg should be restored to them. "France ceded to England

Nova Scotia, Canada, and the country east of the Mississippi

as far as the Iberville. A line drawn through the Mississippi,

from its source to its mouth, was henceforth to form the

boundary between the possessions of the two nations, except

that the town and island of New Orleans were not to be

included in this cession. France also ceded the island of Cape

Breton, with the isles and coasts of the St. Lawrence,

retaining, under certain restrictions, the right of fishing at

Newfoundland, and the isles of St. Peter and Miquelon. In the

West Indies she ceded Grenada and the Grenadines, and three of

the so-called neuter islands, namely, Dominica, St. Vincent,

and Tobago, retaining the fourth, St. Lucie. Also in Africa,

the river Senegal, recovering Goree; in the East Indies, the

French settlements on the coast of Coromandel made since 1749,

retaining previous ones. She also restored to Great Britain

Natal and Tabanouly, in Sumatra, and engaged to keep no troops

in Bengal. In Europe, besides relinquishing her conquests in

Germany, she restored Minorca, and engaged to place Dunkirk in

the state required by former treaties. Great Britain, on her

side, restored Belle Isle, and in the West Indies, Martinique,

Guadaloupe, Marie Galante, and La Desirade. Spain ceded to

Great Britain Florida and all districts east of the

Mississippi, recovering the Havannah and all other British

conquests. British subjects were to enjoy the privilege of

cutting logwood in the Bay of Honduras. … With regard to the

Portuguese colonies, matters were to be placed in the same

state as before the war. … By way of compensation for the loss

of Florida, France, by a private agreement, made over to Spain

New Orleans and what remained to her of Louisiana. The Peace

of Hubertsburg, between Austria, Prussia, and Saxony, was

signed February 15th 1763. Marie Theresa renounced all

pretensions she might have to any of the dominions of the King

of Prussia, and especially those which had been ceded to him

by the treaties of Breslau and Berlin; and she agreed to

restore to Prussia the town and county of Glatz, and the

fortresses of Wesel and Gelders. The Empire was included in

the peace, but the Emperor was not even named. … In the peace

with the Elector of Saxony, Frederick engaged speedily to

evacuate that Electorate and to restore the archives, &c.; but

he would give no indemnification for losses suffered. The

Treaty of Dresden, of 1745, was renewed."

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 6, chapter 6 (volume 3).

"Of the Peace-Treaties at Hubertsburg, Paris and other places,

it is not necessary that we say almost anything. … The

substance of the whole lies now in Three Points. … The issue,

as between Austria and Prussia, strives to be, in all points,

simply 'As-you-were'; and, in all outward or tangible points,

strictly is so. After such a tornado of strife as the

civilised world had not witnessed since the Thirty-Years War.

Tornado springing doubtless from the regions called Infernal;

and darkening the upper world from south to north, and from

east to west for Seven Years long;—issuing in general

'As-you-were'! Yes truly, the tornado was Infernal; but

Heaven, too, had silently its purposes in it. Nor is the mere

expenditure of men's diabolic rages, in mutual clash as of

opposite electricities, with reduction to equipoise, and

restoration of zero and repose again after seven years, the

one or the principal result arrived at. Inarticulately, little

dreamt on at the time by any bystander, the results, on survey

from this distance, are visible as Threefold. Let us name them

one other time:

1°. There is no taking of Silesia from this man; no clipping

him down to the orthodox old limits; he and his Country have

palpably outgrown these. Austria gives-up the problem: 'We

have lost Silesia!' Yes; and, what you hardly yet know,—and

what, I perceive, Friedrich himself still less knows,—

Teutschland has found Prussia. Prussia, it seems, cannot be

conquered by the whole world trying to do it; Prussia has gone

through its Fire-Baptism, to the satisfaction of gods and men;

and is a Nation henceforth. In and of poor dislocated

Teutschland, there is one of the Great Powers of the World

henceforth; an actual Nation. And a Nation not grounding

itself on extinct Traditions, Wiggeries, Papistries,

Immaculate Conceptions; no, but on living Facts, —Facts of

Arithmetic, Geometry, Gravitation, Martin Luther's

Reformation, and what it really can believe in:—to the

infinite advantage of said Nation and of poor Teutschland

henceforth. …

2°. In regard to England. Her Jenkins's-Ear Controversy is at

last settled. Not only liberty of the Seas, but, if she were

not wiser, dominion of them; guardianship of liberty for all

others whatsoever: Dominion of the Seas for that wise object.

America is to be English, not French; what a result is that,

were there no other! Really a considerable Fact in the History

of the World. Fact principally due to Pitt, as I believe,

according to my best conjecture, and comparison of

probabilities and circumstances. For which, after all, is not

everybody thankful, less or more? O my English brothers, O my

Yankee half-brothers, how oblivious are we of those that have

done us benefit! …

{2899}

3°. In regard to France. It appears, noble old Teutschland,

with such pieties and unconquerable silent valours, such

opulences human and divine, amid its wreck of new and old

confusions, is not to be cut in Four, and made to dance to the

piping of Versailles or another. Far the contrary! To

Versailles itself there has gone forth, Versailles may read it

or not, the writing on the wall: 'Thou art weighed in the

balance, and found wanting' (at last even 'found wanting')!

France, beaten, stript, humiliated; sinful, unrepentant,

governed by mere sinners and, at best, clever fools ('fous

pleins d'esprit'),—collapses, like a creature whose limbs fail

it; sinks into bankrupt quiescence, into nameless

fermentation, generally into dry-rot."

T. Carlyle,

History of Friedrich II.,

book 20, chapter 13 (volume 9).

The text of the Treaty of Paris may be found here.

Parliamentary History,

volume 15, page 1291,

Entick's History of the Late War,

volume 5, page 438.

SEVEN YEARS WAR:

The death and misery of the war summed up by Frederick the

Great.

"Prussia enumerated 180,000 men, whom she had been deprived of

by the war. Her armies had fought 16 pitched battles. The

enemy had beside almost totally destroyed three large corps;

that of the convoy of Olmutz, that of Maxen, and that of

Fouquet at Landshut; exclusive of the garrison of Breslau, two

garrisons of Schweidnitz, one of Torgau, and one of

Wittenberg, that were taken with these towns. It was further

estimated that 20,000 souls perished in the kingdom of Prussia

by the ravages of the Russians; 6,000 in Pomerania; 4,000 in

the New March and 3,000 in the electorate of Brandenbourg. The

Russian troops had fought four grand battles, and it was

computed that the war had cost them 120,000 men, including

part of the recruits that perished, in coming from the

frontiers of Persia and China, to join their corps in Germany.

The Austrians had fought ten regular battles. Two garrisons at

Schweidnitz and one at Breslau had been taken; and they

estimated their loss at 140,000 men. The French made their

losses amount to 200,000; the English with their allies to

160,000; the Swedes to 25,000; and the troops of the circles

to 28,000. … From the general picture which we have sketched,

the result is that the governments of Austria, France, and

even England, were overwhelmed with debts, and almost

destitute of credit; but that the people, not having been

sufferers in the war, were only sensible of it from the

prodigious taxes which had been exacted by their sovereigns.

Whereas, in Prussia, the government was possessed of money,

but the provinces were laid waste and desolated, by the

rapacity and barbarity of enemies. The electorate of Saxony

was, next to Prussia, the province of Germany that had

suffered the most; but this country found resources, in the

goodness of its soil and the industry of its inhabitants,

which are wanting to Prussia throughout her provinces, Silesia

excepted. Time, which cures and effaces all ills, will no

doubt soon restore the Prussian states to their former

abundance, prosperity, and splendor. Other powers will in like

manner recover, and other ambitious men will arise, excite new

wars, and incur new disasters. Such are the properties of the

human mind; no man benefits by example."

Frederick II.,

History of the Seven Years War

(Posthumous Works, volume 3), chapter 17.

----------SEVEN YEARS WAR: End--------

SEVERINUS, Pope, A. D. 640, May to August.

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

SEVERUS, Libius, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 461-465.

SEVERUS, Septimius, Roman Emperor, A. D. 193-211.

Campaigns in Britain.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.

SEVERUS, Wall of.

See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

SEVIER, John, and the early settlement of Tennessee.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772, to 1785-1796.

----------SEVILLE: Start--------

SEVILLE:

Early history of the city.

"Seville was a prosperous port under the Phœnicians; and was

singularly favored by the Scipios. In 45 B. C., Julius Cæsar

entered the city; he enlarged it, strengthened and fortified

it, and thus made it a favorite residence with the patricians

of Rome, several of whom came to live there; no wonder, with

its perfect climate and brilliant skies. It was then called

Hispalis."

E. E. and S. Hale,

The Story of Spain,

chapter 18.

SEVILLE: A. D. 712.

Surrender to the Arab-Moors.

See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

SEVILLE: A. D. 1031-1091.

The seat of a Moorish kingdom.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

SEVILLE: A. D. 1248.

Conquest from the Moors by St. Ferdinand of Castile.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1248-1350.

----------SEVILLE: End--------

SEVILLE, Treaty of (1730).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

SEVIN, Battle of (1877).

See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

SEWAN.

See WAMPUM.

SEWARD, William H.

Defeat in the Chicago Convention of 1860.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

In President Lincoln's Cabinet.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (MARCH), and after.

The Trent Affair.

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

The Proclamation of Emancipation.

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

Attempted assassination.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

In President Johnson's Cabinet.

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

SFORZA, Francesco, The rise to ducal sovereignty of.

See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

SHABATZ, Battle of (1806).

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

SHACAYA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

SHAH, OR SCHAH.

See BEY; also CHESS.

SHAH JAHAN,

Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1628-1658.

SHAH ROKH, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1747-1751.

SHAHAPTIAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NEZ PERCÉS.

SHAHPUR.

One of the capitals of the later Persian empire, the ruins of

which exist near Kazerun, in the province of Fars. It was

built by Sapor I., the second of the Sassanian kings, and

received his name.

G. Rawlinson,

Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 4.

{2900}

SHAKERS, The.

"From the time of the first settlements until the age of the

Revolution, if there were any communistic societies founded,

[in the United States] I have met with no account of them. The

first which has had a long life, was that of the Shakers, or

Shaking Quakers, as they were at first called, on account of

their bodily movements in worship. The members of this sect or

society left England in 1774, and have prospered ever since.

It has now multiplied into settlements—twelve of them in New

York and New England—in regard to which we borrow the

following statistics from Dr. Nordhoff's book on communistic

societies in the United States, published in 1875. Their

property consists of 49,335 acres of land in home farms, with

other real estate. The value of their houses and personal

property is not given. The population of all the communities

consists of 695 male and 1,189 female adults, with 531 young

persons under twenty-one, of whom 192 are males and 339

females, amounting in all to 2,415 in 1874. The maximum of

population was 5,069, a decline to less than half, for which

we are not able to account save on the supposition that there

are permanent causes of decay now at work within the

communities. … The Shakers were at their origin a society of

enthusiasts in humble life, who separated from the Quakers

about the middle of the eighteenth century. Ann Lee, one of

the members, on account of spiritual manifestations believed

to have been made to her, became an oracle in the body, and in

1773 she declared that a revelation from heaven instructed her

to go to America. The next year she crossed the sea, with

eight others, and settled in the woods of Watervliet, near

Albany. She preached, and was believed to have performed

remarkable cures. From her … [was] derived the rule of

celibacy. … She died in 1784, as the acknowledged head of the

church; and had afterward nearly equal honors paid to her with

the Saviour. Under the second successor of Ann Lee almost all

the societies in New York and New England were founded; and

under the third, a woman named Lucy Wright, whose leadership

lasted nearly thirty years, those in Ohio and Kentucky. …

After 1830 the Shakers founded no new society. Dr. Nordhoff

gives the leading doctrines of the Shakers, which are, some of

them, singular enough. They hold that God is a dual person,

male and female; that Adam, created in his image, was dual

also; that the same is true of all angels and spirits; and

that Christ is one of the highest spirits, who appeared first

in the person of Jesus and afterward in that of Ann Lee. There

are four heavens and four hells. Noah went to the first

heaven, and the wicked of his time to the first hell. The

second heaven was called Paradise, and contained the pious

Jews until the appearance of Christ. The third, that into

which the Apostle Paul was caught, included all that lived

until the time of Ann Lee. The fourth is now being filled up,

and 'is to supersede all the others.' They hold that the day

of judgment, or beginning of Christ's kingdom on earth, began

with the establishment of their church, and will go on until

it is brought to its completion. … In regard to marriage and

property they do not take the position that these are crimes;

but only marks of a lower order of society. The world will

have a chance to become pure in a future state as well as

here. They believed in spiritual communication and

possession."

T. D. Woolsey,

Communism and Socialism,

pages 51-56.

ALSO IN:

C. Nordhoff,

The Communistic Societies of the United States,

pages 117-232.

SHAKESPEARE, and the English Renaissance.

See ENGLAND: 15-16TH CENTURIES.

SHAMANISM.

See LAMAS.—LAMAISM.

SHARON, Plain of.

That part of the low-land of the Palestine seacoast which

stretched northward from Philistia to the promontory of Mt.

Carmel. It was assigned to the tribe of Dan.

SHARPSBURG, OR ANTIETAM, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

SHASTAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SASTEAN FAMILY.

SHASU, The.

An Egyptian name "in which science has for a long time and

with perfect certainty recognized the Bedouins of the highest

antiquity. They inhabited the great desert between Egypt and

the land of Canaan and extended their wanderings sometimes as

far as the river Euphrates."

H. Brugsch,

History of Egypt Under the Pharaohs,

chapter 11.

See, also, EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.

SHAWMUT.

The Indian name of the peninsula on which Boston,

Massachusetts, was built.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1630.

SHAWNEES, OR SHAWANESE.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE.

SHAYS REBELLION.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.

SHEADINGS.

See MANX KINGDOM, THE.

SHEBA.

"The name of Sheba is still to be recognised in the tribe of

Benu-es-Sab, who inhabit a portion of Oman" (Southern Arabia).

F. Lenormant,

Manual of the Ancient History of the East,

book 7, chapter 1.

See, also,

ARABIA: THE ANCIENT SUCCESSION AND FUSION OF RACES.

SHEEPEATERS (Tukuarika).

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

SHEKEL, The.

"Queipo is of opinion that the talent, the larger unit of

Egyptian weight for monetary purposes, and for weighing the

precious metals, was equal to the weight of water contained in

the cube of 2/3 of the royal or sacred cubit, and thus

equivalent to 42.48 kilos, or 113.814 lbs. troy. He considers

this to have been the weight of the Mosaic talent taken by the

Hebrews out of Egypt. It was divided into fifty minas, each

equal to 849.6 grammes, or 13,111 English grains; and the mina

into fifty shekels, each equal to 14.16 grammes, or 218.5

English grains. … There appears to be satisfactory evidence

from existing specimens of the earliest Jewish coins that the

normal weight of the later Jewish shekel of silver was 218.5

troy grains, or 14.16 grammes."

H. W. Chisholm,

On the Science of Weighing and Measuring,

chapter 2.

SHELBURNE MINISTRY, and the negotiation

of peace between England and the United States.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783;

AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

SHENANDOAH, The Confederate Cruiser.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1865.

----------SHENANDOAH VALLEY: Start--------

SHENANDOAH VALLEY: A. D. 1716.

Possession taken by the Virginians.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1710.

{2901}

SHENANDOAH VALLEY: A. D. 1744.

Purchase from the Six Nations.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.

SHENANDOAH VALLEY: A. D. 1861-1864.

Campaigns in the Civil War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL,: VIRGINIA);

1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA), (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND),

(OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA);

A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA),

(JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND), and (AUGUST-OCTOBER:VIRGINIA).

----------SHENANDOAH VALLEY: End--------

SHENIR, Battle of.

A crushing defeat of the army of king Hazael of Damascus by

Shalmanezer, king of Assyria, B. C. 841.

SHEPHELAH, The.

The name given by the Jews to the tract of low-lying coast

which the Philistines occupied.

SHEPHERD KINGS.

See EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.

SHERIDAN, General Philip H.:

In the Battle of Stone River.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

At Chickamauga, and in the Chattanooga Campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)

ROSECRANS' ADVANCE, and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

Raid to Richmond.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

Raid to Trevillian Station.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

Campaign in the Shenandoah.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

Battle of Five Forks.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

SHERIFF.

SCIRGEREFA.

"The Scirgerefa is, as his name denotes, the person who stands

at the head of the shire, 'pagus' or county: he is also called

Scirman or Scirigman. He is properly speaking the holder of

the county court, scirgemot, or folcmot, and probably at first

was its elected chief. But as this gerefa was at first the

people's officer, he seems to have shared the fate of the

people, and to have sunk in the scale as the royal authority

gradually rose: during the whole of our historical period we

find him exercising only a concurrent jurisdiction, shared in

and controlled by the ealdorman on the one hand and the bishop

on the other. … The sheriff was naturally the leader of the

militia, posse comitatus, or levy of the free men, who served

under his banner, as the different lords with their dependents

served under the royal officers. … In the earliest periods,

the office was doubtless elective, and possibly even to the

last the people may have enjoyed theoretically, at least, a

sort of concurrent choice. But I cannot hesitate for a moment

in asserting that under the consolidated monarchy, the

scirgerefa was nominated by the king, with or without the

acceptance of the county-court, though this in all probability

was never refused."

J. M. Kemble,

The Saxons in England,

book 2, chapter 5 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

R. Gneist,

History of the English Constitution,

chapter 4.

See, also,

SHIRE; and EALDORMAN.

SHERIFFMUIR, Battle of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

SHERMAN, General W. T.:

At the first Battle of Bull Run.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).

Removal from command in Kentucky.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

Battle of Shiloh.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

The second attempt against Vicksburg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

The final Vicksburg campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

The capture of Jackson.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JULY: MISSISSIPPI).

The Chattanooga Campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

Meridian expedition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL; TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

Atlanta campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864

(MAY: GEORGIA), and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

March to the Sea.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER; GEORGIA),

and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

The last campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D.1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS),

and (APRIL 26TH).

SHERMAN SILVER ACT, and its repeal.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1890-1893.

SHERSTONE, Battle of.

The second battle fought between Cnut, or Canute, and Edmund

Ironsides for the English crown. It was in Wiltshire, A. D.

1016.

SHERWOOD FOREST.

"The name of Sherwood or Shirewood is, there can be no

reasonable doubt," says Mr. Llewellyn Jewett, "derived from

the open-air assemblies, or folk-moots, or witenagemotes of

the shire being there held in primitive times." The Forest

once covered the whole county of Nottingham and extended into

both Yorkshire and Derbyshire, twenty-five miles one way by

eight or ten the other. It was a royal forest and favorite

hunting resort of both Saxon and Norman kings; but is best

known as the scene of the exploits of the bold outlaw Robin

Hood. Few vestiges of the great forest now remain.

J. C. Brown,

The Forests of England.

SHESHATAPOOSH INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SHETLAND, OR ZETLAND, ISLES:

8-13th Centuries.

The Northmen in possession.

See NORMANS.

NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES, and 10-13TH CENTURIES.

SHEYENNES, OR CHEYENNES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SHI WEI, The.

See MONGOLS: ORIGIN, &c.

SHIAHS, OR SHIAS, The.

See ISLAM;

also PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

SHIITES, Sultan Selim's massacre of the.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

SHILOH, OR PITTSBURG LANDING, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

SHINAR.

See BABYLONIA: PRIMITIVE.

SHIP OF THE LINE.

In the time of wooden navies, "a ship carrying not less than

74 guns upon three decks, and of sufficient size to be placed

in line of battle," was called a "ship of the line," or a

"line-of-battle ship."

SHIP-MONEY.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.

SHIPKA PASS, Struggle for the.

See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

SHIPWRECK, Law of.

See LAW: ADMIRALTY.

{2902}

SHIRE.

SHIREMOOT.

"The name scir or shire, which marks the division immediately

superior to the hundred, merely means a subdivision or share

of a larger whole, and was early used in connexion with an

official name to designate the territorial sphere appointed to

the particular magistracy denoted by that name. So the diocese

was the bishop's scire. … The historical shires or counties

owe their origin to different causes. … The sheriff or

scir-gerefa, the scir-man of the laws of Ini, was the king's

steward and judicial president of the shire. … The sheriff

held the shiremoot, according to Edgar's law, twice in the

year. Although the ealdorman and bishop sat in it to declare

the law secular and spiritual, the sheriff was the

constituting officer."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 5, sections 48-50 (volume 1).

See, also, KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE;

EALDORMAN; and GAU.

SHOE-STRING DISTRICT, The.

See GERRYMANDERING.

SHOGUN.

See JAPAN: SKETCH OF HISTORY.

SHOSHONES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

SHREWSBURY, Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1403.

SHREWSBURY SCHOOL.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—ENGLAND.

SHULUH, The.

See LIBYANS.

SHUMIR, OR SUMIR.

See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.

SHUPANES.

GRAND SHUPANES.

The princes, ultimately kings, of the early Servian people.

L. Ranke,

History of Servia,

chapter 1.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES, 9TH CENTURY (SERVIA).

SHUSHAN.

See SUSA.

SIAM.

"The people known to Europeans as the 'Siamese,' but who call

themselves 'Thai,' that is 'Free Men,' have exercised the

greatest civilising influence on the aboriginal populations of

the interior. Within the historic period Siam has also

generally held the most extensive domain beyond the natural

limits of the Menam basin. Even still, although hemmed in on

one side by the British possessions, on the other by the

French protectorate of Camboja, Siam comprises beyond the

Menam Valley a considerable part of the Malay Peninsula, and

draws tribute from numerous people in the Mekong and Salwen

basins. But this State, with an area about half as large again

as that of France, has a population probably less than

6,000,000. … The inhabitants of Siam, whether Shans, Laos, or

Siamese proper, belong all alike to the same Thai stock, which

is also represented by numerous tribes in Assam, Manipur, and

China. The Shans are very numerous in the region of the Upper

Irrawaddi and its Chinese affluents, in the Salwen Valley and

in the portion of the Sittang basin included in British

territory. … The Lovas, better known by the name of Laos or

Laotians, are related to the Shans, and occupy the north of

Siam. … They form several 'kingdoms,' all vassals of the King

of Siam. … The Siamese, properly so called, are centred

chiefly in the Lower Menam basin and along the seaboard.

Although the most civilised they are not the purest of the

Thai race. … Siam or Sayam is said by some natives to mean

'Three,' because the country was formerly peopled by three

races now fused in one nation. Others derive it from saya,

'independent,' sama, 'brown,' or samo, 'dark'. … The Siamese

are well named 'Indo-Chinese,' their manners, customs, civil

and religious institutions, all partaking of this twofold

character. Their feasts are of Brahmanical origin, while their

laws and administration are obviously borrowed from the

Chinese. … About one-fourth of the inhabitants of Siam had

from various causes fallen into a state of bondage about the

middle of the present century. But since the abolition of

slavery in 1872, the population has increased, especially by

Chinese immigration. … The 'Master of the World,' or 'Master

of Life,' as the King of Siam is generally called, enjoys

absolute power over the lives and property of his subjects. …

A second king, always nearly related to the first, enjoys the

title and a few attributes of royalty. But he exercises no

power. … British having succeeded to Chinese influence, most

of the naval and military as well as of the custom-house

officers are Englishmen."

É. Reclus,

The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,

volume 3, chapter 21.

The former capital of Siam was Ayuthia, a city founded A. D.

1351, and now in ruins. "Anterior to the establishment of

Ayuthia … the annals of Siam are made up of traditional

legends and fables, such as most nations are fond of

substituting in the place of veracious history. … There are

accounts of intermarriages with Chinese princesses, of

embassies and wars with neighbouring States, all interblended

with wonders and miraculous interpositions of Indra and other

divinities; but from the time when the city of Ayuthia was

founded by Phaja-Uthong, who took the title of

Phra-Rama-Thibodi, the succession of sovereigns and the course

of events are recorded with tolerable accuracy."

Sir J. Bowring,

Kingdom and People of Siam,

volume 1, chapter 2.

"For centuries the Siamese government paid tribute to China;

but since 1852 this tribute has been refused. In 1855 the

first commercial treaty with a European power (Great Britain)

was concluded."

G. G. Chisholm,

The Two Hemispheres,

page 523.

ALSO IN:

A. R. Colquhoun,

Amongst the Shans,

introduction by T. de La Couperie,

and sup. by H. S. Hallett.

SIBERIA: The Russian conquest.

Siberia was scarcely known to the Russians before the middle

of the 16th century. The first conquest of a great part of the

country was achieved in the latter part of that century by a

Cossack adventurer named Yermac Timoseef, who began his attack

upon the Tartars in 1578. Unable to hold what he had won,

Yermac offered the sovereignty of his conquests to the Czar of

Muscovy, who took it gladly and sent reinforcements. The

conquests of Yermac were lost for a time after his death, but

soon recovered by fresh bodies of Muscovite troops sent into

the country. "This success was the forerunner of still greater

acquisitions. The Russians rapidly extended their conquests;

wherever they appeared, the Tartars were either reduced or

exterminated; new towns were built and colonies planted.

Before a century had elapsed, that vast tract of country now

called Siberia, which stretches from the confines of Europe to

the Eastern Ocean, and from the Frozen Sea to the frontiers of

China, was annexed to the Russian dominions."

W. Coxe,

Russian Discoveries between Asia and America,

part 2, chapter 1.

{2903}

SIBUZATES, The.

See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

SIBYLS.

SIBYLLINE BOOKS.

"Tarquinius [Tarquinius Superbus, the last of the kings of

"Rome] built a mighty temple, and consecrated it to Jupiter,

and to Juno, and to Minerva, the greatest of the gods of the

Etruscans. At this time there came a strange woman to the king

and offered him nine books of the prophecies of the Sibyl for

a certain price. "When the king refused them, the woman went

and burnt three of the books, and came back and offered the

six at the same price which she had asked for the nine; but

they mocked at her and would not take the books. Then she went

away and burnt three more, and came back and asked still the

same price for the remaining three. At this the king was

astonished, and asked of the augurs what he should do. They

said that he had done wrong in refusing the gift of the gods,

and bade him by all means to buy the books that were left. So

he bought them; and the woman who sold them was seen no more

from that day forwards. Then the books were put into a chest

of stone, and were kept under ground in the Capitol, and two

men were appointed to keep them, and were called the two men

of the sacred books."

T. Arnold,

History of Rome,

chapter 4.

"Collections of prophecies similar to the Sibylline books are

met with not only among the Greeks, but also among the

Italians —Etruscans as well as those of Sabellian race. The

Romans had the prophecies of the Marcii ('Carmina Marciana,'

Hartung, 'Religion der Römer,' i. 139); prophetic lines

('sortes') of the nymph Albunea had come down to Rome from

Tibur in a miraculous manner (Marquardt, 'Röm. Alterth., iv.

299). There existed likewise Etruscan 'libri fatales' (Livy,

v. 45; Cicero, 'De Divin., i. 44, 100), and prophecies of the

Etruscan nymph Begoe (quæ artem scripserat fulguritorum apud

Tuscos. Lactant, 'Instit.,' i. 6, 12). Such books as these

were kept in the Capitol, together with the Sibylline books,

in the care of the Quindecemveri sacris faciundis. They are

all called without distinction 'libri fatales' and 'Sibylline'

books, and there seems to have been little difference between

them."

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 1, chapter 8, foot-note (volume 1).

"Every schoolboy is familiar with the picturesque Roman legend

of the Sibyl. It is variously told in connection with the

elder and the later Tarquin, the two Etruscan kings of Rome;

and the scene of it is laid by some in Cumæ, where Tarquinius

Superbus spent the last years of his life in exile—and by

others in Rome. … The original books of the Cumæan Sibyl were

written in Greek, which was the language of the whole of the

south of Italy at that time. The oracles were inscribed upon

palm leaves; to which circumstance Virgil alludes in his

description of the sayings of the Cumæan Sibyl being written

upon the leaves of the forest. They were in the form of

acrostic verses. … It is supposed that they contained not so

much predictions of future events, as directions regarding the

means by which the wrath of the gods, as revealed by prodigies

and calamities, might be appeased. They seem to have been

consulted in the same way as Eastern nations consult the Koran

and Hafiz. … The Cumæan Sibyl was not the only prophetess of

the kind. There were no less than ten females, endowed with

the gift of prevision, and held in high repute, to whom the

name of Sibyl was given. We read of the Persian Sibyl, the

Libyan, the Delphic, the Erythræan, the Hellespontine, the

Phrygian, and the Tiburtine. With the name of the

last-mentioned Sibyl tourists make acquaintance at Tivoli. …

Clement of Alexandria does not scruple to call the Cumæan

Sibyl a true prophetess, and her oracles saving canticles. And

St. Augustine includes her among the number of those who

belong to the 'City of God.' And this idea of the Sibyls'

sacredness continued to a late age in the Christian Church.

She had a place in the prophetic order beside the patriarchs

and prophets of old."

H. Macmillan,

Roman Mosaics,

chapter 3.

"Either under the seventh or the eighth Ptolemy there appeared

at Alexandria the oldest of the Sibylline oracles, bearing the

name of the Erythræan Sibyl, which, containing the history of

the past and the dim forebodings of the future, imposed alike

on the Greek, Jewish, and Christian world, and added almost

another book to the Canon. When Thomas of Celano composed the

most famous hymn of the Latin Church he did not scruple to

place the Sibyl on a level with David; and when Michel Angelo

adorned the roof of the Sixtine Chapel, the figures of the

weird sisters of Pagan antiquity are as prominent as the seers

of Israel and Judah. Their union was the result of the bold

stroke of an Alexandrian Jew."

A. P. Stanley,

Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,

lecture 47 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

Dionysius, History,

book 4, section 62.

See, also, CUMÆ.

SICAMBRI,

SIGAMBRI,

SUGAMBRI.

See USIPETES;

also, FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.

SICARII, The.

See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

SICELIOTES AND ITALIOTES.

The inhabitants of the ancient Greek colonies in southern

Italy (Magna Graecia) and Sicily were known as Siceliotes and

Italiotes, to distinguish them from the native Siceli and

Itali.

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1).

SICELS.

SICANIANS.

See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.

SICILIAN VESPERS, The.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

SICILIES, The Two.

See Two SICILIES.

----------SICILY: Start--------

SICILY:

The early inhabitants.

The date of the first known Greek settlement in Sicily is

fixed at B. C. 735. It was a colony led from the Eubœan city

of Chalcis and from the island of Naxos, which latter gave

its name to the town which the emigrants founded on the

eastern coast of their new island home. "Sicily was at this

time inhabited by at least four distinct races: by Sicanians,

whom Thucydides considers as a tribe of the Iberians, who,

sprung perhaps from Africa, had overspread Spain and the

adjacent coasts, and even remote islands of the

Mediterranean; by Sicels, an Italian people, probably not

more foreign to the Greeks than the Pelasgians, who had been

driven out of Italy by the progress of the Oscan or Ausonian

race, and in their turn had pressed the Sicanians back toward

the southern and western parts of the island, and themselves

occupied so large a portion of it as to give their name to

the whole. Of the other races, the Phœnicians were in

possession of several points on the coast, and of some

neighbouring islets, from which they carried on their

commerce with the natives.

{2904}

The fourth people, which inhabited the towns of Eryx and

Egesta, or Segesta, at the western end of the island, and bore

the name of Elymians, was probably composed of different

tribes, varying in their degrees of affinity to the Greeks. …

The Sicels and the Phœnicians gradually retreated before the

Greeks. … But the Sicels maintained themselves in the inland

and on the north coast, and the Phœnicians, or Carthaginians,

who succeeded them, established themselves in the west, where

they possessed the towns of Motya, Solus, and Panormus,

destined, under the name of Palermo, to become the capital of

Sicily."

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 12.

ALSO IN:

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 22.

E. A. Freeman,

History of Sicily,

chapter 2.

See, also, ŒNOTRIANS.

SICILY:

Phœnician and Greek colonies.

"Sicilian history begins when the great colonizing nations of

antiquity, the Phœnicians and the Greeks, began to settle in

Sicily. … It was a chief seat for the planting of colonies,

first from Phœnicia and then from Greece. It is the presence

of these Phœnician and Greek colonies which made the history

of Sicily what it was. These settlements were of course made

more or less at the expense of the oldest inhabitants of the

island, those who were there before the Phœnicians and Greeks

came to settle. … Phœnician and Greek settlers could occupy

the coasts, but only the coasts; it was only at the corners

that they could at all spread from sea to sea. A great inland

region was necessarily left to the older inhabitants. But

there was no room in Sicily, as there was in Asia, for the

growth of great barbarian powers dangerous to the settlers.

Neither Phœnician nor Greek was ever able to occupy or conquer

the whole island; but neither people stood in any fear of

being conquered or driven out, unless by one another. But

instead of conquest came influence. Both Phœnicians and Greeks

largely influenced the native inhabitants. In the end, without

any general conquest, the whole island became practically

Greek. … Carthage at a later time plays so great a part in

Sicilian history that we are tempted to bring it in before its

time, and to fancy that the Phœnician colonies in Sicily were,

as they are sometimes carelessly called, Carthaginian

colonies. This is not so; the Phœnician cities in Sicily did

in after times become Carthaginian dependencies: but they were

not founded by Carthage. We cannot fix an exact date for their

foundation, nor can we tell for certain how far they were

settled straight from the old Phœnicia and how far from the

older Phœnician cities in Africa. But we may be sure that

their foundation happened between the migration of the Sikels

in the 11th century B. C. and the beginning of Greek

settlement in the 8th. And we may suspect that the Phœnician

settlements in the east of Sicily were planted straight from

Tyre and Sidon, and those in the west from the cities in

Africa. We know that all round Sicily the Phœnicians occupied

small islands and points of coast which were fitted for their

trade, but we may doubt whether they anywhere in Eastern

Sicily planted real colonies, cities with a territory attached

to them. In the west they seem to have done so. For, when the

Greeks began to advance in Sicily, the Phœnicians withdrew to

their strong posts in the western part of the island, Motya,

Solous, and Panormos. There they kept a firm hold till the

time of Roman dominion. The Greeks could never permanently

dislodge them from their possessions in this part. Held,

partly by Phœnicians, partly by Sikans and Elymians who had

been brought under Phœnician influence, the northwestern

corner of Sicily remained a barbarian corner. … The greatest

of all Phœnician settlements in Sicily lay within the bay of

which the hill of Solous is one horn, but much nearer to the

other horn, the hill of Herkte, now Pellegrino. Here the

mountains fence in a wonderfully fruitful plain, known in

after times as the Golden Shell (conca d'oro). In the middle

of it there was a small inlet of the sea, parted into two

branches, with a tongue of land between them, guarded by a

small peninsula at the mouth. There could be no better site

for Phœnician traders. Here then rose a Phœnician city, which,

though on the north coast of Sicily, looks straight towards

the rising sun. It is strange that we do not know its

Phœnician name; in Greek it was called Panormos, the

All-haven, a name borne also by other places. This is the

modern Palermo, which, under both Phœnicians and Saracens, was

the Semitic head of Sicily, and which remained the capital of

the island under the Norman kings. … Thus in Sicily the East

became West and the West East. The men of Asia withdrew before

the men of Europe to the west of the island, and thence warred

against the men of Europe to the east of them. In the great

central island of Europe they held their own barbarian corner.

It was the land of Phœnicians, Sikans, and Elymians, as

opposed to the eastern land of the Greeks and their Sikel

subjects and pupils. … For a long time Greek settlement was

directed to the East rather than to the West. And it was said

that, when settlement in Italy and Sicily did begin, the

earliest Greek colony, like the earliest Phœnician colony, was

the most distant. It was believed that Kyme, the Latin Cumæ in

Campania, was founded in the 11th century B. C. The other

plantations in Italy and Sicily did not begin till the 8th.

Kyme always stood by itself, as the head of a group of Greek

towns in its own neighbourhood and apart from those more to

the south, and it may very well be that some accident caused

it to be settled sooner than the points nearer to Greece. But

it is not likely to have been settled 300 years earlier. Most

likely it was planted just long enough before the nearer sites

to suggest their planting. Anyhow, in the latter half of the

8th century B. C. Greek settlement to the West, in Illyria,

Sicily, and Italy, began in good earnest. It was said that the

first settlement in Sicily came of an accident. Chalkis in

Euboia was then one of the chief sea-faring towns of Greece.

Theokles, a man of Chalkis, was driven by storm to the coast

of Sicily. He came back, saying that it was a good land and

that the people would be easy to conquer. So in 735 B. C. he

was sent forth to plant the first Greek colony in Sicily. The

settlers were partly from Chalkis, partly from the island of

Naxos. So it was agreed that the new town should be called

Naxos, but that Chalkis should count as its metropolis. So the

new Naxos arose on the eastern coast of Sicily, on a peninsula

made by the lava. It looked up at the great hill of Tauros, on

which Taormina now stands. The Greek settlers drove out the

Sikels and took so much land as they wanted. They built and

fortified a town, and part of their walls may still be seen. …

Naxos, as the beginning of Greek settlement in Sicily, answers

to Ebbsfleet, the beginning of English settlement in Britain."

E. A. Freeman,

The Story of Sicily,

chapters 1-4.

ALSO IN:

E. A. Freeman,

History of Sicily,

chapters 3-4 (volume 1).

{2905}

SICILY: B. C. 480.

Carthaginian invasion.

Battle of Himera.

During the same year in which Xerxes invaded Greece (B. C.

480), the Greeks in Sicily were equally menaced by an

appalling invasion from Carthage. The Carthaginians, invited

by the tyrant of Himera, who had been expelled from that city

by a neighbor tyrant, sent 300,000 men it is said, to

reinstate him, and to strengthen for themselves the slender

footing they already had in one corner of the island. Gelo,

the powerful tyrant of Syracuse, came promptly to the aid of

the Himerians, and defeated the Carthaginians with terrible

slaughter. Hamilcar the commander was among the slain. Those

who escaped the sword were nearly all taken prisoners and made

slaves. The fleet which brought them over was destroyed, and

scarcely a ship returned to Carthage to bear the deplorable

tidings.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 15.

ALSO IN:

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 43.

SICILY: B. C. 415-413.

Siege of Syracuse by the Athenians.

Its disastrous failure.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

Carthaginian invasion.

The quarrels of the city of Egesta, in Sicily, with its

neighbors, brought about the fatal expedition from Athens

against Syracuse, B. C. 415. Six years later, in the same

protracted quarrel, Egesta appealed to Carthage for help,

against the city of Selinus, and thus invited the first of the

Hannibals to revenge terribly the defeat and death of his

grandfather Hamilcar, at Himera, seventy years before.

Hannibal landed an army of more than one hundred thousand

savage mercenaries in Sicily, in the spring of 409 B. C. and

laid siege to Selinus with such vigor that the city was

carried by storm at the end of ten days and most of its

inhabitants slain. The temples and walls of the town were

destroyed and it was left a deserted ruin. "The ruins, yet

remaining, of the ancient temples of Selinus, are vast and

imposing; characteristic as specimens of Doric art during the

fifth and sixth centuries B. C. From the great magnitude of

the fallen columns, it has been supposed that they were

overthrown by an earthquake. But the ruins afford distinct

evidence that these columns have been first undermined, and

then overthrown by crowbars. This impressive fact,

demonstrating the agency of the Carthaginian destroyers, is

stated by Niebuhr." From Selinus, Hannibal passed on to Himera

and, having taken that city in like manner, destroyed it

utterly. The women and children were distributed as slaves;

the male captives were slain in a body on the spot where

Hamilcar fell—a sacrifice to his shade. A new town called

Therma was subsequently founded by the Carthaginians on the

site of Himera. Having satisfied himself with revenge,

Hannibal disbanded his army, glutted with spoil, and returned

home. But three years later he invaded Sicily again, with an

armament even greater than before, and the great city of

Agrigentum was the first to fall before his arms. "Its

population was very great; comprising, according to one

account, 20,000 citizens, among an aggregate total of 200,000

males—citizens, metics, and slaves; according to another

account, an aggregate total of no less than 800,000 persons;

numbers unauthenticated, and not to be trusted further than as

indicating a very populous city. … Its temples and porticos,

especially the spacious temple of Zeus Olympus—its statues and

pictures—its abundance of chariots and horses—its

fortifications—its sewers—its artificial lake of near a mile

in circumference, abundantly stocked with fish—all these

placed it on a par with the most splendid cities of the

Hellenic world." After a siege of some duration Agrigentum was

evacuated and most of its inhabitants escaped. The

Carthaginians stripped it of every monument of art, sending

much away to Carthage and destroying more. Hannibal had died

of a pestilence during the siege and his colleague Imilkon

succeeded him in command. Having quartered his army at

Agrigentum during the winter, he attacked the cities of Gela

and Kamarina in the spring, and both were believed to have

been betrayed to him by the tyrant of Syracuse, Dionysius, who

had then just established himself in power. A treaty of peace

was presently concluded between Dionysius and Imilkon, which

gave up all the south of Sicily, as well as Selinus, Himera,

and Agrigentum, to the Carthaginians, and made Gela and

Kamarina tributary to them. The Carthaginian army had been

half destroyed by pestilence and the disease, carried home by

its survivors, desolated Carthage and the surrounding country.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapters 81-82, with foot-note.

ALSO IN:

E. A. Freeman,

History of Sicily,

chapter 9 (volume 3).

SICILY: B. C. 397-396.

Dionysius, the Tyrant of Syracuse,

and his war with the Carthaginians.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

SICILY: B. C. 394-384.

Conquests and dominion of Dionysius.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 394-384.

SICILY: B. C. 383.

War with Carthage.

Dionysius, the Syracusan despot, was the aggressor in a fresh

war with Carthage which broke out in 383 B. C. The theatre of

war extended from Sicily to southern Italy, where Dionysius

had made considerable conquests, but only two battles of

serious magnitude were fought—both in Sicily. Dionysius was

the victor in the first of these, which was a desperate and

sanguinary struggle, at a place called Kabala. The

Carthaginian commander, Magon, was slain, with 10,000 of his

troops, while 5,000 were made captive. The survivors begged

for peace and Dionysius dictated, as a first condition, the

entire withdrawal of their forces from Sicily. While

negotiations were in progress, Magon's young son, succeeding

to his father's command, so reorganized and reinspirited his

army as to be able to attack the Syracusans and defeat them

with more terrific slaughter than his own side had experienced

a few days before. This battle, fought at Kronium, reversed

the situation, and forced Dionysius to purchase a humiliating

peace at heavy cost.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 83.

SICILY: B. C. 344.

Fall of the Tyranny of Dionysius at Syracuse.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 344.

SICILY: B. C. 317-289.

Syracuse under Agathokles.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.

SICILY: B. C. 278-276.

Expedition of Pyrrhus.

See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

{2906}

SICILY: B. C. 264-241.

The Mamertines in Messene.

First war of Rome and Carthage.-

Evacuation of the island by the Carthaginians.

The Romans in possession.

See PUNIC WAR: THE FIRST.

SICILY: B. C. 216-212.

Alliance with Hannibal and revolt against Rome.

The Roman siege of Syracuse.

See PUNIC WAR: THE SECOND.

SICILY: B. C. 133-103.

Slave wars.

See SLAVE WARS IN SICILY.

SICILY: A. D. 429-525.

Under the Vandals, and the Goths.

"Sicily, which had been for a generation subjected, first to

the devastations and then to the rule of the Vandal king [in

Africa], was now by a formal treaty, which must have been

nearly the last public act of Gaiseric [or Genseric, who died

A. D. 477] ceded to Odovacar [or Odoacer, who extinguished the

Western Roman Empire and was the first barbarian king of

Italy], all but a small part, probably at the western end of

the island, which the Vandal reserved to himself. A yearly

tribute was to be the price of this concession; but, in the

decay of the kingdom under Gaiseric's successors, it is

possible that this tribute was not rigorously enforced, as it

is also almost certain that the reserved portion of the

island, following the example of the remainder, owned the sway

of Odovacar."

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 4, chapter 4.

Under Theodoric the Ostrogoth, who overthrew Odoacer and

reigned in Italy from 493 until 525, Sicily was free both from

invasion and from tribute and shared with Italy the benefits

and the trials of the Gothic supremacy.

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 4, chapter 9.

SICILY: A. D. 535.

Recovered by Belisarius for the Emperor Justinian.

See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

SICILY: A. D. 550.

Gothic invasion.

See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

SICILY: A. D. 827-878.

Conquest by the Saracens.

The conquest of Sicily from the Byzantine empire, by the

Saracens, was instigated in the first instance and aided by an

influential Syracusan named Euphemios, whom the Emperor

Michael had undertaken to punish for abduction of a nun.

Euphemios invited the African Saracens to the island, and

Ziadet Allah, the Aglabite sovereign who had established

himself in power at Cairowan or Kairwan, felt strong enough to

improve the opportunity. In June 827 the admiral of the

Moslems formed a junction with the ships which Euphemios had

set afloat, and the Saracens landed at Mazara. The Byzantines

were defeated in a battle near Platana and the Saracens

occupied Girgenti. Having gained this foothold they waited

some time for reinforcements, which came, at last, in a naval

armament from Spain and troops from Africa. "The war was then

carried on with activity: Messina was taken in 831; Palermo

capitulated in the following year; and Enna was besieged, for

the first time, in 836. The war continued with various

success, as the invaders received assistance from Africa, and

the Christians from Constantinople. The Byzantine forces

recovered possession of Messina, which was not permanently

occupied by the Saracens until 843. … At length, in the year

859, Enna was taken by the Saracens. Syracuse, in order to

preserve its commerce from ruin, had purchased peace by paying

a tribute of 50,000 byzants; and it was not until the reign of

Basil I, in the year 878, that it was compelled to surrender,

and the conquest of Sicily was completed by the Arabs. Some

districts, however, continued, either by treaty or by force of

arms, to preserve their municipal independence, and the

exclusive exercise of the Christian religion, within their

territory, to a later period."

G. Finlay,

History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,

book 1, chapter 3, section 1.

"Syracuse preserved about fifty years [after the landing of

the Saracens in Sicily] the faith which she had sworn to

Christ and to Cæsar. In the last and fatal siege her citizens

displayed some remnant of the spirit which had formerly

resisted the powers of Athens and Carthage. They stood above

twenty days against the battering-rams and catapultæ, the

mines and tortoises of the besiegers; and the place might have

been relieved, if the mariners of the imperial fleet had not

been detained at Constantinople in building a church to the

Virgin Mary. … In Sicily the religion and language of the

Greeks were eradicated; and such was the docility of the

rising generation that 15,000 boys were circumcised and

clothed on the same day with the son of the Fatimite caliph.

The Arabian squadrons issued from the harbours of Palermo,

Biserta, and Tunis; a hundred and fifty towns of Calabria and

Campania were attacked and pillaged; nor could the suburbs of

Rome be defended by the name of the Cæsars and apostles. Had

the Mahometans been united, Italy must have fallen an easy and

glorious accession to the empire of the prophet."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 52.

A hundred and fifty years after the fall of Syracuse Basil II.

undertook its recovery, but death overcame him in the midst of

his plans. "Ten years later, the Byzantine general Maniakes

commenced the reconquest of Sicily in a manner worthy of Basil

himself, but the women and eunuchs who ruled at Constantinople

procured his recall; affairs fell into confusion, and the

prize was eventually snatched from both parties by the Normans

of Apulia."

E. A. Freeman,

History and Conquests of the Saracens,

lecture 5.

SICILY: A. D. 1060-1090.

Norman conquest.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090.

SICILY: A. D. 1127-1194.

Union with Apulia in the kingdom of Naples or the Two Sicilies.

Prosperity and peace.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1081-1194.

SICILY: A. D. 1146.

Introduction of Silk-culture and manufacture.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

SICILY: A. D. 1194-1266.

Under the Hohenstaufen.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1183-1250.

SICILY: A. D. 1266.

Invasion and conquest of the kingdom of the Sicilies

by Charles of Anjou.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.

SICILY: A. D. 1282-1300.

The Massacre of the Sicilian Vespers.

Separation from the kingdom of Naples.

Transfer to the House of Aragon.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

SICILY: A. D. 1313.

Alliance with the Emperor against Naples.

See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

SICILY: A. D. 1442.

Reunion of the crowns of Sicily and Naples,

or the Two Sicilies, by Alphonso of Aragon.

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

SICILY: A. D. 1458.

Separation of the crown of Naples from

those of Aragon and Sicily.

See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

SICILY: A. D. 1530.

Cession of Malta to the Knights of St. John.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1530-1565.

{2907}

SICILY: A. D. 1532-1553.

Frightful ravages of the Turks along the coast.

See ITALY: A. D. 1528-1570.

SICILY: A. D. 1713.

Ceded by Spain to the Duke of Savoy.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SICILY: A. D. 1718-1719.

Retaken by Spain, again surrendered, and acquired by

Austria in exchange for Sardinia.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;

and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

SICILY: A. D. 1734-1735.

Occupation by the Spaniards.

Cession to Spain, with Naples,

forming a kingdom for Don Carlos.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

SICILY: A. D. 1749-1792.

Under the Spanish-Bourbon regime.

See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

SICILY: A. D. 1805-1806.

Held by the King, expelled from Naples by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

SICILY: A. D. 1821.

Revolutionary insurrection.

See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

SICILY: A. D. 1848-1849.

Patriotic rising.

A year of independence.

Subjugation of the insurgents by King "Bomba."

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

SICILY: A. D. 1860-1861.

Liberation by Garibaldi.

Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

----------SICILY: End--------

SICULI, The.

See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.

SICYON,

SIKYON.

"Sicyon was the starting point of the Ionic civilization which

pervaded the whole valley of the Asopus [a river which flows

from the mountains of Argolis to the Gulf of Corinth, in

northeastern Peloponnesus]; the long series of kings of Sicyon

testifies to the high age with which the city was credited. At

one time it was the capital of all Asopia as well as of the

shore in front of it, and the myth of Adrastus has preserved

the memory of this the historic glory of Sicyon. The Dorian

immigration dissolved the political connection between the

cities of the Asopus. Sicyon itself had to admit Dorian

families." The ascendancy which the Dorian invaders then

assumed was lost at a later time. The old Ionian population of

the country dwelling on the shores of the Corinthian gulf,

engaged in commerce and fishing, acquired superior wealth and

were trained to superior enterprise by their occupation. In

time they overthrew the Doric state, under the lead of a

family, the Orthagoridæ, which established a famous tyranny in

Sicyon (about 670 B. C.). Myron and Clisthenes, the first two

tyrants of the house, acquired a great name in Greece by their

wealth, by their liberal encouragement of art and by their

devotion to the sanctuaries at Olympus and at Delphi.

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

See, also, TYRANTS, GREEK.

SICYON: B. C. 280-146.

The Achaian League.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

SIDNEY, Algernon, The execution of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.

SIDNEY, Sir Philip, The death of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

SIDON, The suicidal burning of.

About 346 B. C., Ochus, king of Persia, having subdued a

revolt in Cyprus, proceeded against the Phœnician cities,

which had joined in it. Sidon was betrayed to him by its

prince, and he intimated his intention to take signal revenge

on the city; whereupon the Sidonians "took the desperate

resolution, first of burning their fleet that no one might

escape—next, of shutting themselves up with their families,

and setting fire each man to his own house. In this deplorable

conflagration 40,000 persons are said to have perished; and

such was the wealth destroyed, that the privilege of searching

the ruins was purchased for a large sum of money."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 90.

SIDONIANS, The.

See PHŒNICIANS.

SIEBENBÜRGEN.

The early name given to the principality of Transylvania, and

having reference to seven forts erected within it.

J. Samuelson,

Roumania,

page 182.

----------SIENA: Start--------

SIENA:

The mediæval factions.

"The way in which this city conducted its government for a

long course of years [in the Middle Ages] justified Varchi in

calling it 'a jumble, so to speak, and chaos of republics,

rather than a well-ordered and disciplined commonwealth.' The

discords of Siena were wholly internal. They proceeded from

the wrangling of five factions, or Monti, as the people of

Siena called them. The first of these was termed the Monte de'

Nobili; for Siena had originally been controlled by certain

noble families. … The nobles split into parties among

themselves. … At last they found it impossible to conduct the

government, and agreed to relinquish it for a season to nine

plebeian families chosen from among the richest and most

influential. This gave rise to the Monte de' Nove. … In time,

however, their insolence became insufferable. The populace

rebelled, deposed the Nove, and invested with supreme

authority 12 other families of plebeian origin. The Monte de'

Dodici, created after this fashion, ran nearly the same course

as their predecessors, except that they appear to have

administered the city equitably. Getting tired of this form of

government, the people next superseded them by 16 men chosen

from the dregs of the plebeians, who assumed the title of

Riformatori. This new Monte de' Sedici or de' Riformatori

showed much integrity in their management of affairs, but, as

is the wont of red republicans, they were not averse to

bloodshed. Their cruelty caused the people, with the help of

the surviving patrician houses, together with the Nove and the

Dodici, to rise and shake them off. The last governing body

formed in this diabolical five-part fugue of crazy statecraft

received the name of Monte del Popolo, because it included all

who were eligible to the Great Council of the State. Yet the

factions of the elder Monti still survived; and to what extent

they had absorbed the population may be gathered from the fact

that, on the defeat of the Riformatori, 4,500 of the Sienese

were exiled. It must be borne in mind that with the creation

of each new Monte a new party formed itself in the city, and

the traditions of these parties were handed down from

generation to generation. At last, in the beginning of the

16th century, Pandolfo Petrucci, who belonged to the Monte de'

Nove, made himself in reality, if not in name, the master of

Siena, and the Duke of Florence later on in the same century

[1557]) extended his dominion over the republic."

J. A. Symonds,

Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,

chapter 3.

{2908}

SIENA: A. D. 1460.

War with Florence and victory at Montaperti.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

----------SIENA: End--------

SIENPI, The.

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

SIERRA LEONE.

"During the war of the [American] Revolution a large number of

blacks, chiefly runaway slaves, ranged themselves under the

British banner. At the close of the war a large number of

these betook themselves to Nova Scotia with the view of making

that their future home; while others followed the army, to

which they had been attached, to London. It was soon

ascertained that the climate of Nova Scotia was too severe for

those who had gone there; and those who followed the army to

London, when that was disbanded, found themselves in a strange

land, without friends and without the means of subsistence. In

a short time they were reduced to the most abject want and

poverty; and it was in view of their pitiable condition that

Dr. Smeathman and Granville Sharp brought forward the plan of

colonizing them on the coast of Africa. They were aided in

this measure by the Government. The first expedition left

England in 1787, and consisted of 400 blacks and about 60

whites, most of whom were women of the most debased character.

… On their arrival at Sierra Leone a tract of land of 20 miles

square was purchased from the natives of the country, and they

immediately commenced a settlement along the banks of the

river. In less than a year their number was reduced more than

one half, owing, in some measure, to the unhealthiness of the

climate, but more perhaps to their own irregularities. Two

years afterward they were attacked by a combination of

natives, and had nigh been exterminated. About this time the

'Sierra Leone Company' was formed to take charge of the

enterprise. Among its directors were enrolled the venerable

names of Wilberforce, Clarkson, Thornton, and Granville Sharp.

The first agent sent out by the Company to look after this

infant colony found the number of settlers reduced to about

60. In 1791 upward of 1,100 colored emigrants were taken from

Nova Scotia to Sierra Leone. About the same time as many as a

hundred whites embarked in England for the same place. … In

1798 it is said that Free-town had attained to the dimensions

of a full-grown town. … About the same time the colony was

farther reinforced by the arrival of more than 500 Maroons

from the Island of Jamaica. These Maroons were no better in

character than the original founders of the colony, and no

little disorder arose from mixing up such discordant elements.

These were the only emigrations of any consequence that ever

joined the colony of Sierra Leone from the Western hemisphere.

Its future accessions … came from a different quarter. In 1807

the slave-trade was declared piracy by the British Government,

and a squadron was stationed on the coast for the purpose of

suppressing it. About the same time the colony of Sierra Leone

was transferred to the Government, and has ever since been

regarded as a Crown colony. The slaves taken by the British

cruisers on the high seas have always been taken to this

colony and discharged there; and this has been the main source

of its increase of population from that time."

J. L. Wilson,

Western Africa,

part 4, chapter 2.

SIEVERSHAUSEN, Battle of (1553).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561.

SIEYES, Abbé, and the French Revolution.

See FRANCE:

A. D. 1789 (JUNE);

1790;

1791 (OCTOBER);

1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);

1799 (NOVEMBER), and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

SIFFIN, Battle of.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.

SIGAMBRI,

SICAMBRI.

See USIPETES;

also, FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.

SIGEBERT I.,

King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 561-575.

SIGEBERT II.,

King of the Franks (Austrasia), 633-650.

SIGEL, General Franz.

Campaign in Missouri and Arkansas.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI);

1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

Command in the Shenandoah.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

SIGISMUND,

SIGMUND,

King of Hungary, A. D. 1386-1437;

King of Germany, 1410-1437;

Emperor, 1433-1437;

King of Bohemia, 1434-1437.

Sigismund, King of Sweden, 1522-1604.

Sigismund I., King of Poland, 1507-1548.

Sigismund II., King of Poland, 1548-1574.

Sigismund III., King of Poland, 1587-1632.

SIGNORY, The Florentine.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.

SIGURD I., King of Norway, A. D. 1122-1130.

SIGURD II., King of Norway, 1136-1155.

SIKANS.

SIKELS.

See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.

SIKHS, The.

"The founder of the Sikh religion was Nanak [or Nanuk], son of

a petty Hindu trader named Kalu. Nanak was born in the

vicinity of Lahor in the year 1469. A youth much given to

reflection, he devoted himself at an early period of his life

to a study of the rival creeds then prevailing in India, the

Hindu and the Muhammadan. Neither satisfied him. … After

wandering through many lands in search of a satisfying truth,

Nanak returned to his native country with the conviction that

he had failed. He had found, he said, many scriptures and many

creeds; but he had not found God. Casting off his habit of an

ascetic, he resumed his father's trade, married, became the

father of a family, and passed the remainder of his life in

preaching the doctrine of the unity of one invisible God, of

the necessity of living virtuously, and of practising

toleration towards others. He died in 1539, leaving behind him

a reputation without spot, and many zealous and admiring

disciples eager to perpetuate his creed. The founder of a new

religion, Nanak, before his death, had nominated his

successor—a man of his own tribe named Angad. Angad held the

supremacy for twelve years, years which he employed mainly in

committing to writing the doctrines of his great master and in

enforcing them upon his disciples. Angad was succeeded by

Ummar Das, a great preacher. He, and his son-in-law and

successor, Ram Das, were held in high esteem by the emperor

Akbar. But it was the son of Ram Das, Arjun, who established

on a permanent basis the new religion. … He fixed the seat of

the chief Guru, or high priest of the religion, and of his

principal followers, at Amritsar, then an obscure hamlet, but

which, in consequence of the selection, speedily rose into

importance.

{2909}

Arjun then regulated and reduced to a systematic tax the

offerings of his adherents, to be found even then in every

city and village in the Panjab and the cis-satlaj territories.

… The real successor of Arjun was his son, Hur Govind. Hur

Govind founded the Sikh nation. Before his time the followers

of the Guru had been united by no tie but that of obedience to

the book. Govind formed them into a community of warriors. He

did away with many of the restrictions regarding food,

authorised his followers to eat flesh, summoned them to his

standard, and marched with them to consolidate his power. A

military organisation based upon a religious principle, and

directed by a strong central authority, will always become

powerful in a country the government of which is tainted with

decay. The ties which bound the Mughul empire together were

already loosening under the paralysing influence of the

bigotry of Aurangzile, when, in 1675, Govind, fourth in

succession to the Hur Govind to whom I have adverted, assumed

the mantle of Guru of the Sikhs. … Govind still further

simplified the dogmas of the faith. Assembling his followers,

he announced to them that thenceforward the doctrines of the

'Khalsa,' the saved or liberated, alone should prevail. There

must be no human image or resemblance of the One Almighty

Father; caste must cease to exist; before Him all men were

equal; Muhammadanism was to be rooted out; social

distinctions, all the solaces of superstition, were to exist

no more; they should call themselves 'Singh' and become a

nation of soldiers. The multitude received Govind's

propositions with rapture. By a wave of the hand he found

himself the trusted leader of a confederacy of warriors in a

nation whose institutions were decaying. About 1695, twelve

years before the death of Aurangzile, Govind put his schemes

into practice. He secured many forts in the hill-country of

the Panjab, defeated the Mughul troops in several encounters,

and established himself as a thorn in the side of the empire."

But more than half a century of struggle with Moghul, Afghan

and Mahratta disputants was endured before the Sikhs became

masters of the Panjab. When they had made their possession

secure, they were no longer united. They were "divided into 12

confederacies or misls, each of which had its chief equal in

authority to his brother chiefs, … and it was not until 1784

that a young chieftain named Maha Singh gained, mainly by

force of arms, a position which placed him above his fellows."

The son of Maha Singh was Ranjit Singh, or Runjet Singh, who

established his sovereignty upon a solid footing, made terms

with his English neighbors (see INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816), and

extended his dominions by the capture of Multan in 1818, by

the conquest of Kashmere in 1819-20, and by the acquisition of

Peshawar in 1823.

G. B. Malleson,

The Decisive Battles of India,

chapter 11.

The wars of the Sikhs with the English, in 1845-6, and 1848-9,

the conquest and annexation of their country to British India,

and the after-career in exile of Dhuleep Singh, the heir, are

related under INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849, and 1849-1893.

ALSO IN:

J. D. Cunningham,

History of the Sikhs.

Sir L. Griffin,

Ranjit Singh.

SIKSIKAS,

SISIKAS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

SIKYON.

See SICYON.

SILBURY HILL.

See ABURY.

SILCHESTER, Origin of.

See CALLEVA.

----------SILESIA: Start--------

SILESIA:

Origin of the name:

See LYGIANS.

SILESIA: 9th Century.

Included in the kingdom of Moravia.

See MORAVIA: 9TH CENTURY.

SILESIA: A. D. 1355.

Declared an integral part of Bohemia.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.

SILESIA: A. D. 1618.

Participation in the Bohemian revolt.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

SILESIA: A. D. 1633.

Campaign of Wallenstein.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

SILESIA: A. D. 1648.

Religious concessions in the Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

SILESIA: A. D. 1706.

Rights of the Protestants asserted and enforced by

Charles XII. of Sweden.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

SILESIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

Invasion and conquest by Frederick the Great.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

SILESIA: A. D. 1742.

Ceded to Prussia by the Treaty of Breslau.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE).

SILESIA: A. D. 1748.

Cession to Prussia confirmed.

See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748.

SILESIA: A. D. 1757.

Overrun by the Austrians.

Recovered by Frederick the Great.

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

SILESIA: A. D. 1758.

Again occupied by the Austrians.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

SILESIA: A. D. 1760-1762.

Last campaigns of the Seven Years War.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1760; and 1761-1762.

SILESIA: A. D. 1763.

Final surrender to Prussia.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: A. D. 1763.

----------SILESIA: End--------

SILESIAN WARS, The First and Second.

The part which Frederick the Great took in the War of the

Austrian Succession, in 1740-1741, when he invaded and took

possession of Silesia, and in 1743-1745 when he resumed arms

to make his conquest secure, is commonly called the First

Silesian War and the Second Silesian War.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741; 1743-1744; and 1744-1745.

SILESIAN WARS, The Third.

The Seven Years War has been sometimes so-called.

See PRUSSIA: A. D. 1755-1756.

SILINGI, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

SILISTRIA: A. D. 1828-1829.

Siege and capture by the Russians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

SILK MANUFACTURE; transferred from Greece to Sicily and Italy.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

SILLERY, The Mission at.

See CANADA: A. D. 1637-1657.

SILO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 774-783.

SILOAM INSCRIPTION, The.

A very ancient and most important inscription which was

discovered in 1880 on the wall of a rock-cut channel leading

into the so-called Pool of Siloam, at Jerusalem. It relates

only to the excavating of the tunnel which carries water to

the Pool, "yet its importance epigraphically and

philologically is immense. … It shows us that several

centuries must have elapsed, during which the modifications of

form which distinguish the Phoenician, the Moabite and the

Hebrew scripts gradually developed, and that the Hebrews,

therefore, would probably have been in possession of the art

of writing as early at least as the time of Solomon."

C. R. Conder,

Syrian Stone-Lore,

page 118.

{2910}

SILPHIUM.

See CYRENAICA.

SILURES, The.

An ancient tribe in southern Wales, supposed by some to

represent a mixture of the Celtic and pre-Celtic inhabitants

of Britain.

See IBERIANS, THE WESTERN;

also, BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.

The conquest of the Silures was effected by Claudius.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53.

SILVER-GRAYS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

SILVER QUESTION, in America, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1873, 1878, 1890-1893;

also MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893, and 1853-1874.

SILVER QUESTION, in India, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1893.

SIMNEL, Lambert, Rebellion of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1487-1497.

SIMPACH, Battle of.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

SIN.

SINÆ.

See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

SINDH.

See SCINDE.

SINDMAN, The.

See COMITATUS.

SINGARA, Battle of (A. D.348).

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

SINGIDUNUM.

See BELGRADE.

SINIM.

See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

SINITES, The.

A Canaanite tribe whose country was the mountain chain of

Lebanon.

SINSHEIM, Battle of (1674).

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

SION.

See JERUSALEM: CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION BY DAVID.

SIOUX, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

SIPPARA, The exhumed Library of.

See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.

SIRBONIS LAKE.

See SERBONIAN BOG.

SIRIS.

SIRITIS.

THURII.

METAPONTIUM.

TARENTUM.

"Between the point [on the Tarentine gulf, southeastern Italy]

where the dominion of Sybaris terminated on the Tarentine

side, and Tarentum itself, there were two considerable Grecian

settlements—Siris, afterwards called Herakleia, and

Metapontium. The fertility and attraction of the territory of

Siris, with its two rivers, Akiris and Sins, were well-known

even to the poet Archilochus (660 B. C.). but we do not know

the date at which it passed from the indigenous Chonians, or

Chaonians into the hands of Greek settlers. … At the time of

the invasion of Greece by Xerxes, the fertile territory of

Siritis was considered as still open to be colonised; for the

Athenians, when their affairs appeared desperate, had this

scheme of emigration in reserve as a possible resource. … At

length, after the town of Thurii had been founded by Athens

[B. C. 443, under the administration of Perikles; the

historian Herodotus and the orator Lycias being among the

settlers], in the vicinity of the dismantled Sybaris, the

Thurians tried to possess themselves of the Siritid territory,

but were opposed by the Tarentines. According to the

compromise concluded between them, Tarentum was recognised as

the metropolis of the colony, but joint possession was allowed

both to Tarentines and Thurians. The former transferred the

site of the city, under the new name Herakleia, to a spot

three miles from the sea, leaving Siris as the place of

maritime access to it. About twenty-five miles eastward of

Siris, on the coast of the Tarentine gulf, was situated

Metapontium, a Greek town, … planted on the territory of the

Chonians, or Œnotrians; but the first colony is said to have

been destroyed by an attack of the Samnites, at what period we

do not know. It had been founded by some Achæan settlers. …

The fertility of the Metapontine territory was hardly less

celebrated than that of the Siritid. Farther eastward of

Metapontium, again at the distance of about twenty-five miles,

was situated the great city of Taras, or Tarentum, a colony

from Sparta founded after the first Messenian war, seemingly

about 707 B. C. … The Tarentines … stand first among the

Italiots, or Italian Greeks, from the year 400 B. C. down to

the supremacy of the Romans."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 22.

SIRKARS, OR CIRCARS, The Northern.

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

SIRMIUM.

Sirmium (modern Mitrovitz, on the Save) was the Roman capital

of Pannonia, and an important center of all military

operations in that region.

SIRMIUM:

Ruined by the Huns.

See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.

SIRMIUM:

Captured by the Avars.

See AVARS.

SISECK, Siege and Battle of (1592).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

SISINNIUS, Pope, A. D. 708, January to February.

SISSETONS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

SISTOVA, Treaty of (1791).

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

SITABALDI HILLS, Battle of the (1817).

See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

SITVATOROK, Treaty of (1606).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.

SIX ACTS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

SIX ARTICLES, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1539.

SIX HUNDRED, The Charge of the.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

SIX NATIONS OF INDIANS.

See FIVE NATIONS.

SIXTEEN OF THE LEAGUE, in Paris, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

SIXTUS IV., Pope, A. D. 1471-1484.

SIXTUS V., Pope, 1585-1590.

SKALDS.

See SCALDS.

SKINNERS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SKITTAGETAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SKITTAGETAN FAMILY.

SKOBELEFF, General, Campaigns of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881;

and TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

SKODRA (Scutari).

See ILLYRIANS.

SKRÆLINGS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

SKUPTCHINA.

The Servian parliament or legislature.

{2911}

SKYTALISM.

See SCYTALISM.

SLAVE:

Origin of the servile signification of the word.

The term slave, in its signification of a servile state, is

derived undoubtedly from the name of the Slavic or Sclavic

people. "This conversion of a national into an appellative

name appears to have arisen in the eighth century, in the

Oriental France [Austrasia], where the princes and bishops

were rich in Sclavonian captives, not of the Bohemian

(exclaims Jordan), but of Sorabian race. From thence the word

was extended to general use, to the modern languages, and even

to the style of the last Byzantines."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 55, foot-note.

See, also, AVARS; and SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

SLAVE OR MAMELUKE DYNASTY OF INDIA, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

SLAVE RISING UNDER SPARTACUS.

See SPARTACUS;

and ROME: B. C. 78-68.

SLAVE TRADE, First measures for the suppression of the.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1792-1807.

SLAVE WARS IN SICILY AND ITALY.

After the Romans became masters of Sicily the island was

filled rapidly with slaves, of which a vast number were being

continually acquired in the Roman wars of conquest. Most of

these slaves were employed as shepherds and herdsmen on great

estates, the owners of which gave little attention to them,

simply exacting in the most merciless fashion a satisfactory

product. The result was that the latter, half perishing from

hunger and cold, were driven to desperation, and a frightful

rising among them broke out, B. C. 133. It began at Enna, and

its leader was a Syrian called Eunus, who pretended to

supernatural powers. The inhabitants of Enna were massacred,

and that town became the stronghold of the revolt. Eunus

crowned himself and assumed the royal name of Antiochus.

Agrigentum, Messana and Tauromenium fell into the hands of the

insurgents, and more than a year passed before they were

successfully resisted. When, at last, they were overcome, it

was only at the end of most obstinate sieges, particularly at

Tauromenium and Enna, and the vengeance taken was without

mercy. In Italy there were similar risings at the same time,

from like causes, but these latter were quickly suppressed.

Thirty years later a second revolt of slaves was provoked,

both in southern Italy and in Sicily,—suppressed promptly in

the former, but growing to seriousness in the latter. The

Sicilian slaves had two leaders, Salvius and Athenio; but the

former established his ascendancy and called himself king

Triphon. The rebellion was suppressed at the cost of two heavy

battles.

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 5, chapter 48,

and book 6, chapter 55.

ALSO IN:

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

chapter 9.

----------SLAVERY: Start--------

SLAVERY: Ancient.

Among the Oriental races.

"From the writings of the Old Testament a fairly distinct

conception can be formed of slavery among the Hebrews. Many

modern critics hold the picture presented in the Book of

Genesis, of the patriarchal age, its slavery included, to be

not a transcript of reality, but an idealisation of the past.

Whether this is so or not, can only be properly decided by the

historico-critical investigations of specialists. Although the

Hebrews are described as having shown extreme ferocity in the

conquest of Canaan, their legislation as to slavery was, on

the whole, considerate and humane. Slaves were not numerous

among them, at least after the exile. Hebrew slavery has

naturally been the subject of much research and controversy.

The best treatise regarding it is still that of Mielziner.

Slavery in the great military empires, which arose in ancient

times in anterior Asia, was doubtless of the most cruel

character; but we have no good account of slavery in these

countries. The histories of Rawlinson, Duncker, Ranke, Ed.

Meyer, and Maspero, tell us almost nothing about Chaldean,

Assyrian, and Medo-Persian slavery. Much more is known as to

slavery, and the condition of the labouring classes, in

ancient Egypt, although of even this section of the history

there is much need for an account in which the sources of

information, unsealed by modern science, will be fully

utilised. While in Egypt there were not castes, in the strict

sense of the term, classes were very rigidly defined. There

were troops of slaves, and as population was superabundant,

labour was so cheap as to be employed to an enormous extent

uselessly. It may suffice to refer to Wilkinson, Rawlinson,

and Buckle. It does not seem certain that the Vedic Aryans had

slaves before the conquest of India. Those whom they conquered

became the Sudras, and a caste system grew up, and came to be

represented as of divine appointment. The two lower castes of

the Code of Manu have now given place to a great many. There

was not a slave caste, but individuals of any caste might

become slaves in exceptional circumstances. Even before the

rise of Buddhism there were ascetics who rejected the

distinction of castes. Buddhism proclaimed the religious

equality of Brahmans and Sudras, but not the emancipation of

the Sudras."

R. Flint,

History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,

pages 128-129.

ALSO IN:

E. J. Simcox,

Primitive Civilizations.

SLAVERY:

Among the Greeks.

"The institution of slavery in Greece is very ancient; it is

impossible to trace its origin, and we find it even in the

very earliest times regarded as a necessity of nature, a point

of view which even the following ages and the most enlightened

philosophers adopted. In later times voices were heard from

time to time protesting against the necessity of the

institution, showing some slight conception of the idea of

human rights, but these were only isolated opinions. From the

very earliest times the right of the strongest had established

the custom that captives taken in war, if not killed or

ransomed, became the slaves of the conquerors, or were sold

into slavery by them. … Besides the wars, piracy, originally

regarded as by no means dishonourable, supplied the slave

markets; and though in later times endeavours were made to set

a limit to it, yet the trade in human beings never ceased,

since the need for slaves was considerable, not only in

Greece, but still more in Oriental countries.

{2912}

In the historic period the slaves in Greece were for the most

part barbarians, chiefly from the districts north of the

Balkan peninsula and Asia Minor. The Greek dealers supplied

themselves from the great slave markets held in the towns on

the Black Sea and on the Asiatic coast of the Archipelago, not

only by the barbarians themselves, but even by Greeks, in

particular the Chians, who carried on a considerable slave

trade. These slaves were then put up for sale at home; at

Athens there were special markets held for this purpose on the

first of every month. … A large portion of the slave

population consisted of those who were born in slavery; that

is, the children of slaves or of a free father and slave

mother, who as a rule also became slaves, unless the owner

disposed otherwise. We have no means of knowing whether the

number of these slave children born in the houses in Greece

was large or small. At Rome thy formed a large proportion of

the slave population, but the circumstances in Italy differed

greatly from those in Greece, and the Roman landowners took as

much thought for the increase of their slaves as of their

cattle. Besides these two classes of slave population, those

who were taken in war or by piracy and those who were born

slaves, there was also a third, though not important, class.

In early times even free men might become slaves by legal

methods; for instance foreign residents, if they neglected

their legal obligations, and even Greeks, if they were

insolvent, might be sold to slavery by their creditors [see

DEBT: ANCIENT GREEK], a severe measure which was forbidden by

Solon's legislation at Athens, but still prevailed in other

Greek states. Children, when exposed, became the property of

those who found and educated them, and in this manner many of

the hetaerae and flute girls had become the property of their

owners. Finally, we know that in some countries the Hellenic

population originally resident there were subdued by foreign

tribes, and became the slaves of their conquerors, and their

position differed in but few respects from that of the

barbarian slaves purchased in the markets. Such native serfs

were the Helots at Sparta, the Penestae in Thessaly, the

Clarotae in Crete, etc. We have most information about the

position and treatment of the Helots; but here we must receive

the statements of writers with great caution, since they

undoubtedly exaggerated a good deal in their accounts of the

cruelty with which the Spartans treated the Helots. Still, it

is certain that in many respects their lot was a sad one. …

The rights assigned by law to the master over his slaves were

very considerable. He might throw them in chains, put them in

the stocks, condemn them to the hardest labour —for instance,

in the mills—leave them without food, brand them, punish them

with stripes, and attain the utmost limit of endurance; but,

at any rate at Athens, he was forbidden to kill them. … Legal

marriages between slaves were not possible, since they

possessed no personal rights; the owner could at any moment

separate a slave family again, and sell separate members of

it. On the other hand, if the slaves were in a position to

earn money, they could acquire fortunes of their own; they

then worked on their own account, and only paid a certain

proportion to their owners, keeping the rest for themselves,

and when they had saved the necessary amount they could

purchase their freedom, supposing the owner was willing to

agree, for he was not compelled. … The protection given to

slaves by the State was very small, but here again there were

differences in different states. … It would be impossible to

make a guess at the number of slaves in Greece. Statements on

the subject are extant, but these are insufficient to give us

any general idea. There can be no doubt that the number was a

very large one; it was a sign of the greatest poverty to own

no slaves at all, and Aeschines mentions, as a mark of a very

modest household, that there were only seven slaves to six

persons. If we add to these domestic slaves the many thousands

working in the country, in the factories, and the mines, and

those who were the property of the State and the temples,

there seems no doubt that their number must have considerably

exceeded that of the free population."

H. Blümner,

The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks,

chapter 15.

ALSO IN:

C. C. Felton,

Greece, Ancient and Modern,

lectures 2-3, third course (volume 2).

SLAVERY:

Among the Romans.

Slavery, under the Roman Empire, "was carried to an excess

never known elsewhere, before or since.

See ROME: B. C. 159-133.

Christianity found It permeating and corrupting every domain

of human life, and in six centuries of conflict succeeded in

reducing it to nothing. … Christianity, in the early ages,

never denounced slavery as a crime; never encouraged or

permitted the slaves to rise against their masters and throw

off the yoke; yet she permeated the minds of both masters and

slaves with ideas utterly inconsistent with the spirit of

slavery. Within the Church, master and slave stood on an

absolute equality."

W. R. Brownlow,

Lectures on Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,

lectures 1-2.

SLAVERY: Mediæval and Modern.

SLAVERY:

Villeinage.

Serfdom.

"The persons employed in cultivating the ground during the

ages under review [the 7th to the 11th centuries, in Europe]

may be divided into three classes:

I. 'Servi,' or slaves. This seems to have been the most

numerous class, and consisted either of captives taken in war,

or of persons the property in whom was acquired in some one of

the various methods enumerated by Du Cange, voc. Servus,

volume vi. page 447. The wretched condition of this numerous

race of men will appear from several circumstances.

1. Their masters had absolute dominion over their persons.

They had the power of punishing their slaves capitally,

without the intervention of any judge. This dangerous right

they possessed not only in the more early periods, when their

manners were fierce, but it continued as late as the 12th

century. … Even after this jurisdiction of masters came to be

restrained, the life of a slave was deemed to be of so little

value that a very slight compensation atoned for taking it

away. If masters had power over the lives of their slaves, it

is evident that almost no bounds would be set to the rigour of

the punishments which they might inflict upon them. … The

cruelty of these was, in many instances, excessive. Slaves

might be put to the rack on very slight occasions. The laws

with respect to these points are to be found in Potgiesserus,

lib. iii. cap. 7. 2. and are shocking to humanity.

{2913}

2. If the dominion of masters over the lives and persons of

their slaves was thus extensive, it was no less so over their

actions and property. They were not originally permitted to

marry. Male and female slaves were allowed, and even

encouraged, to cohabit together. But this union was not

considered as a marriage. … When the manners of the European

nations became more gentle, and their ideas more liberal,

slaves who married without their master's consent were

subjected only to a fine. …

3. All the children of slaves were in the same condition with

their parents, and became the property of their master. …

4. Slaves were so entirely the property of their masters that

they could sell them at pleasure. While domestic slavery

continued, property in a slave was sold in the same manner

with that which a person had in any other moveable. Afterwards

slaves became 'adscripti glebæ,' and were conveyed by sale,

together with the farm or estate to which they belonged. …

5. Slaves had a title to nothing but subsistence and clothes

from their master; all the profits of their labour accrued to

him. …

6. Slaves were distinguished from freemen by a peculiar dress.

Among all the barbarous nations, long hair was a mark of

dignity and of freedom; slaves were for that reason, obliged

to shave their heads. …

II. 'Villani.' They were likewise 'adscripti glebæ,' or

'villæ,' from which they derived their name, and were

transferable along with it. Du Cange, voc. Villanus. But in

this they differed from slaves, that they paid a fixed rent to

their master for the land which they cultivated, and, after

paying that, all the fruits of their labour and industry

belonged to themselves in property. This distinction is marked

by Pierre de Fontain's Conseil. Vie de St. Louis par

Joinville, page 119, édit. de Du Cange. Several cases decided

agreeably to this principle are mentioned by Muratori, ibid,

page 773.

III. The last class of persons employed in agriculture were

freemen. … Notwithstanding the immense difference between the

first of these classes and the third, such was the spirit of

tyranny which prevailed among the great proprietors of lands …

that many freemen, in despair, renounced their liberty, and

voluntarily surrendered themselves as slaves to their powerful

masters. This they did in order that their masters might

become more immediately interested to afford them protection,

together with the means of subsisting themselves and their

families. … It was still more common for freemen to surrender

their liberty to bishops or abbots, that they might partake of

the security which the vassals and slaves of churches and

monasteries enjoyed. … The number of slaves in every nation of

Europe was immense. The greater part of the inferior class of

people in France were reduced to this state at the

commencement of the third race of kings. Esprit des Loix, liv.

xxx. c. ii. The same was the case in England. Brady, Pref. to

Gen. Hist. … The humane spirit of the christian religion

struggled long with the maxims and manners of the world, and

contributed more than any other circumstance to introduce the

practice of manumission. … The formality of manumission was

executed in a church, as a religious solemnity. … Another

method of obtaining liberty was by entering into holy orders,

or taking the vow in a monastery. This was permitted for some

time; but so many slaves escaped by this means out of the

hands of their masters that the practice was afterwards

restrained, and at last prohibited, by the laws of almost all

the nations of Europe. … Great … as the power of religion was,

it does not appear that the enfranchisement of slaves was a

frequent practice while the feudal system preserved its

vigour. … The inferior order of men owed the recovery of their

liberty to the decline of that aristocratical policy."

W. Robertson,

History of the Reign of Charles V.,

notes 9 and 20.

ALSO IN:

A. Gurowski,

Slavery in History,

chapters 15-20.

T. Smith,

Arminius,

part 3, chapter 5.

See, also, DEDITITIUS.

SLAVERY: England.

Villeinage.

"Chief of all causes [of slavery] in early times and among all

peoples was capture in war. The peculiar nature of the English

conquests, the frequent wars between the different kingdoms

and the private expeditions for revenge or plunder would

render this a fruitful means whereby the number of slaves

would increase on English soil. In this way the Romanized

Briton, the Welshman, the Angle and Saxon and the Dane would

all go to swell the body of those without legal status. In

those troubled times any were liable to a reduction to

slavery; the thegn might become a thrall, the lord might

become the slave of one who had been in subjection under him,

and Wulfstan, in that strong sermon of his to the English

[against Slavery—preserved by William of Malmesbury], shows

that all this actually took place. It was at the time of the

Danish invasion and the sermon seems to point clearly to a

region infested by Danes, a region in which was the seat of

Wulfstan's labors, for he was Archbishop of York from 1002 to

1023. Wulfstan's graphic picture does not seem to be

corroborated by the evidence of the Domesday Survey. Mr.

Seebohm's map shows that in the west and southwest there

appears the greatest percentage in that record; that in

Gloucestershire nearly one fourth of the population,

twenty-four per cent., were in a state of slavery; that in

Cornwall, Devon, and Stafford the proportion was only one to

every five; in central England about one to every seven; in

the east, Essex, Surrey, Cambridge and Herts one to every

nine; in East Anglia and Wessex one to every twenty-five,

while in the northerly districts in Nottinghamshire one to two

hundred is given, and in York, Rutland, Huntingdon and Lincoln

no slaves at all are recorded. From this it is evident that

the Danish invasion was less serious from this point of view

than had been the original conquest. Domesday records the

social condition 500 years after the settlement, and many

influences, with Christianity as the primary, were at work to

alter the results of that movement. The main inference to be

drawn is that the continued warfare along the Welsh marches

replenished the supply in the west, while in the east the

slave element was rapidly decreasing and in the north,

notwithstanding the Danish invasion, there was rather a

commingling of peoples than a subjection of the one by the

other. A second cause was the surrender into slavery of the

individual's own body either by himself or a relative. This

could be voluntary, the free act of the individual or his

relatives, or it could be forced, resulting from the storm and

stress of evil days: This surrender was one of the most

unfortunate phases of the Anglo-Saxon servitude and indicates

to us the growing increase of the traffic in slaves; and the

personal subjection was largely the outcome of that which was

common to all peoples, the demand for slaves.

{2914}

Even as early as the time of Strabo, in the half century

following Cæsar's conquest, the export of slaves began in

Britain and before the Norman Conquest the sale of slaves had

become a considerable branch of commerce. The insular position

of England, her numerous ports, of which Bristol was one of

the chief, gave rise during the Saxon occupation to a traffic

in the slaves of all nations, and we know that slaves were

publicly bought and sold throughout England and from there

transported to Ireland or the continent. It was the prevalence

of this practice and the wretched misery which it brought upon

so many human beings, as well as the fact that it was against

the precepts if not the laws of the church, that led Wulfstan,

the Wilberforce of his time, to bring about the cessation of

the slave trade at Bristol. From this place lines of women and

children, gathered together from all England, were carried

into Ireland and sold. … Besides this sale into slavery for

purposes of traffic, which as a regular commerce was not

prohibited until after the Norman conquest, many seem to have

submitted themselves to the mastery of another through the

need of food, which a year of famine might bring. A charter in

the Codex Diplomaticus tells us of those men who bowed their

heads for their meat in the evil days. Kemble thinks that such

cases might have been frequent and Simeon of Durham, writing

of the year 1069 when there was a dreadful famine in England,

which raged particularly in the north, says that many sold

themselves into slavery, that they might receive the needed

support. … Even so late as the so-called laws of Henry I, such

an act was recognized and a special procedure provided. … In

addition to all those thus born into slavery or reduced to

that condition in the ways above noted, there was another

class made up of such as were reduced to slavery unwillingly

as a penalty for debt or crime: these were known as

'witetheowas' or 'wite-fæstanmen.' … The legal condition of

the slave was a particularly hard one; as a thing, not as a

person, he was classed with his lord's goods and cattle and

seems to have been rated according to a similar schedule, to

be disposed of at the lord's pleasure like his oxen or horses.

… They had no legal rights before the law and could bear no

arms save the cudgel, the 'billum vel strublum,' as the laws

of Henry I call it. Yet the position of the slave appears to

have improved in the history of Anglo-Saxon law. … Hardly any

part of the work of the Church was of greater importance than

that which related to the moral and social elevation of the

slave class. Its influence did much to mitigate their hard

lot, both directly and indirectly."

C. McL. Andrews,

The Old English Manor,

page 181-188.

The Domesday Survey "attests the existence [in England, at the

time of the Norman Conquest] of more than 25,000 servi, who

must be understood to be, at the highest estimate of their

condition, landless labourers; over 82,000 bordarii; nearly

7,000 cotarii and cotseti, whose names seem to denote the

possession of land or houses held by service of labour or rent

paid in produce; and nearly 110,000 villani. Above these were

the liberi homines and sokemanni, who seem to represent the

medieval and modern freeholder. The villani of Domesday are no

doubt the ceorls of the preceding period, the men of the

township, the settled cultivators of the land, who in a

perfectly free state of society were the owners of the soil

they tilled, but under the complicated system of rights and

duties which marked the close of the Anglo-Saxon period had

become dependent on a lord, and now under the prevalence of

the feudal idea were regarded as his customary tenants;

irremoveable cultivators, who had no proof of their title but

the evidence of their fellow ceorls. For two centuries after

the Conquest the villani are to be traced in the possession of

rights both social and to a certain extent political. … They

are spoken of by the writers of the time as a distinct order

of society, who, although despicable for ignorance and

coarseness, were in possession of considerable comforts, and

whose immunities from the dangers of a warlike life

compensated for the somewhat unreasoning contempt with which

they were viewed by clerk and knight. During this time the

villein could assert his rights against every oppressor but

his master; and even against his master the law gave him a

standing-ground if he could make his complaint known to those

who had the will to maintain it. But there can be little doubt

that the Norman knight practically declined to recognise the

minute distinctions of Anglo-Saxon dependence, and that the

tendency of both law and social habit was to throw into the

class of native or born villeins the whole of the population

described in Domesday under the heads of servi, bordarii and

villani."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 11, section 132.

"It has become a commonplace to oppose medieval serfdom to

ancient slavery, one implying dependence on the lord of the

soil and attachment to the glebe, the other being based on

complete subjection to an owner. … If, from a general survey

of medieval servitude we turn to the actual condition of the

English peasantry, say in the 13th century, the first fact we

have to meet will stand in very marked contrast to our general

proposition. The majority of the peasants are villains, and

the legal conception of villainage has its roots not in the

connexion of the villain with the soil, but in his personal

dependence on the lord. … As to the general aspect of

villainage in the legal theory of English feudalism there can

be no doubt. The 'Dialogus de Scaccario' gives it in a few

words: the lords are owners not only of the chattels but of

the bodies of their 'ascripticii,' they may transfer them

wherever they please, 'and sell or otherwise alienate them if

they like.' Glanville and Bracton, Fleta and Britton follow in

substance the same doctrine, although they use different

terms. They appropriate the Roman view that there is no

difference of quality between serfs and serfs: all are in the

same abject state. Legal theory keeps a very firm grasp of the

distinction between status and tenure, between a villain and a

free man holding in villainage, but it does not admit of any

distinction of status among serfs: 'servus,' 'villanus' and

'nativus' are equivalent terms as to personal condition,

although this last is primarily meant to indicate something

else besides condition, namely, the fact that a person has

come to it by birth. … Manorial lords could remove peasants

from their holdings at their will and pleasure. An appeal to

the courts was of no avail.

{2915}

… Nor could the villain have any help as to the amount and

nature of his services; the King's Courts will not examine any

complaint in this respect, and may sometimes go so far as to

explain that it is no business of theirs to interfere between

the lord and his man. … Even as to his person, the villain was

liable to be punished and put into prison by the lord, if the

punishment inflicted did not amount to loss of life or injury

to his body. … It is not strange that in view of such

disabilities Bracton thought himself entitled to assume

equality of condition between the English villain and the

Roman slave, and to use the terms 'servus,' 'villanus,' and

'nativus' indiscriminately."

P. Vinogradoff,

Villainage in England,

chapter 1.

"Serfdom is met with for the last time in the statute-book of

England under Richard II. By reason of the thriving condition

of the towns, many villeins who had betaken themselves

thither, partly with the consent of their owners and partly in

secret, became free. If a slave remained a year and a day in a

privileged town without being reclaimed in the interval, he

became free. The wars carried on against France, the fact that

serf-labour had become more expensive than that of free-men,

thus rendering emancipation an 'economical' consideration, and

finally, frequent uprisings, contributed to diminish the

number of these poor helots. How rapidly serfdom must have

fallen away may be inferred from the fact that the rebels

under Wat Tyler, in 1381, clamored for the removal of serfdom;

the followers of Jack Cade, in 1450, for everything else save

the abolition of slavery. … The few purchasable slaves under

the Tudors were met with only on the property of the churches,

the monasteries, and the bishoprics. This slavery was often of

a voluntary nature. On the king's domains bondmen were only

emancipated by Elizabeth in 1574. The last traces of personal

slavery, and of a subject race permanently annexed to the

soil, are met with in the reign of James I. As a rule, it may

be assumed that, with the Tudors, serfdom disappeared in

England."

E. Fischel,

The English Constitution,

book 1, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

F. Hargrave,

Argument in the Case of James Sommersett

(Howell's State Trials, volume 20).

W. R. Brownlow,

Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,

lectures 3-4.

See, also, MANORS.

SLAVERY: France.

Villeinage.

On the condition of the servile classes in Gaul during the

first five or six centuries after the barbarian conquest.

See GAUL: 5-10TH CENTURIES.

"In the Salic laws, and in the Capitularies, we read not only

of Servi, but of Tributarii, Lidi, and Coloni, who were

cultivators of the earth, and subject to residence upon their

lord's estate, though not destitute of property or civil

rights. Those who appertained to the demesne lands of the

crown were called Fiscalini. … The number of these servile

cultivators was undoubtedly great, yet in those early times, I

should conceive, much less than it afterwards became. … The

accumulation of overgrown private wealth had a natural

tendency to make slavery more frequent. … As the labour either

of artisans or of free husbandmen was but sparingly in demand,

they were often compelled to exchange their liberty for bread.

In seasons, also, of famine, and they were not unfrequent,

many freemen sold themselves to slavery. … Others became

slaves, as more fortunate men became vassals, to a powerful

lord, for the sake of his protection. Many were reduced into

this state through inability to pay those pecuniary

compositions for offences which were numerous and sometimes

heavy in the barbarian codes of law; and many more by neglect

of attendance on military expeditions of the king, the penalty

of which was a fine called Heribann, with the alternative of

perpetual servitude. … The characteristic distinction of a

villein was his obligation to remain upon his lord's estate. …

But, equally liable to this confinement, there were two

classes of villeins, whose condition was exceedingly

different. In England, at least from the reign of Henry II.,

one only, and that the inferior species, existed; incapable of

property, and destitute of redress, except against the most

outrageous injuries. … But by the customs of France and

Germany, persons in this abject state seem to have been called

serfs, and distinguished from villeins, who were only bound to

fixed payments and duties. … Louis Hutin, in France, after

innumerable particular instances of manumission had taken

place, by a general edict in 1315, reciting that his kingdom

is denominated the kingdom of the Franks, that he would have

the fact to correspond with the name, emancipates all persons

in the royal domains upon paying a just composition, as an

example for other lords possessing villeins to follow. Philip

the Long renewed the same edict three years afterwards; a

proof that it had not been carried into execution. … It is not

generally known, I think, that predial servitude was not

abolished in all parts of France till the revolution. In some

places, says Pasquier, the peasants are taillables à volonté,

that is, their contribution is not permanent, but assessed by

the lord with the advice of prud'hommes, resseants sur les

lieux, according to the peasant's ability. Others pay a fixed

sum. Some are called serfs de poursuite, who cannot leave

their habitations, but may be followed by the lord into any

part of France for the taille upon their goods. … Nor could

these serfs, or gens de mainmorte, as they were sometimes

called, be manumitted without letters patent of the king,

purchased by a fine.-Recherches de la France, l. iv., c. 5.

Dubos informs us that, in 1615, the Tiers État prayed the king

to cause all serfs (hommes de pooste) to be enfranchised on

paying a composition, but this was not complied with, and they

existed in many parts when he wrote."

H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 2, part 2, and foot-note (volume 1).

"The last traces of serfdom could only be detected [at the

time of the Revolution] in one or two of the eastern provinces

annexed to France by conquest; everywhere else the institution

had disappeared; and indeed its abolition had occurred so long

before that even the date of it was forgotten. The researches

of archæologists of our own day have proved that as early as

the 13th century serfdom was no longer to be met with in

Normandy."

A. de Tocqueville,

State of Society in France before the Revolution of 1789,

book 2, chapter 1.

{2916}

SLAVERY:

Germany.

"As the great distinction in the German community was between

the nobles and the people, so amongst the people was the

distinction between the free and the servile. Next to those

who had the happiness to be freeborn were the Freedmen, whom

the indulgence or caprice of their masters relieved from the

more galling miseries of thraldom. But though the Freedman was

thus imperfectly emancipated, he formed a middle grade between

the Freeman and the Slave. He was capable of possessing

property; but was bound to pay a certain rent, or perform a

certain service, to the lord. He was forbidden to marry

without the lord's assent; and he and his children were

affixed to the farm they cultivated. … This mitigated

servitude was called 'Lidum,' and the Freedman, Lidus, Leud,

or Latt. The Lidus of an ecclesiastical master was called

Colonus. … A yet lower class were the Slaves, or Serfs

[Knechte] who were employed in menial or agricultural

services; themselves and their earnings being the absolute

property of their master, and entirely at his disposal. The

number of these miserable beings was gradually increased by

the wars with the Sclavonic nations, and the sale of their

prisoners was one great object of traffic in the German fairs

and markets. But a variety of causes combined to wear out this

abominable system; and as civilization advanced, the

severities of slavery diminished; so that its extinction was

nearly accomplished before the 14th century."

Sir R. Comyn,

History of the Western Empire,

chapter 27 (volume 2).

"The following table will show that the abolition of serfdom

in most parts of Germany took place very recently. Serfdom was

abolished:

1. In Baden, in 1783.

2. In Hohenzollern, in 1804.

3. In Schleswig and Holstein, in 1804.

4. In Nassau, in 1808.

5. In Prussia, Frederick William I. had done away with serfdom

in his own domains so early as 1717.

The code of the Great Frederick … was intended to abolish it

throughout the kingdom, but in reality it only got rid of it

in its hardest form, the 'leibeigenschaft,' and retained it in

the mitigated shape of 'erbunterthänigkeit.' It was not till

1809 that it disappeared altogether.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.

6. In Bavaria serfdom disappeared in 1808.

7. A decree of Napoleon, dated from Madrid in 1808, abolished

it in the Grand-duchy of Berg, and in several other smaller

territories, such as Erfurt, Baireuth, &c.

8. In the kingdom of Westphalia, its destruction dates from

1808 and 1809.

9. In the principality of Lippe Detmold, from 1809.

10. In Schomburg Lippe, from 1810.

11. In Swedish Pomerania, from 1810, also.

12. In Hessen Darmstadt, from 1809 and 1811.

13. In Wurtemberg, from 1817.

14. In Mecklenburg, from 1820.

15. In Oldenburgh, from 1814.

16. In Saxony for Lusatia, from 1832.

17. In Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, only from 1833.

18. In Austria, from 1811.

So early as in 1782, Joseph II. had destroyed

'leibeigenschaft;' but serfage in its mitigated form of

'erbunterthänigkeit,' lasted till 1811."

A. de Tocqueville,

State of Society in France before 1789, note D.

SLAVERY: Hungary and Austria: A. D. 1849.

Completed emancipation of the peasantry.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1849-1859.

SLAVERY: Ireland: 12th Century.

The Bristol Slave-trade.

See BRISTOL: 12TH CENTURY.

SLAVERY: Moslem relinquishment of Christian slavery.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1816.

SLAVERY: Papal doctrine of the condemnation of the

Jews to perpetual bondage.

See JEWS: 13-14TH CENTURIES.

SLAVERY: Poland.

"The statements of the Polish nobles and their historians, to

the effect that the peasant was always the hereditary property

of the lord of the manor are false. This relation between

eleven million men and barely half a million masters is an

abuse of the last two hundred years, and was preceded by one

thousand years of a better state of things. Originally the

noble did not even possess jurisdiction over the peasant. It

was wielded by the royal castellans, and in exceptional cases

was bestowed on individual nobles, as a reward for

distinguished services. … Those peasants were free who were

domiciled according to German law, or who dwelt on the land

which they themselves had reclaimed. It was owing to the

feudal lords' need of labourers, that the rest of the peasants

were bound to the soil and could not leave the land without

permission. But the peasant did not belong to the lord, he

could not be sold. … The fact that he could possess land

prevented him from ever becoming a mere serf. … It is

remarkable that the Polish peasant enjoyed these privileges at

a time when villeinage existed in all the rest of Europe, and

that his slavery began when other nations became free.

Villeinage ceased in Germany as early as the 12th and 13th

centuries, except in Mecklenburg, Pomerania, and Lusetia,

which had had a Slavonic population. … In Poland it began in

the 16th century. The kings were forced to promise that they

would grant the peasant no letters of protection against his

lord [Alexander, 1505; Sigismund I., 1543; Sigismund III.,

1588]. Henceforth the lord was to have the right of punishing

his disobedient subjects at his own discretion. … Without the

repeal of a single statute favourable to the peasants, it

became a fundamental principle of the constitution, that

'Henceforth no temporal court in existence can grant the

peasant redress against his lord, though property, honour, or

life be at stake.' The peasant was thus handed over to an

arbitrary power, which had no limit, except that which the

excess of an evil imposes on the evil itself. … There was no

help for the peasant save in the mercy of his lord or in his

own despair. The result was those terrible insurrections of

the peasants—the very threat of which alarmed the nobles—the

ruin of landed property, and the failure of those sources from

which a nation should derive its prosperity and its strength."

Count von Moltke,

Poland: an Historical Sketch,

chapter 4.

SLAVERY:

Rome, Italy, and the Church.

"It is perhaps hardly surprising that the city of Rome should,

even down to the 16th century, have patronised slavery, and it

was only natural that the rest of Italy should follow the

example of the metropolis of Christianity. The popes were wont

to issue edicts of slavery against whole towns and provinces:

thus for instance did Boniface VIII. against the retainers of

the Colonnas.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1204-13481;

Clement V. against the Venetians; Sixtus IV. against the

Florentines; Gregory XI. against the Florentines;

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.

Julius II. against the Bolognese and Venetians; and the

meaning of it was, that anyone who could succeed in capturing

any of the persons of the condemned was required to make

slaves of them. The example of Rome encouraged the whole of

Italy, and especially Venice, to carry on a brisk trade in

foreign, and especially female slaves. The privilege which had

sprung up in Rome and lasted for some years, by virtue of

which a slave taking refuge on the Capitol became free, was

abolished in 1548 by Paul III. upon the representation of the

Senate.

{2917}

Rome, of all the great powers of Europe, was the last to

retain slavery. Scholasticism having undertaken in the 13th

century to justify the existing state of things, a theological

sanction was discovered for slavery; Ægidius of Rome, taking

Thomas Aquinas as his authority, declared that it was a

Christian institution, since original sin had deprived man of

any right to freedom."

J. I. von Döllinger,

Studies in European History,

p. 75.

See, also, CATTANI.

SLAVERY: Russia.

Serfdom and Emancipation.

"In the earliest period of Russian history the rural

population was composed of three distinct classes. At the

bottom of the scale stood the slaves, who were very numerous.

Their numbers were continually augmented by prisoners of war,

by freemen who voluntarily sold themselves as slaves, by

insolvent debtors, and by certain categories of criminals.

Immediately above the slaves were the free agricultural

labourers, who had no permanent domicile, but wandered about

the country and settled temporarily where they happened to

find work and satisfactory remuneration. In the third place,

distinct from these two classes, and in some respects higher

in the social scale, were the peasants properly so called.

These peasants proper, who may be roughly described as small

farmers or cottiers, were distinguished from the free

agricultural labourers in two respects: they were possessors

of land in property or usufruct, and they were members of a

rural Commune. … If we turn now from these early times to the

18th century, we find that the position of the rural

population has entirely changed in the interval. The

distinction between slaves, agricultural labourers, and

peasants has completely disappeared. All three categories have

melted together into a common class, called serfs, who are

regarded as the property of the landed proprietors or of the

State. 'The proprietors [in the words of an imperial ukaze of

April 15, 1721] sell their peasants and domestic servants not

even in families, but one by one, like cattle, as is done

nowhere else in the whole world.'" At the beginning of the

18th century, while the peasantry had "sunk to the condition

of serfs, practically deprived of legal protection and subject

to the arbitrary will of the proprietors, … they were still in

some respects legally and actually distinguished from the

slaves on the one hand and the 'free wandering people' on the

other. These distinctions were obliterated by Peter the Great

and his immediate successors. … To effect his great civil and

military reforms, Peter required an annual revenue such as his

predecessors had never dreamed of, and he was consequently

always on the look-out for some new object of taxation. When

looking about for this purpose, his eye naturally fell on the

slaves, the domestic servants, and the free agricultural

labourers. None of these classes paid taxes. … He caused,

therefore, a national census to be taken, in which all the

various classes of the rural population … should be inscribed

in one category; and he imposed equally on all the members of

this category a poll-tax, in lieu of the former land-tax,

which had lain exclusively on the peasants. To facilitate the

collection of this tax the proprietors were made responsible

for their serfs; and the 'free wandering people' who did not

wish to enter the army were ordered, under pain of being sent

to the galleys, to inscribe themselves as members of a Commune

or as serfs to some proprietor. … The last years of the 18th

century may be regarded as the turning-point in the history of

serfage. Up till that time the power of the proprietors had

steadily increased, and the area of serfage had rapidly

expanded. Under the Emperor Paul we find the first decided

symptoms of a reaction. … With the accession of Alexander I.

in 1801 commenced a long series of abortive projects of a

general emancipation, and endless attempts to correct the more

glaring abuses; and during the reign of Nicholas no less than

six committees were formed at different times to consider the

question. But the practical result of all these efforts was

extremely small."

D. M. Wallace,

Russia,

chapter 29.

"The reign of Alexander II. [who succeeded Nicholas in 1855],

like that of Alexander I., began with an outburst of reform

enthusiasm in the educated classes. … The serfage question,

which Nicholas had always treated most tenderly, was raised in

a way that indicated an intention of dealing with it boldly

and energetically. Taking advantage of a petition presented by

the Polish landed proprietors of the Lithuanian provinces,

praying that their relations with their serfs might be

regulated in a more satisfactory way—meaning, of course, in a

way more satisfactory for the proprietors—the Emperor

authorized committees to be formed in that part of the country

'for ameliorating the condition of the peasants,' and laid

down the general principles according to which the

amelioration was to be effected. … This was a decided step,

and it was immediately followed by one still more significant.

His Majesty, without consulting his ordinary advisers, ordered

the Minister of the Interior to send to the Governors all over

European Russia copies of the instructions forwarded to the

Governor-General of Lithuania, praising the supposed generous,

patriotic intentions of the Lithuanian landed proprietors, and

suggesting that, perhaps, the landed proprietors of other

provinces might express a similar desire. The hint was, of

course, taken, and in all provinces where serfage existed

emancipation committees were formed. … There were, however,

serious difficulties in the way. The emancipation was not

merely a humanitarian question, capable of being solved

instantaneously by an Imperial ukase. It contained very

complicated problems, affecting deeply the economic, social,

and political future of the nation. … It was universally

admitted that the peasants should not be ejected from their

homes, though their homesteads belonged legally to the

proprietors; but there was great diversity of opinion as to

how much land they should in future enjoy, by what tenure they

should in future hold it, and how the patriarchal, undefined

authority of the landlords should be replaced. … The main

point at issue was whether the serfs should become

agricultural labourers dependent economically and

administratively on the landlords, or should be transformed

into a class of independent communal proprietors. The Emperor

gave his support to the latter proposal, and the Russian

peasantry acquired privileges such as are enjoyed by no other

peasantry in Europe."

Alexander II.

(Eminent Persons:

Biographies, reprinted from The Times).

{2918}

"On the 3d of March, 1861 (February, 19, O. S.), the

emancipation act was signed. The rustic population then

consisted of 22,000,000 of common serfs, 3,000,000 of appanage

peasants, and 23,000,000 of crown peasants. The first class

were enfranchised by that act: and a separate law has since

been passed in favor of these crown peasants and appanage

peasants, who are now as free in fact as they formerly were in

name. A certain portion of land, varying in different

provinces according to soil and climate, was affixed to every

'soul'; and government aid was promised to the peasants in

buying their homesteads and allotments. The serfs were not

slow to take this hint. Down to January 1, 1869, more than

half the enfranchised male serfs have taken advantage of this

promise: and the debt now owing from the people to the crown

(that is, to the bondholders) is an enormous sum."

W. H. Dixon,

Free Russia,

chapter 51.

"Emancipation has utterly failed to realize the ardent

expectations of its advocates and promoters. The great

benefit of the measure was purely moral. It has failed to

improve the material condition of the former serfs, who on

the whole are [1888] worse off than they were before the

Emancipation. The bulk of our peasantry is in a condition not

far removed from actual starvation—a fact which can neither

be denied nor concealed even by the official press."

Stepniak,

The Russian Peasantry,

chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

A. Leroy-Beaulieu,

The Empire of the Tsars,

part 1, book 7.

SLAVERY: Modern: Indians.

Barbarity of the Spaniards in America, and

humane labors of Las Casas.

"When Columbus came to Hispaniola on his second voyage [1493],

with 17 ships and 1,500 followers, he found the relations

between red men and white men already hostile, and in order to

get food for so many Spaniards, foraging expeditions were

undertaken, which made matters worse. This state of things led

Columbus to devise a notable expedient. In some of the

neighbouring islands lived the voracious Caribs. In fleets of

canoes they would swoop upon the coasts of Hispaniola, capture

men and women by the score, and carry them off to be cooked

and eaten. Now Columbus wished to win the friendship of the

Indians about him by defending them against these enemies, and

so he made raids against the Caribs, took some of them

captive, and sent them as slaves to Spain, to be taught

Spanish and converted to Christianity, so that they might come

back to the islands as interpreters, and thus be useful aids

in missionary work. It was really, said Columbus, a kindness

to these cannibals to enslave them and send them where they

could be baptized and rescued from everlasting perdition; and

then again they could be received in payment for the cargoes

of cattle, seeds, wine, and other provisions which must be

sent from Spain for the support of the colony. Thus quaintly

did the great discoverer, like so many other good men before

and since, mingle considerations of religion with those of

domestic economy. It is apt to prove an unwholesome mixture.

Columbus proposed such an arrangement to Ferdinand and

Isabella, and it is to their credit that, straitened as they

were for money, they for some time refused to accept it.

Slavery, however, sprang up in Hispaniola before anyone could

have fully realized the meaning of what was going on. As the

Indians were unfriendly and food must be had, while foraging

expeditions were apt to end in plunder and bloodshed, Columbus

tried to regulate matters by prohibiting such expeditions and

in lieu thereof imposing a light tribute or tax upon the

entire population of Hispaniola above 14 years of age. As this

population was dense, a little from each person meant a good

deal in the lump. The tribute might be a small piece of gold

or of cotton, and was to be paid four times a year. … If there

were Indians who felt unable to pay the tribute, they might as

an alternative render a certain amount of personal service in

helping to plant seeds or tend cattle for the Spaniards. No

doubt these regulations were well meant, and if the two races

had been more evenly matched, perhaps they might not so

speedily have developed into tyranny. As it was, they were

like rules for regulating the depredations of wolves upon

sheep. Two years had not elapsed before the alternative of

personal service was demanded from whole villages of Indians

at once. By 1499 the island had begun to be divided into

repartimientos, or shares. One or more villages would be

ordered, under the direction of their native chiefs, to till

the soil for the benefit of some specified Spaniard or

partnership of Spaniards; and such a village or villages

constituted the repartimiento of the person or persons to whom

it was assigned. This arrangement put the Indians into a state

somewhat resembling that of feudal villenage; and this was as

far as things had gone when the administration of Columbus

came abruptly to an end." Queen Isabella disapproved, at

first, of the repartimiento system, "but she was persuaded to

sanction it, and presently in 1503 she and Ferdinand issued a

most disastrous order. They gave discretionary power to Ovando

[who succeeded Columbus in the governorship] to compel Indians

to work, but it must be for wages. They ordered him, moreover,

to see that Indians were duly instructed in the Christian

faith. … The way in which Ovando carried out the order about

missionary work was characteristic. As a member of a religious

order of knights, he was familiar with the practice of

encomienda, by which groups of novices were assigned to

certain preceptors to be disciplined and instructed in the

mysteries of the order. The word encomienda means 'commandery'

or 'preceptory,' and so it came to be a nice euphemism for a

hateful thing. Ovando distributed Indians among the Spaniards

in lots of 50 or 100 or 500, with a deed worded thus: 'To you,

such a one, is given an encomienda of so many Indians, and you

are to teach them the things of our holy Catholic Faith.' In

practice, the last clause was disregarded as a mere formality,

and the effect of the deed was simply to consign a parcel of

Indians to the tender mercies of some Spaniard, to do as he

pleased with them. If the system of repartimientos was in

effect serfdom or villenage, the system of encomiendas was

unmitigated slavery. Such a cruel and destructive slavery has

seldom, if ever, been known. The work of the Indians was at

first largely agricultural, but as many mines of gold were

soon discovered they were driven in gangs to work in the

mines. … In 1500 Ovando was recalled. … Under his successor,

Diego Columbus, there was little improvement. The case had

become a hard one to deal with.

{2919}

There were now what are called 'vested rights,' the rights of

property in slaves, to be respected. But in 1510 there came a

dozen Dominican monks, and they soon decided, in defiance of

vested rights, to denounce the wickedness they saw about

them." Generally, the Spaniards who enjoyed the profit of the

labor of the enslaved Indians hardened their hearts against

this preaching, and were enraged by it; but one among them had

his conscience awakened and saw the guiltiness of the evil

thing. This was Bartolomé de Las Casas, who had joined the

colonists at Hispaniola in 1502 and who had entered the

priesthood in 1510. He owned slaves, whom he now set free, and

he devoted himself henceforth to labors for the reformation of

the system of slavery in the Spanish colonies. In 1516 he won

the ear of Cardinal Ximenes, who appointed a commission of

Hieronymite friars "to accompany Las Casas to the West Indies,

with minute instructions and ample powers for making

investigations and enforcing the laws. Ximenes appointed Las

Casas Protector of the Indians, and clothed him with authority

to impeach delinquent judges or other public officials. The

new regulations, could they have been carried out, would have

done much to mitigate the sufferings of the Indians. They must

be paid wages, they must be humanely treated and taught the

Christian religion. But as the Spanish government needed

revenue, the provision that Indians might be compelled to work

in the mines was not repealed. The Indians must work, and the

Spaniards must pay them. Las Casas argued correctly that so

long as this provision was retained the work of reform would

go but little way. Somebody, however, must work the mines; and

so the talk turned to the question of sending out white

labourers or negroes. … At one time the leading colonists of

Hispaniola had told Las Casas that if they might have license

to import each a dozen negroes, they would coöperate with him

in his plans for setting free the Indians and improving their

condition. … He recalled this suggestion of the colonists, and

proposed it as perhaps the least odious way out of the

difficulty: It is therefore evident that at that period in his

life he did not realize the wickedness of slavery so

distinctly in the case of black men as in the case of red men.

… In later years he blamed himself roundly for making any such

concessions. Had he 'sufficiently considered the matter,' he

would not for all the world have entertained such a suggestion

for a moment. … The extensive development of negro slavery in

the West Indies … did not begin for many years after the

period in the career of Las Casas with which we are now

dealing, and there is nothing to show that his suggestion or

concession was in any way concerned in bringing it about." The

fine story of the life and labours of Las Casas,—of the colony

which he attempted to found on the Pearl Coast of the

mainland, composed of settlers who would work for themselves

and not require slaves, and which was ruined through the

wicked lawlessness of other men,—of the terrible barbarians of

the "Land of War" whom he transformed into peaceful and

devoted Christians,—cannot be told in this place. His final

triumphs in the conflict with slavery were:

1. In 1537, the procuring from Pope Paul III. of a brief

"forbidding the further enslavement of Indians under penalty

of excommunication."

2. In 1542, the promulgation of the New Laws by Charles V.,

the decisive clause in which was as follows: "'We order and

command that henceforward for no cause whatever, whether of

war, rebellion, ransom, or in any other manner, can any Indian

be made a slave.'

This clause was never repealed, and it stopped the spread of

slavery. Other clauses went further, and made such sweeping

provisions for immediate abolition that it proved to be

impossible to enforce them. … The matter was at last

compromised by an arrangement that encomiendas should be

inheritable during two lives, and should then escheat to the

crown. This reversion to the crown meant the emancipation of

the slaves. Meanwhile such provisions were made … that the

dreadful encomienda reverted to the milder form of the

repartimiento. Absolute slavery was transformed into

villenage. In this ameliorated form the system continued."

J. Fiske,

The Discovery of America,

chapter 11 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

Sir A. Helps,

Spanish Conquest in America.

Sir A. Helps,

Life of Las Casas.

G. E. Ellis,

Las Casas (Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 2, chapter 5).

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 1, chapter 5.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1442-1501.

Its beginning in Europe and its establishment in Spanish America.

"The peculiar phase of slavery that will be brought forward in

this history is not the first and most natural one, in which

the slave was merely the captive in war, 'the fruit of the

spear,' as he has figuratively been called, who lived in the

house of his conqueror and laboured at his lands. This system

culminated among the Romans; partook of the fortunes of the

Empire; was gradually modified by Christianity and advancing

civilization; declined by slow and almost imperceptible

degrees into serfage and vassalage; and was extinct, or nearly

so, when the second great period of slavery suddenly uprose.

This second period was marked by a commercial character. The

slave was no longer an accident of war. He had become the

object of war. He was no longer a mere accidental subject of

barter. He was to be sought for, to be hunted out, to be

produced; and this change accordingly gave rise to a new

branch of commerce. Slavery became at once a much more

momentous question than it ever had been, and thenceforth,

indeed, claims for itself a history of its own."

Sir A. Helps,

The Spanish Conquest in America,

and its Relation to the History of Slavery,

book 1, chapter 1.

"The first negroes imported into Europe after the extinction

of the old pagan slavery were brought in one of the ships of

Prince Henry of Portugal, in the year 1442. There was,

however, no regular trade in negroes established by the

Portuguese; and the importation of human beings fell off,

while that of other articles of commerce increased, until

after the discovery of America. Then the sudden destruction of

multitudes of Indians in war, by unaccustomed labour, by

immense privations, and by diseases new to them, produced a

void in the labour market which was inevitably filled up by

the importation of negroes. Even the kindness and the piety of

the Spanish monarchs tended partly to produce this result.

{2920}

They forbade the enslaving of Indians, and they contrived that

the Indians should live in some manner apart from the

Spaniards; and it is a very significant fact that the great

'Protector of the Indians,' Las Casas, should, however

innocently, have been concerned with the first large grant of

licenses to import negroes into the West India Islands. Again,

the singular hardihood of the negro race, which enabled them

to flourish in all climates, and the comparative debility of

the Indians, also favoured this result. The anxiety of the

Catholic Church for proselytes combined with the foregoing

causes to make the bishops and monks slow to perceive the

mischief of any measure which might tend to save or favour

large communities of docile converts."-

Sir A. Helps,

The Spanish Conquest in America,

and its Relation to the History of Slavery,

book 21, chapter 5 (volume 4).

The first notice of the introduction of negro slaves in the

West Indies appears in the instructions given in 1501 to

Ovando, who superseded Columbus in the governorship.

Sir A. Helps,

The Spanish Conquest in America,

and its Relation to the History of Slavery,

book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1562-1567.

John Hawkins engages England in the traffic.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1609-1755.

In colonial New York.

"From the settlement of New York by the Dutch in 1609, down to

its conquest by the English in 1664, there is no reliable

record of slavery in that colony. That the institution was

coeval with the Holland government, there can be no historical

doubt. During the half-century that the Holland flag waved

over the New Netherlands, slavery grew to such proportions as

to be regarded as a necessary evil. … The West India Company

had offered many inducements to its patroons. And its pledge

to furnish the colonists with 'as many blacks as they

conveniently could,' was scrupulously performed. … When New

Netherlands became an English colony, slavery received

substantial official encouragement, and the slave became the

subject of colonial legislation. … Most of the slaves in the

Province of New York, from the time they were first

introduced, down to 1664, had been the property of the West

India Company. As such they had small plots of land to work

for their own benefit, and were not without hope of

emancipation some day. But under the English government the

condition of the slave was clearly defined by law and one of

great hardships. On the 24th of October, 1684, an Act was

passed in which slavery was for the first time regarded as a

legitimate institution in the Province of New York under the

English government." After the mad excitement caused by the

pretended Negro Plot of 1741 (see NEW YORK: A. D. 1741) "the

legislature turned its attention to additional legislation

upon the slavery question. Severe laws were passed against the

Negroes. Their personal rights were curtailed until their

condition was but little removed from that of the brute

creation. We have gone over the voluminous records of the

Province of New York, and have not found a single act

calculated to ameliorate the condition of the slave."

G. W. Williams,

History of the Negro Race in America,

volume 1, chapter 13.

A census of the slaves in the Province of New York was made in

1755, the record of which has been preserved for all except

the most important counties of New York, Albany and Suffolk.

It shows 67 slaves then in Brooklyn.

Doc. History of New York,

volume 3.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1619.

Introduction in Virginia.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1619.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1638-1781.

Beginning and ending in Massachusetts.

In the code of laws called the Body of Liberties, adopted by

the General Court of Massachusetts in 1641, there is the

following provision (Article 91): "There shall never be any

Bond Slavery, Villinage, or Captivity amongst us, unless it be

lawful Captives taken in just Wars, and such strangers as

willingly sell themselves, or are sold to us. And these shall

have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of

God, established in Israel concerning such persons, doth

morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be

judged thereto by authority."

Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,

volume 28, page 231.

"No instance has been discovered of a sale by one man of

himself to another, although the power of doing this was

recognized in the Body of Liberties. But of sales by the way

of punishment for crime, under a sentence of a court, there

are several instances recorded. … Of captives taken in war and

sold into slavery by the colony, the number appears to have

been larger, though it is not easy to ascertain in how many

instances it was done. As a measure of policy, it was adopted

in the case of such as were taken in the early Indian wars. …

It was chiefly confined to the remnants of the Pequod tribe,

and to such as were taken in the war with King Philip. …

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637, and 1676-1678.

If now we recur to negro slavery, it does not appear when it

was first introduced into the colony. … When Josslyn was here

in 1638, he found Mr. Maverick the owner of three negro

slaves. He probably acquired them from a ship which brought

some slaves from the West Indies in that year. And this is the

first importation of which we have any account. But Maverick

was not properly a member of Winthrop's Company. He came here

before they left England, and had his establishment, and lived

by himself, upon Noddle's Island. … The arrival of a

Massachusetts ship with two negroes on board, whom the master

had brought from Africa for sale, in 1645, four years after

the adoption of the Body of Liberties, furnished an

opportunity to test the sincerity of its framers, in seeking

to limit and restrict slavery in the colony. … Upon

information that these negroes had been forcibly seized and

abducted from the coast of Africa by the captain of the

vessel, the magistrates interposed to prevent their being

sold. But though the crime of man-stealing had been committed,

they found they had no cognizance of it, because it had been

done in a foreign jurisdiction. They, however, went as far

towards reaching the wrong done as they could; and not only

compelled the ship-master to give up the men, but sent them

back to Africa, at the charge of the colony. … And they made

this, moreover, an occasion, by an act of legislation of the

General Court, in 1646, 'to bear witness,' in the language of

the act, 'against the heinous and crying sin of man-stealing,

as also to prescribe such timely redress for what is past, and

such a law for the future, as may sufficiently deter all

others belonging to us to have to do in such vile and most

odious courses, justly abhorred of all good and just men.' …

In 1767 a bill to restrain the importing of slaves passed the

popular branch of the General Court, but failed in the

Council. Nor would it have availed if it had passed both

branches, because it would have been vetoed by the Governor;

acting under instructions from the Crown.

{2921}

This was shown in 1774, when such a bill did pass both

branches of the General Court, and was thus vetoed. These

successive acts of legislation were a constantly recurring

illustration of the truth of the remark of a modern writer of

standard authority upon the subject, that—'though the

condition of slavery in the colonies may not have been created

by the imperial legislature, yet it may be said with truth

that the colonies were compelled to receive African slaves by

the home government.' … The action of the government [of

Massachusetts] when reorganized under the advice of the

Continental Congress, was shown in September, 1776, in respect

to several negroes who had been taken in an English prize-ship

and brought into Salem to be sold. The General Court, having

learned these facts, put a stop to the sale at once. And this

was accompanied by a resolution on the part of the House—'That

the selling and enslaving the human species is a direct

violation of the natural rights alike vested in them by their

Creator, and utterly inconsistent with the avowed principles

on which this and the other States have carried on their

struggle for liberty.' … In respect to the number of slaves

living here at any one time, no census seems to have been

taken of them prior to 1754. … In 1708, Governor Dudley

estimates the whole number in the colony at 550; 200 having

arrived between 1698 and 1707. Dr. Belknap thinks they were

the most numerous here about 1745. And Mr. Felt, upon careful

calculation, computes their number in 1754 at 4,489. … In

1755, Salem applied to the General Court to suppress slavery.

Boston did the same in 1766, in 1767, and … in 1772. In 1773

the action of the towns was more general and decided." In

1780, the then free state of Massachusetts framed and adopted

a constitution, the opening declaration of which was that

"'all men are born free and equal, and have certain natural,

essential, and unalienable rights.' … When [the next year] the

highest judicial tribunal in the State was called upon to

construe and apply this clause, they gave a response which

struck off the chains from every slave in the commonwealth."

E. Washburn,

Slavery as it once Prevailed in Massachusetts

(Lowell Inst. Lectures, 1869:

Massachusetts and its Early History, lecture 6).

ALSO IN:

W. B. Weeden,

Economic and Social History of New England,

chapters 12 and 22 (volume 2).

Letters and Documents relating to Slavery in Massachusetts

(Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,

Fifth Series, v. 3).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1652.

First Antislavery enactment in Rhode Island.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1651-1652.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1658.

Introduction of slavery in Cape Colony.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1669-1670.

Provided for in Locke's Fundamental Constitutions

for the Carolinas.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1680.

Early importance in South Carolina.

Indian slavery also established.

See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1685-1772.

Black slaves in England.

"The extensive proprietary interests which, during last

century, English merchants and members of the English

aristocracy held in the American colonies and the West Indies,

involved the possession also on their part of many slaves.

Many of these black slaves were trained to act as household

servants and personal attendants, and in this capacity

accompanied their owners when travelling. The presence of

black slaves in this country was therefore not an unfamiliar

sight; but it will perhaps startle many readers to know that

in 1764, according to the estimate of the 'Gentleman's

Magazine' of the period, there were upwards of 20,000 black

slaves domiciled in London alone, and that these slaves were

openly bought and sold on 'Change.' The newspapers of the day

represent these slaves as being upon the whole rather a

trouble to their owners. For one thing, they ceased to

consider themselves 'slaves' in this so-called 'free country';

hence they were often unwilling to work, and when forced to

labour were generally sullen, spiteful, treacherous, and

revengeful. They also frequently, as we shall find from the

press advertisements of the day, made their escape,

necessitating rewards being offered for their recapture. For

instance, in the' London Gazette' for March, 1685, there is an

advertisement to the effect that a black boy of about 15 years

of age, named John White, ran away from Colonel Kirke on the

15th inst. 'He has a silver collar about his neck, upon which

is the colonel's coat of arms and cipher; he has upon his

throat a great scar: &c. A reward is offered for bringing him

back. In the 'Daily Post' of August 4, 1720, is a similar

notice. … Again, in the 'Daily Journal' for September 28,

1728, is an advertisement for a runaway black boy. It is added

that he had the words 'My Lady Bromfield's black in Lincoln's

Inn Fields' engraved on a collar round his neck. … That a

collar was considered as essential for a black slave as for a

dog is shown by an advertisement in the 'London Advertiser'

for 1756, in which Matthew Dyer, working-goldsmith at the

Crown in Duck Lane, Orchard Street, Westminster, intimates to

the public that he makes' silver padlocks for Blacks or Dogs;

collars,' &c. … In the 'Tatler' for 1709, a black boy, 12

years of age, 'fit to wait on gentleman,' is offered for sale

at Dennis's Coffee-house, in Finch Lane, near the Royal

Exchange. From the 'Daily Journal ' of September 28, 1728, we

learn that a negro boy, 11 years of age, was similarly offered

for sale at the Virginia Coffee-house. … Again, in the 'Public

Ledger' for December 31, 1761, we have for sale 'A healthy

Negro Girl, aged about 15 years; speaks good English, works at

her needle, washes well, does household work, and has had the

small-pox.' So far these sales seem to have been effected

privately; but later on we find that the auctioneer's hammer

is being brought into play. In 1763, one John Rice was hanged

for forgery at Tyburn, and following upon his execution was a

sale of his effects by auction, 'and among the rest a negro

boy.' He brought £32. The 'Gentleman's Magazine' of the day,

commenting upon the sale of the black boy, says that this was

'perhaps the first custom of the kind in a free country.' …

The 'Stamford Mercury' for [1771] bears record that 'at a sale

of a gentleman's effects at Richmond, a Negro Boy was put up

and sold for £32.' The paper adds: 'A shocking instance in a

free country!' The public conscience had indeed for many years

been disturbed on this question, the greater number in England

holding that the system of slavery as tolerated in London and

the country generally should be declared illegal. From an

early period in last century the subject had not only been

debated in the public prints and on the platform, but had been

made matter of something like judicial decision.

{2922}

At the first, legal opinion was opposed to the manumission of

slaves brought by their masters to this country. In 1729, Lord

Talbot, Attorney-general, and Mr. Yorke, Solicitor-general,

gave an opinion which raised the whole question of the legal

existence of slaves in Great Britain and Ireland. The opinion

of these lawyers was that the mere fact of a slave coming into

these countries from the West Indies did not render him free,

and that he could be compelled to return again to those

plantations. Even the rite of baptism did not free him—it

could only affect his spiritual, not his temporal, condition.

It was on the strength of this decision that slavery continued

to flourish in England until, as we have seen, there were at

one time as many as 20,000 black slaves in London alone.

Chief-justice Holt had, however, expressed a contrary opinion

to that above given; and after a long struggle the matter was

brought to a final issue in the famous case of the negro

Somersett. On June 22, 1772, it was decided by Lord Mansfield,

in the name of the whole bench, that 'as soon as a slave set

foot on the soil of the British Islands, he became free.' From

that day to the present this has remained the law of our land

as regards slavery. The poet Cowper expressed the jubilant

feeling of the country over Lord Mansfield's dictum when he

sung: … 'Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs

receive our air, that moment they are free.'"

Black Slaves in England

(Chamber's Journal, January 31, 1891).

ALSO IN:

H. Greeley,

History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension or Restriction,

pages 2-3.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1688-1780.

Beginning and growth or Antislavery sentiment

among the Quakers.

Emancipation in Pennsylvania.

"So early as the year 1688, some emigrants from Kriesheim in

Germany, who had adopted the principles of William Penn, and

followed him into Pennsylvania, urged in the yearly meeting of

the Society there, the inconsistency of buying, selling, and

holding men in slavery, with the principles of the Christian

religion. In the year 1696, the yearly meeting for that

province took up the subject as a public concern, and the

result was, advice to the members of it to guard against

future importations of African slaves, and to be particularly

attentive to the treatment of those, who were then in their

possession. In the year 1711, the same yearly meeting resumed

the important subject, and confirmed and renewed the advice,

which had been before given. From this time it continued to

keep the subject alive; but finding at length, that, though

individuals refused to purchase slaves, yet others continued

the custom, and in greater numbers that it was apprehended

would have been the case after the public declarations which

had been made, it determined, in the year 1754, upon a fuller

and more serious publication of its sentiments; and therefore

it issued, in the same year, … [a] pertinent letter to all the

members within its jurisdiction. … This truly Christian

letter, which was written in the year 1754, was designed, as

we collect from the contents of it, to make the sentiments of

the Society better known and attended to on the subject of the

Slave-trade. It contains … exhortations to all the members

within the yearly meeting of Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, to

desist from purchasing and importing slaves, and, where they

possessed them, to have a tender consideration of their

condition. But that the first part of the subject of this

exhortation might be enforced, the yearly meeting for the same

provinces came to a resolution in 1755, That if any of the

members belonging to it bought or imported slaves, the

overseers were to inform their respective monthly meetings of

it, that 'these might treat with them, as they might be

directed in the wisdom of truth.' In the year 1774, we find

the same yearly meeting legislating again on the same subject.

By the preceding resolution they, who became offenders, were

subjected only to exclusion from the meetings for discipline,

and from the privilege of contributing to the pecuniary

occasions of the Society; but by the resolution of the present

year, all members concerned in importing, selling, purchasing,

giving, or transferring Negro or other slaves, or otherwise

acting in such manner as to continue them in slavery beyond

the term limited by law or custom, were directed to be

excluded from membership or disowned. … In the year 1776, the

same yearly meeting carried the matter still further. It was

then enacted, That the owners of slaves, who refused to

execute proper instruments for giving them their freedom, were

to be disowned likewise."

T. Clarkson,

History of the Abolition of the Slave-Trade,

volume 1, chapter 5.

In 1780 Pennsylvania adopted an act for the gradual

emancipation of all slaves within its territory, being the

first among the States to perform that great act of justice.

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,

Popular History of the United States,

volume 3, chapter 7.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1698-1776.

England and the Slave-trade.

The Assiento contract with Spain.

After the opening of the slave trade to the English by

Hawkins, in 1562-1564, "the traffic in human flesh speedily

became popular. A monopoly of it was granted to the African

Company, but it was invaded by numerous interlopers, and in

1698 the trade was thrown open to all British subjects. It is

worthy of notice that while by the law of 1698 a certain

percentage was exacted from other African cargoes for the

maintenance of the forts along that coast, cargoes of negroes

were especially exempted, for the Parliament of the Revolution

desired above all things to encourage the trade. Nine years

before, a convention had been made between England and Spain

for supplying the Spanish West Indies with slaves from the

island of Jamaica, and it has been computed that between 1680

and 1700 the English tore from Africa about 300,000 negroes,

or about 15,000 every year. The great period of the English

slave trade had, however, not yet arrived. It was only in 1713

that it began to attain its full dimensions. One of the most

important and most popular parts of the Treaty of Utrecht was

the contract known as the Assiento, by which the British

Government secured for its subjects during thirty years an

absolute monopoly of the supply of slaves to the Spanish

colonies. The traffic was regulated by a long and elaborate

treaty, guarding among other things against any possible

scandal to the Roman Catholic religion from the presence of

heretical slave-traders, and it provided that in the 30 years

from 1713 to 1743 the English should bring into the Spanish

West Indies no less than 144,000 negroes, or 4,800 every year;

that during the first 25 years of the contract they might

import a still greater number on paying certain moderate

duties, and that they might carry the slave trade into

numerous Spanish ports from which it had hitherto been

excluded.

{2923}

The monopoly of the trade was granted to the South Sea

Company, and from this time its maintenance, and its extension

both to the Spanish dominions and to her own colonies, became

a central object of English policy. A few facts will show the

scale on which it was pursued From Christmas 1752 to Christmas

1762 no less than 71,115 negroes were imported into Jamaica.

In a despatch written at the end of 1762, Admiral Rodney

reports that in little more than three years 40,000 negroes

had been introduced into Guadaloupe. In a discussion upon the

methods of making the trade more effectual, which took place

in the English Parliament in 1750, it was shown that 46,000

negroes were at this time annually sold to the English

colonies alone. A letter of General O'Hara, the Governor of

Senegambia, written in 1766, estimates at the almost

incredible figure of 70,000 the number of negroes who during

the preceding fifty years had been annually shipped from

Africa. A distinguished modern historian, after a careful

comparison of the materials we possess, declares that in the

century preceding the prohibition of the slave trade by the

American Congress, in 1776, the number of negroes imported by

the English alone, into the Spanish, French, and English

colonies can, on the lowest computation, have been little less

than three millions, and that we must add more than a quarter

of a million, who perished on the voyage and whose bodies were

thrown into the Atlantic."

W. E. H. Lecky,

History of English in the 18th Century,

chapter 5 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

G. Bancroft,

History of the United States.

(Author's last revision),

part 3, chapter 16 (volume 2).

D. Macpherson,

Annals of Commerce,

volume 4, pages 141-157.

See, also,

UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;

AIX LA CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS;

ENGLAND: A. D. 1739, 1741;

GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743;

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1713-1776.

Maintained in the American colonies by the English Crown

and Parliament.

"The success of the American Revolution made it possible for

the different states to take measures for the gradual

abolition of slavery and the immediate abolition of the

foreign slave-trade. On this great question the state of

public opinion in America was more advanced than in England. …

George III. … resisted the movement for abolition with all the

obstinacy of which his hard and narrow nature was capable. In

1769 the Virginia legislature had enacted that the further

importation of negroes, to be sold into slavery, should be

prohibited. But George III. commanded the governor to veto

this act, and it was vetoed. In Jefferson's first draft of the

Declaration of Independence, this action of the king was made

the occasion of a fierce denunciation of slavery, but in

deference to the prejudices of South Carolina and Georgia the

clause was struck out by Congress. When George III. and his

vetoes had been eliminated from the case, it became possible

for the States to legislate freely on the subject."

J. Fiske,

T/w Critical Period of American History,

page 71.

"During the regal government, we had at one time obtained a

law which imposed such a duty on the importation of slaves as

amounted nearly to a prohibition, when one inconsiderate

assembly, placed under a peculiarity of circumstance, repealed

the law. This repeal met a joyful sanction from the then

sovereign, and no devices, no expedients, which could ever

after be attempted by subsequent assemblies, and they seldom

met without attempting them, could succeed in getting the

royal assent to a renewal of the duty. In the very first

session held under the republican government, the assembly

passed a law for the perpetual prohibition of the importation

of slaves. This will in some measure stop the increase of this

great political and moral evil, while the minds of our

citizens may be ripening for a complete emancipation of human

nature."

T. Jefferson,

Notes on the State of Virginia,

query 8.

"It has been frequently stated that England is responsible for

the introduction of negro slavery into British America; but

this assertion will not stand the test of examination. … It

is, however, true that from a very early period a certain

movement against it may be detected in some American States,

that there was, especially in the Northern Provinces, a great

and general dislike to the excessive importation of negroes,

and that every attempt to prohibit or restrict that

importation was rebuked and defeated by England. … The State

Governors were forbidden to give the necessary assent to any

measures restricting it, and the English pursued this policy

steadily to the very eve of the Revolution."

W. E. H. Lecky,

History of England in the 18th Century,

chapter 5 (volume 2).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1717.

Introduction into Louisiana.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1735-1749.

Questioned early in Georgia.

Slavery prohibited at the beginning, and finally introduced.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1735-1749.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1741.

The pretended Negro Plot in New York.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1756.

Extent and distribution in the English American colonies.

"The number of African slaves in North America in 1756, the

generation preceding the Revolution, was about 292,000. Of

these Virginia had 120,000, her white population amounting at

the same time to 173,000. The African increase in Virginia had

been steady. In 1619 came the first 20, and in 1649 there were

300. In 1670, there were 2,000. In 1714, there were 23,000. In

1756, there were 120,000. The 172,000 who, in addition to

these, made up the African population of America, were

scattered through the provinces from New England to Georgia."

J. E. Cooke,

Virginia,

page 367.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1769-1785.

The ending of slavery in Connecticut and New Hampshire.

"For the New England States the Revolution was the death knell

of slavery and of the slave-trade protected by the law [see

action in Massachusetts and Rhode Island detailed above and

below]. … In New Hampshire the institution died a natural

death. As Belknap said in 1792, 'Slavery is not prohibited by

any express law. … Those born since the constitution was made

[1776] are free.' Although the legal status of the negro was

somewhat different, he was practically treated in the same

manner in New Hampshire that he was treated in Rhode Island.

Connecticut did not change her royal charter into a state

constitution until 1818, and her slaves were freed in 1784.

The slave-trade in New England vessels did not cease when the

state forbade it within New England territory. It was

conducted stealthily, but steadily, even into the lifetime of

Judge Story. Felt gives instances in 1785, and the inference

is that the business was prosecuted from Salem."

W. B. Weeden,

Economic and Social History of New England,

volume 2, pages 834-835.

{2924}

"Connecticut was one of the first colonies to pass a law

against the slave-trade. This was done in 1769. The main cause

of the final abolition of slavery in the State was the fact

that it became unprofitable. In 1784 the Legislature passed an

Act declaring that all persons born of slaves, after the 1st

of March in that year, should be free at the age of 25. Most

of those born before this time were gradually emancipated by

their masters, and the institution of slavery had almost died

out before 1806."

E. B. Sanford,

History of Connecticut,

page 252.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1774.

The bringing of slaves into Rhode Island prohibited.

"Africans had been brought to the shores of this colony in the

earliest of the vessels in which the commerce of Newport had

reached across the Atlantic. Becoming domesticated within the

colony, the black population had in 1730 reached the number of

1,648, and in 1774 had become 3,761. How early the

philanthropic movement in their behalf, and the measures

looking towards their emancipation, had gained headway, cannot

be determined with accuracy. It is probable that the movement

originated with the Society of Friends within the colony. But

little progress had been made towards any embodiment of this

sentiment in legislative enactment, however, until the very

year of the First Continental Congress, when at the direct

instance of Stephen Hopkins (himself for many years an owner

of slaves, though a most humane master), the General Assembly

ordained [June, 1774] 'that for the future no negro or mulatto

slave shall be brought into the colony,' and that all

previously enslaved persons on becoming residents of Rhode

Island should obtain their freedom. 'In this decided action,'

once more, as has been so often seen to be the case with

movements led by Stephen Hopkins, 'Rhode Island,' says Arnold,

'took the lead of all her sister colonies.'"

W. E. Foster,

Stephen Hopkins,

part 2, pages 98-100.

ALSO IN:

W. D. Johnston,

Slavery in Rhode Island,

part 2.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1776-1808.

Antislavery sentiment in the Southern (American) States.

The causes of its disappearance.

Jefferson's "'Notes on Virginia' were written in 1781-2. His

condemnation of slavery in that work is most emphatic. 'The

whole commerce between master and slave,' he says, 'is a

perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most

unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading

submission on the other. Our children see this and learn to

imitate it. … The man must be a prodigy who can retain his

manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. With what

execration should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting

one-half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the

other, transforms those into despots and these into

enemies—destroys the morals of the one part and the amor

patriæ of the other? … Can the liberties of a nation be

thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis—a

conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the

gift of God; that they are not to be violated but with His

wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that

God is just—that His justice cannot sleep forever.' … On the

practical question, 'What shall be done about it?' Mr.

Jefferson's mind wavered; he was in doubt. How can slavery be

abolished? He proposed, in Virginia, a law, which was

rejected, making all free who were born after the passage of

the act. And here again he hesitated. What will become of

these people after they are free? … He thought they had better

be emancipated and sent out of the country. He therefore took

up with the colonization scheme long before the Colonization

Society was founded. He did not feel sure on this point. With

his practical mind he could not see how a half million of

slaves could be sent out of the country, even if they were

voluntarily liberated; where they should be sent to, or how

unwilling masters could be compelled to liberate their slaves.

While, therefore, he did not favor immediate emancipation, he

was zealous for no other scheme. … Mr. Jefferson, in August,

1785, wrote a letter to Dr. Richard Price, of London, author

of a treatise on Liberty, in which very advanced opinions were

taken on the slavery question. Concerning the prevalence of

anti-slavery opinions at that period, he says: 'Southward of

the Chesapeake your book will find but few readers concurring

with it in sentiment on the subject of slavery. From the mouth

to the head of the Chesapeake, the bulk of the people will

approve its theory, and it will find a respectable minority, a

minority ready to adopt it in practice; which, for weight and

worth of character, preponderates against the greater number

who have not the courage to divest their families of a

property which, how·ever, keeps their consciences unquiet.

Northward of the Chesapeake you may find, here and there, an

opponent to your doctrine, as you find, here and there, a

robber and murderer, but in no greater number. In that part of

America there are but few slaves, and they can easily

disencumber themselves of them; and emancipation is put in

such train that in a few years there will be no slaves

northward of Maryland. In Maryland I do not find such a

disposition to begin the redress of this enormity as in

Virginia. These [the inhabitants of Virginia] have sucked in

the principles of liberty, as it were, with their mothers'

milk, and it is to these I look with anxiety to turn the fate

of this question. Be not, therefore, discouraged.'" M. Brissot

de Warville visited Washington, at Mount Vernon, in 1788, and

conversed with him freely on the subject of slavery. "This

great man declared to me," he wrote in his narrative,

afterwards published, "that he rejoiced at what was doing in

other States on the subject [of emancipation—alluding to the

recent formation of several state societies]; that he

sincerely desired the extension of it in his own State; but he

did not dissemble that there were still many obstacles to be

overcome; that it was dangerous to strike too vigorously at a

prejudice which had begun to diminish; that time, patience,

and information would not fail to vanquish it."

W. F. Poole,

Anti-Slavery Opinions before the year 1800,

pages 25-35, and foot-note.

{2925}

"In Virginia all the foremost statesmen—Washington, Jefferson,

Lee, Randolph, Henry, and Madison, and Mason—were opposed to the

continuance of slavery; and their opinions were shared by many

of the largest planters. For tobacco-culture slavery did not

seem so indispensable as for the raising of rice and indigo;

and in Virginia the negroes, half-civilized by kindly

treatment, were not regarded with horror by their masters,

like the ill-treated and ferocious blacks of South Carolina

and Georgia. After 1808 the policy and the sentiments of

Virginia underwent a marked change. The invention of the

cotton-gin, taken in connection with the sudden prodigious

development of manufactures in England, greatly stimulated the

growth of cotton in the ever-enlarging area of the Gulf

states, and created an immense demand for slave-labour, just

at the time when the importation of negroes from Africa came

to an end. The breeding of slaves, to be sold to the planters

of the Gulf states, then became such a profitable occupation

in Virginia as entirely to change the popular feeling about

slavery. But until 1808 Virginia sympathized with the

anti-slavery sentiment which was growing up in the northern

states; and the same was true of Maryland. … In the work of

gradual emancipation the little state of Delaware led the way.

In its new constitution of 1776 the further introduction of

slaves was prohibited, all restraints upon emancipation having

already been removed. In the assembly of Virginia in 1778 a

bill prohibiting the further introduction of slaves was moved

and carried by Thomas Jefferson, and the same measure was

passed in Maryland in 1783, while both these states removed

all restraints upon emancipation. North Carolina was not ready

to go quite so far, but in 1786 she sought to discourage the

slave-trade by putting a duty of £5 per head on all negroes

thereafter imported."

J. Fiske,

The Critical Period of American History,

page 73.

ALSO IN:

T. Jefferson,

Notes on the State of Virginia,

query 18.

J. W. Draper,

History of the American Civil War,

chapters 16-17 (volume 1.

J. R. Brackett,

The Status of the Slave, 1775-1789

(Essays in Constitutional History).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1777.

Prohibited by the organic law of Vermont.

See VERMONT: A. D.1777-1778.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1781.

Emancipation in Massachusetts.

See, SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1638-1781.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1787.

The compromises in the Constitution of the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AM.: A. D. 1787.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1787.

Exclusion forever from the Northwest

Territory of the United States.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1790.

Guaranteed to Tennessee.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1791-1802.

The Revolt of the Haytian blacks, under

Toussaint L' Ouverture, and the ending

of slavery on the island.

See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1792.

The institution entrenched in the Constitution

of the new state of Kentucky.

See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1792-1807.

Earliest measures for the suppression of the slave-trade.

"In 1776 the first motion against the trade was made in the

English parliament; and soon leading statesmen of all parties,

including Fox, Burke, and Pitt, declared themselves in favour

of its abolition. In 1792 the Danish King took the lead in the

cause of humanity by absolutely prohibiting his subjects from

buying, selling, and transporting slaves; and at last, in

1807, the moral sense of the British public overrode the

vested interests of merchants and planters; parliament, at

Lord Grenville's instance, passed the famous act for the

Abolition of the Slave trade; and thenceforward successive

British governments set themselves steadily by treaty and

convention to bring other nations to follow their example. …

In 1794 the United States prohibited their subjects from

slave-trading to foreign countries, and in 1807 they

prohibited the importation of slaves into their own."

C. P. Lucas,

Historical Geography of the British Colonies,

volume 2, pages 67-68.

ALSO IN:

T. Clarkson,

History of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1799.

Gradual emancipation enacted in New York.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1799.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1806.

Act of the English Parliament against the slave-trade.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1815.

Declaration of the Powers against the slave-trade.

The following are passages from the Declaration against the

Slave Trade, which was signed by the representatives of the

Powers at the Congress of Vienna, February 8, 1815: "Having

taken into consideration that the commerce known by the name

of 'the Slave Trade' has been considered by just and

enlightened men of all ages as repugnant to the principles of

humanity and universal morality; … that at length the public

voice, in all civilized countries, calls aloud for its prompt

suppression; that since the character and the details of this

traffic have been better known, and the evils of every kind

which attend it, completely developed, several European

Governments have, virtually, come to the resolution of putting

a stop to it, and that, successively all the Powers possessing

Colonies in different parts of the world have acknowledged,

either by Legislative Acts, or by Treaties, or other formal

engagements, the duty and necessity of abolishing it: That by

a separate Article of the late Treaty of Paris, Great Britain

and France engaged to unite their efforts at the Congress of

Vienna, to induce all the Powers of Christendom to proclaim

the universal and definitive Abolition of the Slave Trade:

That the Plenipotentiaries assembled at this Congress …

declare, in the face of Europe, that, considering the

universal abolition of the Slave Trade as a measure

particularly worthy of their attention, conformable to the

spirit of the times, and to the generous principles of their

august Sovereigns, they are animated with the sincere desire

of concurring in the most prompt and effectual execution of

this measure, by all the means at their disposal. … The said

Plenipotentiaries at the same time acknowledge that this

general Declaration cannot prejudge the period that each

particular Power may consider as most desirable for the

definitive abolition of the Slave Trade. Consequent]y, the

determining the period when this trade is to cease universally

must be a subject of negociation between the Powers; it being

understood, however, that no proper means of securing its

attainment, and of accelerating its progress, are to be

neglected."

L. Hertslet,

Collection of Treaties and Conventions,

volume 1, page 11.

{2926}

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1816-1849.

The organization of the American Colonization Society.

The founding of Liberia.

"Samuel J. Mills organized at Williams College, in 1808, for

missionary work, an undergraduate society, which was soon

transferred to Andover, and resulted in the establishment of

the American Bible Society and Board of Foreign Missions. But

the topic which engrossed Mills' most enthusiastic attention

was the Negro. The desire was to better his condition by

founding a colony between the Ohio and the Lakes; or later,

when this was seen to be unwise, in Africa. On going to New

Jersey to continue his theological studies, Mills succeeded in

interesting the Presbyterian clergy of that State in his

project. Of this body one of the most prominent members was

Dr. Robert Finley. Dr. Finley succeeded in assembling at

Princeton the first meeting ever called to consider the

project of sending Negro colonists to Africa. Although

supported by few save members of the seminary, Dr. Finley felt

encouraged to set out for Washington in December 1816, to

attempt the formation of a colonization society. Earlier in

this same year there had been a sudden awakening of Southern

interest in colonization. … The interest already awakened and

the indefatigable efforts of Finley and his friend Colonel

Charles Marsh, at length succeeded in convening the assembly

to which the Colonization Society owes its existence. It was a

notable gathering. Henry Clay, in the absence of Bushrod

Washington, presided, setting forth in glowing terms the

object and aspirations of the meeting. … John Randolph of

Roanoke, and Robert Wright of Maryland, dwelt upon the

desirability of removing the turbulent free-negro element and

enhancing the value of property in slaves. Resolutions

organizing the Society passed, and committees appointed to

draft a Constitution and present a memorial to Congress. …

With commendable energy the newly organized Society set about

the accomplishment of the task before it. Plans were discussed

during the summer, and in November two agents, Samuel J. Mills

and Ebenezer Burgess, sailed for Africa to explore the western

coast and select a suitable spot. … Their inspection was

carried as far south [from Sierra Leone] as Sherbro Island,

where they obtained promises from the natives to sell land to

the colonists on their arrival with goods to pay for it. In

May they embarked on the return voyage. Mills died before

reaching home. His colleague made a most favorable report of

the locality selected, though, as the event proved, it was a

most unfortunate one. After defraying the expenses of this

exploration the Society's treasury was practically empty. It

would have been most difficult to raise the large sum

necessary to equip and send out a body of emigrants; and the

whole enterprise would have languished and perhaps died but

for a new impelling force. … Though the importation of slaves

had been strictly prohibited by the Act of Congress of March

2, 1807, no provision had been made for the care of the

unfortunates smuggled in in defiance of the Statute. They

became subject to the laws of the State in which they were

landed; and these laws were in some cases so devised that it

was profitable for the dealer to land his cargo and incur the

penalty. The advertisements of the sale of such a cargo of

'recaptured Africans' by the State of Georgia drew the

attention of the Society and of General Mercer in particular

to this inconsistent and abnormal state of affairs. His

profound indignation shows forth in the Second Annual Report

of the Society, in which the attention of the public is

earnestly drawn to the question; nor did he rest until a bill

was introduced into the House of Representatives designed to

do away with the evil. This bill became a law on March 3,

1819. … The clause which proved so important to the embryo

colony was that dealing with the captured cargoes: 'The

President of the United States is hereby authorized to make

such regulations and arrangements as he may deem expedient for

the safe-keeping, support, and removal beyond the limits of

the United States, of all such negroes, mulattoes, or persons

of color as may be so delivered and brought within their

jurisdiction; and to appoint a proper person or persons

residing upon the coast of Africa as agent or agents for

receiving the negroes, mulattoes, or persons of color,

delivered from on board vessels seized in the prosecution of

the slave trade by commanders of the United States armed

vessels.' The sum of $100,000 was appropriated for carrying

out the provisions of the Act. President Monroe determined to

construe it as broadly as possible in aid of the project of

colonization. After giving Congress, in his message, December

20, 1818, fair notice of his intention, no objection being

made, he proceeded to appoint two agents, the Rev. Samuel

Bacon, already in the service of the Colonization Society, and

John P. Bankson as assistant, and to charter the ship

Elizabeth. The agents were instructed to settle on the coast

of Africa, with a tacit understanding that the place should be

that selected by the Colonization Society. … For the expenses

of the expedition $33,000 was placed in the hands of Mr.

Bacon. Dr. Samuel A. Crozier was appointed by the Society as

its agent and representative; and 86 negroes from various

states—33 men, 18 women, and the rest children, were embarked.

On the 6th of February, 1820, the Mayflower of Liberia weighed

anchor in New York harbor, and, convoyed by the U. S.

sloop-of-war Cyane, steered her course toward the shores of

Africa. The pilgrims were kindly treated by the authorities at

Sierra Leone, where they arrived on the 9th of March; but on

proceeding to Sherbro Island they found the natives had

reconsidered their promise, and refused to sell them land.

While delayed by negotiations the injudicious nature of the

site selected was disastrously shown. The low marshy ground

and the bad water quickly bred the African fever, which soon

carried off all the agents and nearly a fourth of the

emigrants. The rest, weakened and disheartened, were soon

obliged to seek refuge at Sierra Leone. In March, 1821, a body

of 28 new emigrants under charge of J. B. Winn and Ephraim

Bacon, reached Freetown in the brig Nautilus. Winn collected

as many as he could of the first company, also the stores sent

out with them, and settled the people in temporary quarters at

Fourah Bay, while Bacon set out to explore the coast anew and

secure suitable territory. An elevated fertile and desirable

tract was at length discovered between 250 and 300 miles S. E.

of Sierra Leone. This was the region of Cape Montserado. It

seemed exactly suited to the purposes of the colonists, but

the natives refused to sell their land for fear of breaking up

the traffic in slaves; and the agent returned discouraged.

Winn soon died, and Bacon returned to the United States. In

November, Dr. Eli Ayres was sent over as agent, and the U. S.

schooner Alligator, commanded by Lieutenant Stockton, was

ordered to the coast to assist in obtaining a foothold for the

colony. Cape Montserado was again visited; and the address and

firmness of Lieutenant Stockton accomplished the purchase of a

valuable tract of land.

{2927}

The cape upon which the settlers proposed to build their first

habitations consists of a narrow peninsula or tongue of land

formed by the Montserado River, which separates it from the

mainland. Just within the mouth of the river lie two small

islands, containing together less than three acres. To these,

the Plymouth of Liberia, the colonists and their goods were

soon transported. But again the fickle natives repented the

bargain, and the settlers were long confined to 'Perseverance

Island,' as the spot was aptly named. … After a number of

thrilling experiences the emigrants, on April 25, 1822,

formally took possession of the cape, where they had erected

rude houses for themselves; and from this moment we may date

the existence of the colony. Their supplies were by this time

sadly reduced; the natives were hostile and treacherous; fever

had played havoc with the colonists in acclimating; and the

incessant downpour of the rainy season had set in. Dr. Ayres

became thoroughly discouraged, and proposed to lead them back

to Sierra Leone. Then it was that Elijah Johnson, an emigrant

from New York, made himself forever famous in Liberian history

by declaring that he would never desert the home he had found

after two years' weary quest! His firmness decided the

wavering colonists; the agents with a few faint-hearted ones

sailed off to America; but the majority remained with their

heroic Negro leader. The little band, deserted by their

appointed protectors, were soon reduced to the most dire

distress, and must have perished miserably but for the arrival

of unexpected relief. The United States Government had at last

gotten hold of some ten liberated Africans, and had a chance

to make use of the agency established for them at so great an

expense. They were accordingly sent out in the brig Strong

under the care of the Rev. Jehudi Ashmun. A quantity of stores

and some 37 emigrants sent by the Colonization Society

completed the cargo. Ashmun had received no commission as

agent for the colony, and expected to return on the Strong;

under this impression his wife had accompanied him. But when

he found the colonists in so desperate a situation he nobly

determined to remain with them at any sacrifice. … On the 24th

of May, 1823, the brig Oswego arrived with 61 new emigrants

and a liberal supply of stores and tools, in charge of Dr.

Ayres, who, already the representative of the Society, had now

been appointed Government Agent and Surgeon. One of the first

measures of the new agent was to have the town surveyed and

lots distributed among the whole body of colonists. Many of

the older settlers found themselves dispossessed of the

holdings improved by their labor, and the colony was soon in a

ferment of excitement and insurrection. Dr. Ayres, finding his

health failing, judiciously betook himself to the United

States. The arrival of the agent had placed Mr. Ashmun in a

false position of the most mortifying character. … Seeing the

colony again deserted by the agent and in a state of

discontent and confusion, he forgot his wrongs and remained at

the helm. Order was soon restored but the seeds of

insubordination remained. The arrival of 103 emigrants from

Virginia on the Cyrus, in February 1824, added to the

difficulty, as the stock of food was so low that the whole

colony had to be put on half rations. This necessary measure

was regarded by the disaffected as an act of tyranny on

Ashmun's part; and when shortly after the complete prostration

of his health compelled him to withdraw to the Cape De Verde

Islands, the malcontents sent home letters charging him with

all sorts of abuse of power, and finally with desertion of his

post! The Society in consternation applied to Government for

an expedition of investigation, and the Rev. R. R. Gurley,

Secretary of the Society, and an enthusiastic advocate of

colonization, was despatched in June on the U. S. schooner

Porpoise. The result of course revealed the probity, integrity

and good judgment of Mr. Ashmun; and Gurley became thenceforth

his warmest admirer. As a preventive of future discontent a

Constitution was adopted at Mr. Gurley's suggestion, giving

for the first time a definite share in the control of affairs

to the colonists themselves. Gurley brought with him the name

of the colony—Liberia, and of its settlement on the

Cape—Monrovia, which had been adopted by the Society on the

suggestion of Mr. Robert Goodloe Harper of Maryland. He

returned from his successful mission in August leaving the

most cordial relations established throughout the colony.

Gurley's visit seemed to mark the turning of the tide, and a

period of great prosperity now began." The national

independence of the commonwealth of Liberia was not assumed

until 1847, when the first President of the Republic, Joseph

J. Roberts, was elected.

J. H. T. McPherson,

History of Liberia

(Johns Hopkins University Studies,

series 9, number 10), chapters 2-3 and 5.

ALSO IN:

S. Wilkeson,

History of the American Colonies in Liberia.

A. H. Foote,

Africa and the American Flag,

chapters 10-11.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1818-1821.

The opening struggle of the American conflict.

The Missouri Compromise.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1821-1854.

Emancipation in New Granada, Venezuela and Ecuador.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1821-1854.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1823.

Abolition in Central America.

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

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1825.

Bolivar's Emancipation in Bolivia.

See PERU: A. D. 1825-1826.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1827.

Final Emancipation in New York.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1827.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1828-1832.

The rise of the Abolitionists in the United States.

Nat Turner's Insurrection.

While the reign of Andrew Jackson [1828-1836] paved the way on

which the slave-holding interest ascended to the zenith of its

supremacy over the Union, there arose, at the same time, in

the body of the abolitionists, the enemy which undermined the

firm ground under the feet of that same slave-holding

interest. The expression, 'abolition of slavery,' is to be met

with even before the adoption of the constitution. But the

word 'abolitionism,' as descriptive of a definite political

programme, occurs for the first time in this period. … The

immediate precursor, and, in a certain sense, the father of

the abolitionists, was Benjamin Lundy, a Quaker, born in New

Jersey. In Wheeling, West Virginia, where he learned the

saddler's trade, he had ample opportunity to become acquainted

with the horrors of slavery, as great cargoes of slaves, on

their way to the southern states, frequently passed the place.

{2928}

Lundy had been endeavoring for some years to awaken an active

interest among his neighbors in the hard lot of the slaves,

when the Missouri question brought him to the resolve to

consecrate his whole life to their cause. In 1821, he began to

publish the 'Genius of Universal Emancipation,' which is to be

considered the first abolition organ. The 19th century can

scarcely point to another instance in which the command of

Christ, to leave all things and follow him, was so literally

construed and followed. Lundy gave up his flourishing

business, took leave of his wife and of his two dearly beloved

children, and began a restless, wandering life, to arouse

consciences everywhere to a deeper understanding of the sin

and curse of slavery. In the autumn of 1829 he obtained, as

associate publisher of his sheet, William Lloyd Garrison, a

young litterateur, born in Newburyport, Massachusetts, who,

from the position of a poor apprentice to a tradesman, rose to

be a type-setter, and from being a type-setter to be a

journalist. The removal of Garrison from New England to

Baltimore, where Lundy was then publishing the 'Genius,' was

an event pregnant with consequences. Garrison had long been a

zealous enemy of slavery, but had hitherto seen the right way

of doing away with the evil in the efforts of the colonization

society. What he now saw of slavery and its effects with his

own eyes produced a complete revolution in his views in a few

months. He not only recognized the impossibility of preventing

the extension of slavery by colonizing the free negroes in

Africa, to say nothing of gradually doing away with it

altogether, but he became convinced also that the leading

spirits of the colonization society purposely sought to induce

the philanthropists of the north to enter on a wrong course,

in the interests of slavery. Hence his own profession of faith

was, henceforth, 'immediate and unconditional emancipation.'

His separation from the more moderate Lundy, which was

rendered unavoidable by this course, was hastened by an

outside occurrence. The captain of a ship from New England

took on board at Baltimore a cargo of slaves destined for New

Orleans. Garrison denounced him on that account with

passionate violence. The matter was carried before the court,

and he was sentenced to prison and to pay a money fine for

publishing a libelous article and for criminally inciting

slaves to insurrection. After an imprisonment of seven weeks,

his fine was paid by a New York philanthropist, Arthur Tappan,

and Garrison left the city to spread his convictions by means

of public lectures through New England. Although his success

was not very encouraging, he, in January, 1831, established a

paper of his own in Boston, known as 'The Liberator.' He was

not only its publisher, and sole writer for it, but he had to

be his own printer and carrier. His only assistant was a

negro. … In one year, Garrison had found so many who shared

his views, that it was possible to found the 'New England

Anti-Slavery Society' in Boston [January, 1832]. The example

was imitated in other states. The movement spread so rapidly

that as early as December, 1833, a 'national' anti-slavery

convention could be held in Philadelphia. The immediate

practical result of this was the foundation of the 'American

Anti-Slavery Society.' … In the same year that Garrison raised

the standard of unconditional abolitionism in Boston, an event

happened in Virginia, which, from the opposite side,

contributed powerfully to lead the slavery question over into

its new stage of development. In August, 1831, an uprising of

slaves, under the leadership of Nat Turner, occurred in

Southampton county. It was, however, quickly subdued, but cost

the life of 61 white persons, mostly women and children. The

excitement throughout the entire south, and especially in

Virginia and the states contiguous to it, was out of all

proportion with the number of the victims and the extent of

the conspiracy."

H. von Holst,

Constitutional and Political History of the United States,

volume 2, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

W. P. and F. J. Garrison,

William Lloyd Garrison: The Story of his Life,

volume 1, chapters 6-9.

S. J. May,

Recollections of the Anti-Slavery Conflict,

pages 1-90.

G. L. Austin,

Life and Times of Wendell Phillips,

chapter 3.

O. Johnson,

William Lloyd Garrison and his Times,

chapters 1-5.

J. F. Rhodes,

History of the United States from 1850,

chapter 1.

B. Tuckerman,

William Jay and the Constitutional Movement

for the Abolition of Slavery.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1829-1837.

Emancipation in Mexico, resisted in Texas.

Schemes of the American slave power for acquiring that state.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836;

and MEXICO: A. D. 1829-1837.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1834-1838.

Emancipation in the British colonies.

"The abolition of slavery, as Fox had said, was the natural

consequence of the extinction of the slave trade; and in 1833

the act for the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British

colonies was passed. The law was to take effect from the first

of August 1834, but the slaves were to be apprenticed to their

former owners till 1838 and in the case of agricultural slaves

till 1840, and £20,000,000 sterling were voted as compensation

to the slave-holders at the Cape, in Mauritius, and in the

West Indies. As a matter of fact, however, two colonies,

Antigua and the Bermudas, had the good sense to dispense with

the apprenticeship system altogether, and in no case was it

prolonged beyond 1838. … When Burke wrote, there were,

according to his account, in the British West Indies at least

230,000 slaves against at the most 90,000 whites. In 1788 it

is stated that there were 450,000 negroes in the British sugar

colonies. At the last registration prior to emancipation,

after British Guiana and Trinidad had become British

possessions, the number of slaves was given at some 674,000."

C. P. Lucas,

Historical Geography of the British Colonies,

volume 2, pages 68-69.

See, also,

ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1836.

The Atherton Gag.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1840-1847.

The Liberty Party and the Liberty League.

"Nothing affords more striking evidence of the gravity and

difficulties of the antislavery struggle [in the United

States] than the conflicting opinions and plans of the honest

and earnest men engaged in it. … The most radical difference

was that which separated those who rejected from those who

adopted the principle of political action. The former were

generally styled the 'old organization,' or Garrisonian

Abolitionists; the latter embraced the Liberty Party and those

antislavery men who still adhered to the Whig and Democratic

parties." In 1847 the Liberty Party became divided, and a

separate body was formed which took the name of the Liberty

League, and which nominated Gerrit Smith for President, with

Elihu Burritt for Vice-President. "As distinguished from the

other wing, it may be said that the members of the Liberty

League were less practical, more disposed to adhere to

theories, and more fearful of sacrificing principle to

policy."

H. Wilson,

History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,

volume 2, chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

W. Birney,

James G. Birney and his Times,

chapter 29.

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1840, and 1844.

{2929}

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1840-1860.

The Underground Railroad.

The Underground Railroad was the popular designation given [in

the United States] to those systematic and co-operative

efforts which were made by the friends of the fleeing slave to

aid him in eluding the pursuit of the slave-hunters, who were

generally on his track. This 'institution,' as it was

familiarly called, played an important part in the great drama

of slavery and anti-slavery. By its timely and effective aid

thousands were enabled to escape from the prison-house of

bondage. … The practical working of the system required

'stations' at convenient distances, or rather the houses of

persons who held themselves in readiness to receive fugitives,

singly or in numbers, at any hour of day or night, to feed and

shelter, to clothe if necessary, and to conceal until they

could be despatched with safety to some other point along the

route. There were others who held themselves in like readiness

to take them by private or public conveyance. … When the wide

extent of territory embraced by the Middle States and all the

Western States east of the Mississippi is borne in mind, and

it is remembered that the whole was dotted with these

'stations,' and covered with a network of imaginary routes,

not found, indeed, in the railway guides or on the railway

maps; that each station had its brave and faithful men and

women, ever on the alert to seek out and succor the coming

fugitive, and equally intent on deceiving and thwarting his

pursuers; that there were always trusty and courageous

conductors waiting, like the 'minute-men' of the Revolution,

to take their living and precious freights, often by

unfrequented roads, on dark and stormy nights, safely on their

way; and that the numbers actually rescued were very great,

many counting their trophies by hundreds, some by thousands,

two men being credited with the incredible estimate of over

2,500 each,—there are materials from which to estimate,

approximately at least, the amount of labor performed, of cost

and risk incurred on the despised and deprecated Underground

Railroad, and something of the magnitude of the results

secured."

H. Wilson,

History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,

volume 2, chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

J. F. Clarke,

Anti-Slavery Days,

chapter 3.

W. Still,

The Underground Railroad.

M. G. McDougal,

Fugitive Slaves

(Fay House Monographs, 3).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1844.

Attempted insurrection in Cuba.

See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1844-1845.

The contest over the annexation of Texas.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1845-1846.

Revolt in the Democratic Party against slavery extension.

The Wilmot Proviso.

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

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854.

The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.

Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854.

Abolition in Venezuela.

See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854-1855.

Solidification of anti-slavery sentiment in the North.

Birth of the Republican Party of the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854-1859.

The struggle for Kansas.

See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1856.

Abolition in Peru.

See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1857.

The Dred Scott case.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1859.

John Brown at Harper's Ferry.

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

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1860-1865.

The slaveholders' Rebellion in the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER), and after.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (May).

The first war-thrust.

General Butler declares the slaves to be Contraband of War.

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

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (August).

Act of Congress freeing slaves employed

in the service of the Rebellion.

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

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (August-September).

Fremont's premature Proclamation of Emancipation

in Missouri, and Lincoln's modification of it.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.

Compensated Emancipation proposed by President Lincoln.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MARCH) PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S

PROPOSAL OF COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.

Federal officers forbidden, by the amended Military Code,

to surrender fugitive slaves.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MARCH) AMENDMENT OF THE MILITARY

CODE.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.

Abolition in the District of Columbia and

the Territories of the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (APRIL-JUNE).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.

General Hunter's Emancipation Order,

rescinded by President Lincoln.

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

GENERAL HUNTER'S EMANCIPATION ORDER.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.

First arming of the Freedmen in the War for the Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.

Gradual Emancipation in West Virginia provided for.

See WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862

Act confiscating the property and freeing the slaves of Rebels.

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

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.

President Lincoln's preliminary or monitory

Proclamation of Emancipation.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.

Abolition in the Dutch West Indies.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1863.

President Lincoln's final Proclamation of Emancipation.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JANUARY).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1864.

Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Laws.

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

{2930}

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1864.

Constitutional abolition of slavery in Louisiana.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.

Adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution

of the United States, forever prohibiting slavery.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.

Abolition in Tennessee by Constitutional Amendment.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.

Emancipation of the families of colored soldiers.

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

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1869-1893.

The slave-trade in Africa and the European measures

for its suppression.

"While Livingstone was making his terrible disclosures

respecting the havoc wrought by the slave-trader in east

central Africa, Sir Samuel Baker was striving to effect in

north central Africa what has been so successfully

accomplished in the Congo State. During his expedition for the

discovery of the Albert Nyanza, his explorations led him

through one of the principal man-hunting regions, wherein

murder and spoliation were the constant occupations of

powerful bands from Egypt and Nubia. These revelations were

followed by diplomatic pressure upon the Khedive Ismail, and

through the personal influence of an august personage he was

finally induced to delegate to Sir Samuel the task of

arresting the destructive careers of the slavers in the region

of the upper Nile. In his book Ismailïa we have the record of

his operations by himself. The firman issued to him was to the

effect that he 'was to subdue to the Khedive's authority the

countries to the south of Gondokoro, to suppress the slave

trade, to introduce a system of regular commerce, to open to

navigation the great lakes of the equator, and to establish a

chain of military stations and commercial depots throughout

central Africa.' This mission began in 1869, and continued

until 1874. On Baker's retirement from the command of the

equatorial Soudan the work was intrusted to Colonel C. G.

Gordon—commonly known as Chinese Gordon. Where Baker had

broken ground, Gordon was to build; what his predecessor had

commenced, Gordon was to perfect and to complete. If energy,

determination and self-sacrifice received their due, then had

Gordon surely won for the Soudan that peace and security which

it was his dear object to obtain for it. But slaving was an

old institution in this part of the world. Every habit and

custom of the people had some connection with it. They had

always been divided from prehistoric time into enslavers and

enslaved. How could two Englishmen, accompanied by only a

handful of officers, removed 2,000 miles from their base of

supplies, change the nature of a race within a few years?

Though much wrong had been avenged, many thousands of slaves

released, many a slaver's camp scattered, and many striking

examples made to terrify the evil-doers, the region was wide

and long; and though within reach of the Nile waters there was

a faint promise of improvement, elsewhere, at Kordofan,

Darfoor, and Sennaar, the trade flourished. After three years

of wonderful work, Gordon resigned. A short time afterwards,

however, he resumed his task, with the powers of a dictator,

over a region covering 1,100,000 square miles. But the

personal courage, energy, and devotion of one man opposed to a

race can effect but little. … After another period of three

years he again resigned. Then followed a revulsion. The

Khedivial government reverted to the old order of things. …

All traces of the work of Baker and Gordon have long ago been

completely obliterated. Attention has been given of late to

Morocco. This near neighbor of England is just twenty years

behind Zanzibar. … While the heart of Africa responds to the

civilizing influences moving from the east and the west and

the south, Morocco remains stupidly indifferent and inert, a

pitiful example of senility and decay. The remaining portion

of North Africa which still fosters slavery is Tripoli. The

occupation of Tunis by France has diverted such traffic in

slaves as it maintained to its neighbor. Though the

watchfulness of the Mediterranean cruisers renders the trade a

precarious one, the small lateen boats are frequently able to

sail from such ports as Benghazi, Derna, Solum, etc., with

living freight, along the coast to Asia Minor. In the

interior, which is inaccessible to travellers, owing to the

fanaticism of the Senoussi sect, caravans from Darfoor and

Wadai bring large numbers of slaves for the supply of

Tripolitan families and Senouissian sanctuaries. … The

partition of Africa among the European powers [by the Berlin

Conference of 1885 and the Anglo-German Convention of 1890] …

was the first effective blow dealt to the slave trade in inner

Africa.

See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

The east coast, whence a few years ago the slaves marched in

battalions to scatter over the wide interior of the continent

for pillage and devastation, is to-day guarded by German and

British troops. The island of Zanzibar, where they were

equipped for their murderous enterprises, is under the British

flag. … The final blow has been given by the act of the

Brussels Antislavery Conference, lately [1893] ratified by the

powers, wherein modern civilization has fully declared its

opinions upon the question of slavery, and no single power

will dare remain indifferent to them, under penalty of obloquy

and shame. … The Congo State devotes her annual subsidies of

£120,000 and the export tax of £30,000 wholly to the task of

securing her territory against the malign influences of the

slave trade, and elevating it to the rank of self-protecting

states. The German government undertakes the sure guardianship

of its vast African territory as an imperial possession, so as

to render it inaccessible to the slave-hunter. … The coast

towns are fortified and garrisoned; they [the Germans] are

making their advance towards Lake Tanganika by the erection of

military stations; severe regulations have been issued against

the importation of arms and gun-powder; the Reichstag has been

unstinted in its supplies of money; an experienced

administrator, Baron von Soden, has been appointed an imperial

commissioner, and scores of qualified subordinates assist him.

… So far the expenses, I think, have averaged over £100,000

annually. The French government devotes £60,000 annually for

the protection and administration of its Gaboon and Congo

territory."

H. M. Stanley,

Slavery and the Slave Trade in Africa (1893).

ALSO IN:

R. F. Clarke,

Cardinal Lavigerie and the African Slave Trade,

part 2.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1871-1888.

Emancipation in Brazil.

See BRAZIL: A. D. 1871-1888.

{2931}

SLAVES AND GLADIATORS, Rising of the.

See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.

----------SLAVONIC PEOPLES: Start--------

SLAVONIC PEOPLES AND LANGUAGE.

"The name under which the Slavonians appear in ancient

literature is generally Venedi or Veneti. … This name, unknown

to the Slavonians themselves, is that by which the Teutonic

tribes have from the first designated these their eastern

neighbours, viz. Wends, and the use of this appellation by the

Roman authors plainly shows that their knowledge of the

Slavonians was derived only from the Germans. The Old German

form of this name was Wineda, and Wenden is the name which the

Germans of the present day give to the remnants of a Slavonic

population, formerly large, who now inhabit Lusatia, while

they give the name of Winden to the Slovens in Carinthia,

Carniola and Styria. … If the Slavonians themselves ever

applied any common name to the whole of their family, it must

most probably have been that by which we now are accustomed to

call them, Slavs, or Slavonians; its original native form was

Slovene. … The most ancient sources from which we derive a

knowledge of the Wends or Slavonians, unanimously place them

by the Vistula. From that river, which must have formed their

western frontier, they extended eastward to the Dnieper, and

even beyond. To the south the Carpathians formed their

boundary. To the north they perhaps crossed the Dwina into the

territory afterwards known as Novgorod. In the extensive woods

and marshes which cover these remote tracts the Slavonians

seem to have dwelt in peace and quiet during the first

centuries after Christ, divided into a number of small tribes

or clans. … It was not long, however, before their primitive

home became too narrow for the Slavs, and as their numbers

could no longer be contained within their ancient

boundaries—and, perhaps, compelled to it by pressure from

without—they began to spread themselves to the west, in which

direction the great migrations of the fourth and fifth

centuries had made abundant room for the new immigrants. By

two different roads the Slavs now begin to advance in great

masses. On the one side, they cross the Vistula and extend

over the tracts between the Carpathian mountains and the

Baltic, right down to the Elbe, the former Germanic population

of this region having either emigrated or been exhausted by

their intestine contests and their deadly struggle with the

Roman empire. By this same road the Poles, and probably also

the Chekhs of Bohemia and Moravia, reached the districts they

have inhabited since that period. In the rest of this western

territory the Slavonians were afterwards almost exterminated

during their bloody wars with the Germans, so that but few of

their descendants exist. The other road by which the

Slavonians advanced lay to the south-west, along the course of

the Danube. These are the so-called South-Slavonians: the

Bulgarians, the Servians, the Croatians, and farthest

westward, the Slovens."

V. Thomsen,

Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia,

lecture 1.

"A controversy has been maintained respecting the origin of

the name [Slave]. The fact that … it has become among

ourselves a synonyme of servitude, does not of course

determine its real meaning. Those who bear it, naturally

dignify its import and themselves by assigning to it the

signification of 'glory';—the Slavonians to themselves are,

therefore, 'the glorious race.' But the truth seems to be,

that 'Slava' in its primitive meaning, was nothing but

'speech,' and that the secondary notions of 'fama,' 'gloria,'

followed from this, as it does in other tongues. ['If I know

not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that

speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a

barbarian unto me.' I. Corinthians, xiv. 11.]. … Slave or

Slavonian was, therefore, nothing more than the gentile

appellative, derived from the use of the national tongue, and

intended as antithetical to 'foreigner.' In the ancient

historic world, the Slaves played an insignificant part. Some

have identified them with the Scythians of Herodotus. … Like

the Celts, they seemed destined to be driven into corners in

the old world."

J. G. Sheppard,

The Fall of Rome,

lecture 3.

See SLAVE: ORIGIN, &c.

"The Wendic or Slav group [lingual] … came into Europe during

the first five centuries of our era; it is divided into two

great branches, Eastern and Western. The first includes

Russian, Great Russian in West Central Russia; Little Russian,

Rusniac, or Ruthene in the south of Russia and even into

Austria, … Servian, Croatian, Slovenic, and Bulgarian, of

which the most ancient form is to the whole group what Gothic

is to the German dialects; modern Bulgarian is, on the

contrary, very much altered. … The western branch covered from

the 7th to the 9th century vast districts of Germany in which

only German is now known: Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Brandenburg,

Saxony, Western Bohemia, Austria, Styria, and Northern

Carinthia. Though now much restricted, it can still boast

numerous dialects; among others the Wendic of Lusatia, which

is dying out, Tzech or Bohemian, which is very vigorous (ten

millions), of which a variety, Slovac, is found in Hungary;

lastly, Polish (ten millions)."

A. Lefèvre,

Race and Language,

pages 239-240.

See, also: ARYANS; SARMATIA; and SCYTHIANS.

SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6-7th Centuries.

Migrations and settlements.

"The movements of the Avars in the sixth century [see AVARS]

seem to have had much the same effect upon the Slaves which

the movements of the Huns in the fourth century had upon the

Teutons. … The Slaves seem to have been driven by the Turanian

incursions in two directions; to the North-west and to the

South-west. The North-western division gave rise to more than

one European state, and their relations with Germany form an

important part of the history of the Western Empire. These

North-western Slaves do not become of importance till a little

later. But the South-western division plays a great part in

the history of the sixth and seventh centuries. … The Slaves

play in the East, though less thoroughly and less brilliantly,

the same part, half conquerors, half disciples, which the

Teutons played in the West. During the sixth century they

appear only as ravagers; in the seventh they appear as

settlers. There seems no doubt that Heraclius encouraged

Slavonic settlements south of the Danube, doubtless with a

view to defence against the more dangerous Avars. … A number

of Slavonic states thus arose in the lands north and east of

the Hadriatic, as Servia, Chrobatia or Croatia, Carinthia. …

Istria and Dalmatia now became Slavonic, with the exception of

the maritime cities, which, among many vicissitudes, clave to

the Empire. …

{2932}

The Slaves pressed on into a large part of Macedonia and

Greece, and, during the seventh and eighth centuries, the

whole of those countries, except the fortified cities and a

fringe along the coast, were practically cut off from the

Empire. The name of Slavinia reached from the Danube to

Peloponnêsos, leaving to the Empire only islands and detached

points of coast from Venice round to Thessalonica. … The

Slavonic occupation of Greece is a fact which must neither be

forgotten nor exaggerated. It certainly did not amount to an

extirpation of the Greek nation; but it certainly did amount

to an occupation of a large part of the country, which was

Hellenized afresh from those cities and districts which

remained Greek or Roman."

E. A. Freeman,

Historical Geography of Empire,

chapter 5, section 4.

See, also, BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 7TH CENTURY.

SLESWIG.

See SCHLESWIG.

SLIDING SCALE OF CORN DUTIES.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):

A. D. 1815-1828; and 1842.

SLIVNITZA, Battle of (1885).

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:

A. D. 1878-1886 (BULGARIA).

SLOBADYSSA, Battle of (1660).

See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696.

SLOVENES, The.

See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

SLUYS: A. D. 1587.

Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1587-1588.

SLUYS: A. D. 1604.

Taken by Prince Maurice of Nassau.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.

SLUYS, Battle of (1340).

Edward III. of England, sailing with 200 ships on his second

expedition to France (see FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360), found a

French fleet of about equal numbers lying in wait for him in

the harbor of Sluys. The English attacked, June 24, 1340, and

with such success that almost the entire French fleet was

taken or destroyed, and 25,000 to 30,000 men slain.

W. Warburton,

Edward III.,

pages 77-79.

ALSO IN:

Sir J. Froissart,

Chronicles,

(translated by Johnes).

volume 1, book 1, chapter 50.

SMALKALDE, League of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

SMALL-POX, AND VACCINATION.

See PLAGUE, ETC.: 6-13TH CENTURIES,

and MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY.

SMERWICK, Massacre of (1580).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

SMITH, Captain John:

American voyages and adventures.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1607-1610, and 1609-1616;

also, AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.

SMITH, Joseph, and the founding of Mormonism.

See MORMONISM.

SMITH, Sir Sidney, and the siege of Acre.

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

SMITH COLLEGE.

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

SMOLENSK, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

SMYRNA: Turkish massacre of Christians (1821).

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

SNAKE INDIANS, OR SHOSHONES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

SNUFF-TAKERS, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

SOBIESKI, John,

King of Poland, A. D. 1674-1697,

and his deliverance of Vienna.

See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696;

and HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

SOBRAON, Battle of (1846).

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

SOBRARBE, Kingdom of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

SOCAGE TENURE.

FREESOCAGE.

See FEUDAL TENURES.

----------SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: Start--------

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

Communism.

Socialism.

Labor Organization.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:

Utopias, Ancient and Modern.

"Speculative Communism has a brilliant history. It begins

about six hundred years before Christ with Phaleas of

Chalcedon, whom Milton speaks of as the first to recommend the

equalization of property in land. Plato favors Communism. In

the fifth book of the 'Republic,' Socrates is made to

advocate, not merely community of goods, but also community of

wives and children. This was no after-dinner debauch in the

groves of the Academy, as Milton too severely suggests. It was

a logical conclusion from a mistaken premise. … The ideal

aimed at was the unity of the State, whose pattern appears to

have been partly Pythagorean, and partly Spartan. In regard to

property, the formulated purpose was, not to abolish wealth,

but to abolish poverty. In the 'Laws' (volume 13), Plato would

allow to the richest citizen four times as much income as to

the poorest. In regard to women, the aim was not sensual

indulgence, but the propagation and rearing of the fittest

offspring. This community of wives and children was for the

ruling class only; not for the husbandmen, nor for the

artificers. So also, probably, the community of goods. We say

probably, for the scheme is not wrought out in all its

details, and Plato himself had no hope of seeing his dream

realized till kings are philosophers, or philosophers are

kings. The echoes of this Platonic speculation have been loud

and long. About the year 316 B. C., Evemerus, sent eastward by

Cassander, King of Macedon, on a voyage of scientific

discovery, reports in his 'Sacred History' the finding of an

island which he calls Panchaia, the seat of a Republic, whose

citizens were divided into the three classes of Priests,

Husbandmen, and Soldiers; where all property was common; and

all were happy. In 1516 Sir Thomas More published his

'Utopia;' evidently of Platonic inspiration. More also chose

an island for his political and social Paradise. He had Crete

in mind. His island, crescent-shaped, and 200 miles wide at

the widest point, contained 54 cities. It had community of

goods, but not of women.

{2933}

The 'Civitas Solis' of Campanella, published in 1623, was in

imitation perhaps of More's 'Utopia.' This City of the Sun

stood on a mountain in Ceylon, under the equator, and had a

community both of goods and of women. About the same time Lord

Bacon amused himself by writing the 'New Atlantis,' a mere

fragment, the porch of a building that was never finished. In

the great ferment of Cromwell's time the 'Oceana' of

Harrington appeared (1656); a book famous in its day, with

high traditional repute ever since, but now seldom read except

by the very few who feel themselves called upon to master the

literature of the subject. Hallam pronounces it a dull,

pedantic book; and nobody disputes the verdict. Harrington

advocates a division of land, no one to have more than two

thousand pounds' (ten thousand dollars') worth. The upshot of

it all would be, a moderate aristocracy of the middle classes.

Such books belong to a class by themselves, which may be

called Poetico-Political; æsthetic, scholarly, humane, and

hopeful. They are not addressed to the masses. If they make

revolutions, it is only in the long run. They are not battles,

nor half battles, but only the bright wild dreams of tired

soldiers in the pauses of battles. Communistic books with iron

in them … are not modern only, but recent. Modern Communism,

now grown so surly and savage everywhere, began mildly enough.

As a system, it is mostly French, name and all. The famous

writers are Saint-Simon, Fourier, Considérant, Proudhon,

Cabet, and Louis Blanc."

R. D. Hitchcock,

Socialism,

pages 33-36.

ALSO IN:

M. Kaufmann,

Utopias.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: Definition of Terms:

Socialism.

Communism.

Collectivism.

"As socialism has been most powerful and most studied on the

Continent, it may be interesting to compare the definitions

given by some leading French and German economists. The great

German economist Roscher defines it as including 'those

tendencies which demand a greater regard for the common weal

than consists with human nature.' Adolf Held says that 'we may

define as socialistic every tendency which demands the

subordination of the individual will to the community.' Janet

more precisely defines it as follows:—'We call socialism every

doctrine which teaches that the State has a right to correct

the inequality of wealth which exists among men, and to

legally establish the balance by taking from those who have

too much in order to give to those who have not enough, and

that in a permanent manner, and not in such and such a

particular case—a famine, for instance, a public calamity,

etc.' Laveleye explains it thus: 'In the first place, every

socialistic doctrine aims at introducing greater equality in

social conditions; and in the second place at realising those

reforms by the law or the State.' Von Scheel simply defines it

as the 'economic philosophy of the suffering classes.'"

T. Kirkup,

A History of Socialism,

introduction.

"The economic quintessence of the socialistic programme, the

real aim of the international movement, is as follows. To

replace the system of private capital (i. e. the speculative

method of production, regulated on behalf of society only by

the free competition of private enterprises) by a system of

collective capital, that is, by a method of production which

would introduce a unified (social or 'collective ')

organization of national labour, on the basis of collective or

common ownership of the means of production by all the members

of the society. This collective method of production would

remove the present competitive system, by placing under

official administration such departments of production as can

be managed collectively (socially or co-operatively), as well

as the distribution among all of the common produce of all,

according to the amount and social utility of the productive

labour of each. This represents in the shortest possible

formula the aim of the socialism of today."

A. Schäffle,

The Quintessence of Socialism,

pages 3-4.

"Socialism, … while it may admit the state's right of property

over against another state, does away with all ownership, on

the part of members of the state, of things that do not perish

in the using, or of their own labor in creating material

products. Its first and last policy is to prevent the

acquisition or exclusive use of capital, by any person or

association under the control of the state, with the

exception, perhaps, of articles of luxury or enjoyment

procured by the savings of wages. No savings can give rise to

what is properly called capital, or means of production in

private hands. … Commun·ism, in its ordinary signification, is

a system or form of common life, in which the right of private

or family property is abolished by law, mutual consent, or

vow. … Collectivism, which is now used by German as well as by

French writers, denotes the condition of a community when its

affairs, especially its industry, is managed in the collective

way, instead of the method of separate, individual effort. It

has, from its derivation, some advantages over the vague word

socialism, which may include many varieties of associated or

united life."

T. D. Woolsey,

Communism and Socialism,

pages 1-8.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1720-1800.

Origin of Trades Unions in England.

"A Trade Union, as we understand the term, is a continuous

association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining or

improving the conditions of their employment. … We have, by

our definition, expressly excluded from our history any

account of the innumerable instances in which the manual

workers have formed ephemeral combinations against their

social superiors. Strikes are as old as history itself. The

ingenious seeker of historical parallels might, for instance,

find in the revolt, B. C. 1490, of the Hebrew brickmakers in

Egypt against being required to make bricks without straw, a

curious precedent for the strike of the Stalybridge

cotton-spinners, A. D. 1892, against the supply of bad

material for their work. But we cannot seriously regard, as in

any way analogous to the Trade Union Movement of to-day, the

innumerable rebellions of subject races, the slave

insurrections, and the semi-servile peasant revolts of which

the annals of history are full. … When, however, we pass from

the annals of slavery or serfdom to those of the nominally

free citizenship of the mediæval town, we are on more

debatable ground. We make no pretence to a thorough knowledge

of English town-life in the Middle Ages. But it is clear that

there were at all times, alongside of the independent master

craftsmen, a number of hired journeymen, who are known to have

occasionally combined against their rulers and governors. …

{2934}

After detailed consideration of every published instance of a

journeyman's fraternity in England, we are fully convinced

that there is as yet no evidence of the existence of any such

durable and independent combination of wage-earners against

their employers during the Middle Ages. There are certain

other cases in which associations, which are sometimes assumed

to have been composed of journeymen maintained a continuous

existence. But in all these cases the 'Bachelors' Company,'

presumed to be a journeymen's fraternity, formed a subordinate

department of the masters' gild, by the rulers of which it was

governed. It will be obvious that associations in which the

employers dispensed the funds and appointed the officers can

bear no analogy to modern Trade Unions. The explanation of the

tardy growth of stable combination among hired journeymen is,

we believe, to be found in the prospects of economic

advancement which the skilled handicraftsman still possessed.

… The apprenticed journeyman in the skilled handicrafts

belonged, until comparatively modern times, to the same social

grade as his employer, and was, indeed, usually the son of a

master in the same or an analogous trade. So long as industry

was carried on mainly by small masters, each employing but one

or two journeymen, the period of any energetic man's service

as a hired wage-earner cannot normally have exceeded a few

years. … Under such a system of industry the journeymen would

possess the same prospects of economic advancement that

hindered the growth of stable combinations in the ordinary

handicrafts, and in this fact may lie the explanation of the

striking absence of evidence of any Trade Unionism in the

building trades right down to the end of the eighteenth

century. When, however, the capitalist builder or contractor

began to supersede the master mason, master plasterer, &c.,

and this class of small entrepreneurs had again to give place

to a hierarchy of hired workers, Trade Unions, in the modern

sense, began, as we shall see, to arise. We have dwelt at some

length upon these ephemeral associations of wage-earners and

on the journeymen fraternities of the Middle Ages, because it

might plausibly be argued that they were in some sense the

predecessors of the Trade Union. But strangely enough it is

not in these institutions that the origin of Trade Unionism

has usually been sought. For the predecessor of the modern

Trade Union, men have turned, not to the mediæval associations

of the wage-earners, but to those of their employers—that is

to say, the Craft Gilds. … The supposed descent of the Trade

Unions from the mediæval Craft Gild rests, as far as we have

been able to discover, upon no evidence whatsoever. The

historical proof is all the other way. In London, for

instance, more than one Trade Union has preserved an unbroken

existence from the eighteenth century. The Craft Gilds still

exist in the City Companies, and at no point in their history

do we find the slightest evidence of the branching off from

them of independent journeymen's societies. … We have failed

to discover, either in the innumerable trade pamphlets and

broad-sheets of the time, or in the Journals of the House of

Commons, any evidence of the existence, prior to 1700, of

continuous associations of wage-earners for maintaining or

improving the conditions of their employment. And when we

remember that during the latter decades of the seventeenth

century the employers of labour, and especially the industrial

'companies' or corporations, memorialised the House of Commons

on every conceivable grievance which affected their particular

trade, the absence of all complaints of workmen's combinations

suggests to us that no such combinations existed. In the early

years of the eighteenth century we find isolated complaints of

combinations 'lately entered into' by the skilled workers in

certain trades. As the century progresses we watch the gradual

multiplication of these complaints, met by counter-accusations

presented by organised bodies of workmen. … If we examine the

evidence of the rise of combinations in particular trades, we

see the Trade Union springing, not from any particular

institution, but from every opportunity for the meeting

together of wage-earners of the same trade. Adam Smith

remarked that 'people of the same trade seldom meet together,

even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in

a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to

raise prices.' And there is actual evidence of the rise of one

of the oldest of the existing Trade Unions out of a gathering

of the journeymen 'to take a social pint of porter together.'

More often it is a tumultuous strike, out of which grows a

permanent organisation. … If the trade is one in which the

journeymen frequently travel in search of work, we note the

slow elaboration of systematic arrangements for the relief of

these 'tramps' by their fellow-workers in each town through

which they pass, and the inevitable passage of this

far-extending tramping society into a national Trade Union. …

We find that at the beginning of the eighteenth century the

typical journeyman tailor in London and Westminster had become

a lifelong wage-earner. It is not surprising, therefore, that

one of the earliest instances of permanent Trade Unionism that

we have been able to discover occurs in this trade. The master

tailors in 1720 complain to Parliament that 'the Journeymen

Taylors in and about the Cities of London and Westminster, to

the number of seven thousand and upwards, have lately entered

into a combination to raise their wages and leave off working

an hour sooner than they used to do; and for the better

carrying on their design have subscribed their respective

names in books prepared for that purpose, at the several

houses of call or resort (being publick-houses in and about

London and Westminster) where they use; and collect several

considerable sums of money to defend any prosecutions against

them.' Parliament listened to the masters' complaint, and

passed the Act 7, Geo. 1. st. 1, c. 13, restraining both the

giving and the taking of wages in excess of a stated maximum,

all combinations being prohibited. From that time forth the

journeymen tailors of London and Westminster have remained in

effective though sometimes informal combination, the

organisation centring round the fifteen or twenty 'houses of

call.'"

S. and B. Webb,

The History of Trade-Unionism,

chapter 1.

{2935}

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1753-1797.

Mably, Morelly, and the conspiracy of Babœuf, in France.

"If Rousseau cannot be numbered among the communistic writers,

strictly so called, two of his contemporaries, Mably and

Morelly—the first more a dreamer, the second of a more

practical spirit —deserve that title. … In the social theory

of Mably, inequality of condition is the great evil in the

world … Mably was a theorist who shrunk back from the

practical application of his own theories. The establishment

of community of goods, and even of equality of fortunes, he

dared not advocate. 'The evil,' he says, 'is too inveterate

for the hope of a cure.' And so he advised half

measures—agrarian laws fixing the maximum of landed estates,

and sumptuary laws regulating expenses. … Morelly, whose

principal works are a communistic poem, called 'The Basiliade'

(1753) and 'The Code of Nature' (1755), is called by a French

writer one of the most obscure authors of the last century.

But he knew what he wanted, and had courage to tell it to

others. … Morelly's power on subsequent opinion consists in

his being the first to put dreams or theories into a code;

from which shape it seemed easy to fanatical minds to carry it

out into action. His starting-point is that men can be made

good or evil by institutions. Private property, or avarice

called out by it, is the source of all vice. 'Hence, where no

property existed there would appear none of its pernicious

consequences.' … In 1782, Brissot de Warville invented the

phrase, used afterward by Proudhon, Propriété c'est le vol. …

Twelve years afterward a war against the rich began, and such

measures as a maximum of property and the abolition of the

right to make a will were agitated. But the right of property

prevailed, and grew stronger after each new revolution. In

1796 the conspiracy of the Equals, or, as it is generally

called, of Babœuf, was the final and desperate measure of a

portion of those Jacobins who had been stripped by the fall of

Robespierre (in 1794) of political power. It was the last hope

of the extreme revolutionists, for men were getting tired of

agitations and wanted rest. This conspiracy seems to have been

fomented by Jacobins in prison; and it is said that one of

them, who was a believer in Morelly and had his work in his

hands, expounded its doctrines to his fellow-prisoner Babœuf.

When they were set at liberty by an amnesty law, there was a

successful effort made to bring together the society or sect

of the Equals; but it was found that they were not all of one

mind. Babœuf was for thorough measures—for a community of

goods and of labor, an equality of conditions and of comforts.

… There was a secret committee of the society of the Equals,

as well as an open society. The latter excited the suspicion

of the Directory, and an order was given to suspend its

sessions in the Pantheon (or (Church of St. Geneviève). The

order was executed by Bonaparte, then general of the army of

the interior, who dispersed the members and put a seal on the

doors of the place of meeting. Next the Equals won over a body

of the police into their measures; and, when this force was

disbanded by the Directory, the Equals established a committee

of public safety. The committee was successful in bringing as

many as sixty of the party of the mountain into their ranks,

and an insurrection was projected. Seventeen thousand fighting

men were calculated upon by the conspirators as at their

disposal. But an officer of the army whom they had tried to

bring into their plots denounced them to the Directory. The

leading conspirators were arrested [1797]. Babœuf and Darthé

suffered death, and five others were banished."

T. D. Woolsey,

Communism and Socialism,

pages 97-104.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1774-1875.

The Communities of the Shakers.

See SHAKERS.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1824.

Robert Owen.

His experiments at New Lanark and his New Harmony Society.

"Whilst in France the hurricane of the Revolution swept over

the land, in England a quieter, but not on that account less

tremendous, revolution was going on. Steam and the new

tool-making machinery were transforming manufacture into

modern industry, and thus revolutionising the whole foundation

of bourgeois society. … With constantly increasing swiftness

the splitting-up of society into large capitalists and

non-possessing proletarians went on. Between these, instead of

the former stable middle-class, an unstable mass of artisans

and small shopkeepers, the most fluctuating portion of the

population, now led a precarious existence. The new mode of

production was, as yet, only at the beginning of its period of

ascent; as yet it was the normal, regular method of

production—the only one possible under existing conditions.

Nevertheless, even then it was producing crying social abuses.

… At this juncture there came forward as a reformer a

manufacturer 29 years old—a man of almost sublime, childlike

simplicity of character, and at the same time one of the few

born leaders of men. Robert Owen had adopted the teaching of

the materialistic philosophers: that man's character is the

product, on the one hand, of heredity, on the other, of the

environment of the indivIdual during his lifetime, and

especially during his period of development. In the industrial

revolution most of his class saw only chaos and confusion, and

the opportunity of fishing in these troubled waters and making

large fortunes quickly. He saw in it the opportunity of

putting into practice his favourite theory, and so of bringing

order out of chaos. He had already tried it with success, as

superintendent of more than 500 men in a Manchester factory.

From 1800 to 1829, he directed the great cotton mill at New

Lanark, in Scotland, as managing partner, along the same

lines, but with greater freedom of action and with a success

that made him a European reputation. A population, originally

consisting of the most diverse and, for the most part, very

demoralised elements, a population that gradually grew to

2,500, he turned into a model colony, in which drunkenness,

police, magistrates, lawsuits, poor laws, charity, were

unknown. And all this simply by placing the people in

conditions worthy of human beings, and especially by carefully

bringing up the rising generation. He was the founder of

infant schools, and introduced them first at New Lanark. …

Whilst his competitors worked their people 13 or 14 hours a

day, in New Lanark the working-day was only 10½ hours. When a

crisis in cotton stopped work for four months, his workers

received their full wages an the time. And with all this the

business more than doubled in value, and to the last yielded

large profits to its proprietors. In spite of all this, Owen

was not content. The existence which he secured for his

workers was, in his eyes, still far from being worthy of human

beings. 'The people were slaves at my mercy.' … 'The working

part of this population of 2,500 persons was daily producing

as much real wealth for society as, less than half a century

before, it would have required the working part of a

population of 600,000 to create. I asked myself, what became

of the difference between the wealth consumed by 2,500 persons

and that which would have been consumed by 600,000?' The

answer was clear.

{2936}

It had been used to pay the proprietors of the establishment 5

per cent. on the capital they had laid out, in addition to

over £300,000 clear profit. And that which held for New Lanark

held to a still greater extent for all the factories in

England. … The newly-created gigantic productive forces,

hitherto used only to enrich individuals and to enslave the

masses, offered to Owen the foundations for a reconstruction

of society; they were destined, as the common property of all,

to be worked for the common good of all. Owen's Communism was

based upon this purely business foundation, the outcome, so to

say, of commercial calculation. Throughout, it maintained this

practical character."

F. Engels,

Socialism, Utopian and Scientific,

pages 19-24.

Owen's projects "were received with applause at first. 'The

Times' spoke of 'his enlightened zeal in the cause of

humanity;' the Duke of Kent writes to Owen: 'I have a most

sincere wish that a fair trial should be given to your system,

of which I have never hesitated to acknowledge myself an

admirer;' Lord Brougham sympathised with the propounder of

this social scheme; the judicial philosopher Bentham became

actually a temporary ally of the 'wilful Welshman;' a

committee was appointed, including Ricardo and Sir R. Peel,

who recommended Owen's scheme to be tried; it was taken up by

the British and Foreign Philanthropic Society for the

permanent relief of the working-classes; it was actually

presented to Parliament with petitions humbly praying that a

Committee of the House might be appointed to visit and report

on New Lanark. But the motion was lost. The temporary

enthusiasm cooled down. … Contemporaneously with royal

speeches alluding to the prosperity of trade, and

congratulations as to the flourishing appearance of town and

country, the voice of Owen is silenced with his declining

popularity. It must be remembered also that he had by this

time justly incurred the displeasure of the religious public,

by the bold and unnecessarily harsh expressions of his ethical

and religious convictions. Those who could distinguish the man

from his method, who were fully aware of his generous

philanthropy, purity of private life, and contempt of personal

advancement, could make allowance for his rash assertions. The

rest, however, turned away with pious horror or silent

contempt from one who so fiercely attacked positive creeds,

and appeared unnecessarily vehement in his denial of moral

responsibility. Owen set his face to the West, and sought new

adherents in America, where he founded [1824] a 'Preliminary

Society' in 'New Harmony', which was to be the nucleus of his

future society. …

See A. D. 1805-1827: ROBERT OWEN AND THE

COMMUNITY AT NEW HARMONY.

In the following year Owen agreed to a change in the

constitution, in favour of communism, under the title of the

'New Harmony Community of Equality.' The settlement enjoyed a

temporary prosperity, but soon showed signs of decay, and Owen

was destined to meet with as many trials in the new as he had

encountered discouragements in the old world."

M. Kaufmann,

Utopias,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

W. L. Sargant,

Robert Owen and his Social Philosophy.

Anonymous

Life of Robert Owen.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1875.

Struggle of the Trades Unions in England for a legal existence.

During the 18th century, "the employers succeeded in passing a

whole series of laws, some of them of Draconian severity,

designed to suppress combinations of working men. In England

they are called the Combination Laws, and culminated in the

Act of 40 George Ill., c. 106, which was passed in 1800 in

response to a petition from the employers. It made all trade

combinations illegal. … The result of this law, which was

expressly designed to put an end to strikes altogether, is an

instructive example of the usual effect of such measures. The

workmen's associations, which had frequently hitherto been

formed quite openly, became secret, while they spread through

the length and breadth of England. The time when the books of

the Union were concealed on the moors, and an oath of secrecy

was exacted from its members, is still a living tradition in

labour circles. It was a time when the hatred of the workers

towards the upper classes and the legislature flourished

luxuriantly, while the younger generation of working men who

had grown up under the shadow of repressive legislation,

became the pillars of the revolutionary Chartist movement. The

old struggle against capital assumed a more violent character.

… It was the patent failure of the Combination Laws which gave

the stimulus to the suggestion of repeal soon after 1820," and

the repeal was accomplished by the Act of 1824. "The immediate

consequence of this Act was the outbreak of a number of

somewhat serious strikes. The general public then took fright,

and thus the real struggle for the right of combination began

after it had received legal recognition. In 1825, the

employers rallied and demanded the re-enactment of the earlier

laws on the ground that Parliament had carried their repeal

with undue precipitation. … The Act of 1825 which repealed

that of the previous year, was a compromise in which the

opponents of free combination had gained the upper hand. But

they had been frustrated in their attempt to stamp out the

Unions with all the rigour of the law, for the champions of

the Act of 1824 were in a position to demonstrate that the

recognition of combination had already done something to

improve the relations between capital and labour. It had at

least done away with that secrecy which in itself constituted

a danger to the State; and now that the Unions were openly

avowed, their methods had become less violent. Nevertheless,

the influence of the manufacturers strongly predominated in

framing the Bill. … The only advance on the state of things

previous to 1824 which had been secured was the fundamental

point that a combination of working men was not in itself

illegal-though almost any action which could rise out of such

a combination was prohibited. Yet it was under the Act of 1825

that the Trade Unions grew and attained to that important

position in which we find them at the beginning of the

seventies. Here was emphatically a movement which the law

might force into illegal channels, but could not suppress. …

The most serious danger that the Trade Unions encountered was

in the course of the sixties. Under the leadership of one

Broadhead, certain Sheffield Unions had entered on a course of

criminal intimidation of non-members. The general public took

their action as indicating the spirit of Trade Unions

generally.

{2937}

In point of fact, the workmen employed in the Sheffield trade

were in a wholly exceptional position. … But both in

Parliament and the Press it was declared that the occurrences

at Sheffield called for more stringent legislation and the

suppression of combinations of working men. … But times had

changed since 1825. The Unions themselves called for the most

searching inquiry into their circumstances and methods, which

would, they declared, prove that they were in no way

implicated in such crimes as had been committed in Sheffield.

The impulse given by Thomas Carlyle had raised powerful

defenders for the workmen, first among whom we may mention the

positivist Frederic Harrison, and Thomas Hughes, the

co-operator. … The preliminaries to the appointment of the

Commission of 1867 revealed a change in the attitude of the

employers, especially the more influential of them, which

marked an enormous advance on the debates of 1824 and 1825. …

The investigation of the Commission of 1867-1869 were of a

most searching character, and their results are contained in

eleven reports. The Unions came well through the ordeal, and

it was shown that the outrages had been confined to a few

Unions, for the most part of minor importance. It further

appeared that where no combination existed the relations

between employers and hands were not more friendly, while the

position of the workers was worse and in some cases quite

desperate. The report led up to proposals for the legislation

of Trade Unions, and to the legislation of 1871-1876, which

was supported by many influential employers. The altitude of

Parliament had changed with amazing rapidity. … The Trade

Union Acts of 1871 and 1870 give all Unions, on condition that

they register their rules, the same rights as were already

enjoyed by the Friendly Societies in virtue of earlier

legislation, i. e. the rights of legal personality. They can

sue and be sued, possess real and personal estate, and can

proceed summarily against their officers for fraudulent

conduct. They also possess facilities for the transfer of

investments to new trustees. The Act of 1871 was extended by

that of 1876, framed expressly with the concurrence of the

Trade Union leaders. … The working men, now that they are left

to conduct their meetings in any way they choose, have

gradually developed that sober and methodical procedure which

amazes the Continental observer. … At Common Law, any action

of Trade Unionists to raise wages seemed liable to punishment

as conspiracy, on the ground that it was directed against the

common weal. The course run by the actual prosecutions did,

indeed, prevent this doctrine from ever receiving the sanction

of a sentence expressly founded on it; but it gathered in ever

heavier thunders over the heads of the Unions, and its very

vagueness gave it the appearance of a deliberate persecution

of one class of society in the interests of another. The Act

of 1871 first brought within definite limits the extreme

penalties that could be enforced against Trade Unionists

either at Statute or Common Law. … By the Conspiracy and

Protection of Property Act of 1875 the workmen's economic aims

were at last recognised on precisely the same footing as those

of other citizens."

G. von Schulze-Gaevernitz,

Social Peace,

pages 86-102.

ALSO IN:

Le Comte de Paris,

The Trades' Unions of England.

W. Trant,

Trade Unions.

National Association for the Promotion of Social Science,

Report of Committee on Societies and Strikes, 1860.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1805-1827.

George Rapp and the Harmony Society.

Robert Owen and the Community at New Harmony.

The "Harmony Society" was first settled in Pennsylvania, on a

tract of land about twenty five miles north of Pittsburgh, in

1805, by George Rapp, the leader of a religious congregation

in Germany which suffered persecution there and sought greater

freedom in America. From the beginning, they agreed "to throw

all their possessions into a common fund, to adopt a uniform

and simple dress and style of house; to keep thenceforth all

things in common; and to labor for the common good of the

whole body. … At this time they still lived in families, and

encouraged, or at any rate did not discourage, marriage." But

in 1807 they became persuaded that "it was best to cease to

live in the married state. … Thenceforth no more marriages

were contracted …, and no more children were born. A certain

number of the younger people, feeling no vocation for a

celibate life, at this time withdrew from the society." In

1814 and 1815 the society sold its property in Pennsylvania

and removed to a new home in Posey County, Indiana, on the

Wabash, where 30,000 acres of land were bought for it. The new

settlement received the name of "Harmony." But this in its

turn was sold, in 1824, to Robert Owen, for his New Lanark

colony, which he planted there, under the name of the "New

Harmony Community," and the Rappists returned eastward, to

establish themselves at a lovely spot on the Ohio, where their

well-known village called "Economy" was built. "Once it was a

busy place, for it had cotton, silk, and woolen factories, a

brewery, and other industries; but the most important of these

have now [1874] ceased. … Its large factories are closed, for

its people are too few to man them; and the members [numbering

110 in 1874, mostly aged] think it wiser and more comfortable

for themselves to employ labor at a distance from their own

town. They are pecuniarily interested in coal-mines, in

saw-mills, and oil-wells; and they control manufactories at

Beaver Falls—notably a cutlery shop. … The society is

reported to be worth from two to three millions of dollars."

C. Nordhoff,

The Communistic Societies of the United States,

pages 63-91.

At the settlement in Indiana, "on the departure of the

Rappites, persons favorable to Mr. Owen's views came flocking

to New Harmony (as it was thenceforth called) from all parts

of the country. Tidings of the new social experiment spread

far and wide. … In the short space of six weeks from the

commencement of the experiment, a population of 800 persons

was drawn together, and in October 1825, the number had

increased to 900." At the end of two years, in June, 1827, Mr.

Owen seems to have given up the experiment and departed from

New Harmony. "After his departure the majority of the

population also removed and scattered about the country. Those

who remained returned to individualism, and settled as farmers

and mechanics in the ordinary way. One portion of the estate

was owned by Mr. Owen, and the other by Mr. Maclure. They

sold, rented, or gave away the houses and lands, and their

heirs and assigns have continued to do so."

J. H. Noyes,

History of American Socialisms,

chapter 4.

{2938}

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1816-1886.

The modern Co-operative movement in England.

"The co-operative idea as applied to industry existed in the

latter part of the last century. Ambelakia was almost a

co-operative town, as may be read in David Urquhart's 'Turkey

and its Resources.' So vast a municipal partnership of

industry has never existed since. The fishers on the Cornish

coast carried out co-operation on the sea, and the miners of

Cumberland dug ore on the principle of sharing the profits.

The plan has been productive of contentment and advantage.

Gruyère is a co-operative cheese, being formerly made in the

Jura mountains, where the profits were equitably divided among

the makers. In 1777, as Dr. Langford relates in his 'Century

of Birmingham Life,' the tailors of that enterprising town set

up a co-operative workshop, which is the earliest in English

record. In France an attempt was made by Babœuf in 1796, to

establish a despotism of justice and equality by violence,

after the manner of Richelieu, whose policy taught the French

revolutionists that force might be a remedy. … Contemporaneous

with the French revolutionists we had Shute Barrington, Bishop

of Durham, who surpassed all other bishops in human sympathy

and social sagacity. He established at Mongewell, in

Oxfordshire, the first known co-operative store; and he, Count

Rumford, and Sir Thomas Bernard published in 1795, and for

many years after, plans of co·operative and social life, far

exceeding in variety and thoroughness any in the minds of

persons now living. 'The only apostle of the social state in

England at the beginning of this century,' Harriet Martineau

testifies, 'was Robert Owen,' and to him we owe the

co-operation of to-day. With him it took the shape of a

despotism of philanthropy. … The amazing arrangements Mr. Owen

made at his New Lanark Mills for educating his workpeople, and

the large amount of profit which he expended upon their

personal comforts, have had no imitators except Godin of

Guise, whose palaces of industry are to-day the wonder of all

visitors. Owen, like Godin, knew how to make manufacturing

generosity pay. … It was here that Mr. Owen set up a

co-operative store on the primitive plan of buying goods and

provisions wholesale and selling them to the workmen's

families at cost price, he giving storerooms and paying for

the management, to the greater advantage of the industrial

purchasers. The benefit which the Lanark weavers enjoyed in

being able to buy retail at wholesale prices was soon noised

abroad, and clever workmen elsewhere began to form stores to

supply their families in the same way. The earliest instance

of this is the Economical Society of Sheerness, commenced in

1816, and which is still doing business in the same premises

and also in adjacent ones lately erected. … These practical

co-operative societies with economical objects gradually

extended themselves over the land, Mr. Owen with splendid

generosity, giving costly publicity to his successes, that

others might profit likewise according to their means. His

remarkable manufacturing gains set workmen thinking that they

might do something in the same way. … The co-operative stores

now changed their plan. They sold retail at shop charges, and

saved the difference between retail and cost price as a fund

with which to commence co-operative workshops. In 1830 from

300 to 400 co-operative stores had been set up in England.

There are records of 250 existing, cited in the 'History of

Co-operation in Eng]and.' … The Rochdale Society of 1844 was

the first which adopted the principle of giving the

shareholders 5 per cent. only, and dividing the remaining

profit among the customers. There is a recorded instance of

this being done in Huddersfield in 1827, but no practical

effect arose, and no propagandism of the plan was attempted

until the Rochdale co-operators devised the scheme of their

own accord, and applied it. They began under the idea of

saving money for community purposes and establishing

co-operative workshops. For this purpose they advised their

members to leave their savings in the store at 5 per cent.

interest; and with a view to get secular education, of which

there was little to be had in those days, and under the

impression that stupidity was against them, they set apart 2½

per cent. of their profits for the purpose of instruction,

education, and propagandism. By selling at retail prices they

not only acquired funds, but they avoided the imputation of

underselling their neighbours, which they had the good sense

and good feeling to dislike. They intended to live, but their

principle was 'to let live.' By encouraging members to save

their dividends in order to accumulate capital, they taught

them habits of thrift. By refusing to sell on credit they made

no losses; they incurred no expenses in keeping books, and

they taught the working classes around them, for the first

time, to live without falling into debt. This scheme of

equity, thrift, and education constitutes what is called the

'Rochdale plan.' … The subsequent development of co-operation

has been greatly due to the interest which Professor Maurice,

Canon Kingsley, Mr. Vansittart Neale, Mr. Thomas Hughes, and

Mr. J. M. Ludlow took in it. They promoted successive

improvements in the law which gave the stores legal

protection, and enabled them to become bankers, to hold land,

and allow their members to increase their savings to £200. …

The members of co-operative societies of the Rochdale type now

exceed 900,000, and receive more than 2½ millions of profit

annually. There are 1,200 stores in operation, which do a

business of nearly 30 millions a year, and own share capital

of 8 millions. The transactions of their Co-operative Bank at

Manchester amount to 16 millions annually. The societies

devote to education £22,000 a year out of their profits, and

many societies expend important sums for the same purpose,

which is not formally recorded in their returns. In the

twenty-five years from 1861 to 1886 the co-operators have done

business of upwards of 361 millions, and have made for working

people a profit of 30 millions. … Co-operation in other

countries bears no comparison with its rise and progress in

England. The French excel in co-operative workshops, the

Germans in co-operative banks, England in the organisation of

stores. No country has succeeded yet with all three. Italy

excels even Germany in co-operative banks. It has, too, some

remarkable distributive societies, selling commodities at cost

prices, and is now beginning stores on the Rochdale plan.

France has many distributive stores, and is likely to

introduce the Rochdale type. … America … is likely to excel in

industrial partnerships, and is introducing the English system

of co-operation."

{2939}

G. J. Holyoake,

The Growth of Co-operation in England

(Fortnightly Review, August 1, 1887).

The "Christian Socialism" which arose in England about 1850,

under the influence of Frederick D. Maurice, Charles Kingsley,

Thomas Hughes, identified itself practically with the

co-operative movement.

R. T. Ely,

French and German Socialism,

pages 249-251.

ALSO IN:

G. J. Holyoake,

History of Co-operation in England.

G. J. Holyoake,

History of the Rochdale Pioneers.

B. Jones,

Co-operative Production.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825.

Saint Simon and Saint Simonism.

"Comte Henri de Saint-Simon, the founder of French socialism,

was born at Paris in 1760. He belonged to a younger branch of

the family of the celebrated duke of that name. His education,

he tells us, was directed by D'Alembert. At the age of

nineteen he went as volunteer to assist the American colonies

in their revolt against Britain. … It was not till 1817 that

he began, in a treatise entitled 'L'Industrie,' to propound

his socialistic views, which he further developed in

'L'Organisateur' (1819), 'Du Système industriel' (1821),

'Catechisme des Industriels' (1823). The last and most

important expression of his views is the 'Nouveau

Christianisme' (1825). For many years before his death in 1825

Saint-Simon had been reduced to the greatest straits. He was

obliged to accept a laborious post for a salary of £40 a year,

to live on the generosity of a former valet, and finally to

solicit a small pension from his family. In 1823 he attempted

suicide in despair. It was not till very late in his career

that he attached to himself a few ardent disciples. As a

thinker Saint-Simon was entirely deficient in system,

clearness, and consecutive strength. His writings are largely

made up of a few ideas continually repeated. But his

speculations are always ingenious and original; and he has

unquestionably exercised great influence on modern thought,

both as the historic founder of French socialism and as

suggesting much of what was afterwards elaborated into

Comtism. … His opinions were conditioned by the French

Revolution and by the feudal and military system still

prevalent in France. In opposition to the destructive

liberalism of the Revolution he insisted on the necessity of a

new and positive re-organisation of society. So far was he

from advocating social revolt that he appealed to Louis XVIII.

to inaugurate the new order of things. In opposition, however,

to the feudal and military system, the former aspect of which

had been strengthened by the Restoration, he advocated an

arrangement by which the industrial chiefs should control

society. In place of the Mediæval Church, the spiritual

direction of society should fall to the men of science. What

Saint-Simon desired, therefore, was an industrialist State

directed by modern science. The men who are best fitted to

organise society for productive labour are entitled to bear

rule in it. The social aim is to produce things useful to

life; the final end of social activity is 'the exploitation of

the globe by association.' The contrast between labour and

capital, so much emphasised by later socialism, is not present

to Saint-Simon, but it is assumed that the industrial chiefs,

to whom the control of production is to be committed, shall

rule in the interest of society. Later on, the cause of the

poor receives greater attention, till in his greatest work,

'The New Christianity,' it becomes the central point of his

teaching, and takes the form of a religion. It was this

religious development of his teaching that occasioned his

final quarrel with Comte. Previous to the publication of the

'Nouveau Christianisme' Saint-Simon had not concerned himself

with theology. Here he starts from a belief in God, and his

object in the treatise is to reduce Christianity to its simple

and essential elements. … During his lifetime the views of

Saint-Simon had little influence, and he left only a very few

devoted disciples, who continued to advocate the doctrines of

their master, whom they revered as a prophet. … The school of

Saint-Simon insists strongly on the claims of merit; they

advocate a social hierarchy in which each man shall be placed

according to his capacity and rewarded according to his works.

This is, indeed, a most special and pronounced feature of the

Saint-Simon Socialism, whose theory of government is a kind of

spiritual or scientific autocracy. … With regard to the family

and the relation of the sexes the school of Saint-Simon

advocated the complete emancipation of woman and her entire

equality with man."

T. Kirkup,

A History of Socialism,

chapter 2.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1832-1847.

Fourier and Fourierism.

"Almost contemporaneously with St. Simon [see SOCIAL

MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825] another Frenchman, Charles

Fourier, was elaborating a different and, in the opinion of

Mill, a more workable scheme of social renovation on

Socialistic lines. The work, indeed, in which Fourier's main

ideas are embodied, called the 'Théorie des quatre

Mouvements,' was published in 1808, long before St. Simon had

given his views to the world, but it received no attention

until after the discredit of the St. Simonian scheme,

beginning in 1832. Association is the central word of

Fourier's as of St. Simon's industrial system. Associated

groups of from 1,600 to 2,000 persons are to cultivate a

square league of ground called the Phalange, or phalanx; and

are likewise to carry on all other kinds of industry which may

be necessary. The individuals are to live together in one pile

of buildings, called the Phalanstery, in order to economize in

buildings, in domestic arrangements, cooking, etc., and to

reduce distributors' profits; they may eat at a common table

or not, as seems good to them: that is, they have life in

common, and a good deal in each other's sight; they do not

work in common more than is necessary under the existing

system; and there is not a community of property. Neither

private property, nor inheritance, is abolished. In the

division of the produce of industry, after a minimum

sufficient for bare subsistence has been assigned to each one,

the surplus, deducting the capital necessary for future

operations, is to be divided amongst the three great interests

of Labour, Capital, and Talent, in the respective proportions

of five-twelfths, four-twelfths, and three-twelfths.

Individuals, according to their several tastes or aptitudes,

may attach themselves to more than one of the numerous groups

of labourers within each association. Everyone must work;

useless things will not be produced; parasitic or unnecessary

work, such as the work of agents, distributors, middlemen

generally, will not exist in the phalanstery; from all which

the Fourierist argues that no one need work excessively. Nor

need the work be disagreeable. On the contrary, Fourier has

discovered the secret of making labour attractive.

{2940}

Few kinds of labour are intrinsically disagreeable; and if any

is unpleasant, it is mostly because it is monotonous or too

long continued. On Fourier's plan the monotony will vanish,

and none need work to excess. Even work regarded as

intrinsically repugnant ceases to be so when it is not

regarded as dishonourable, or when it absolutely must be done.

But should it be thought otherwise, there is one way of

compensating such work in the phalanstery—let those who

perform it be paid higher than other workers, and let them

vary it with work more agreeable, as they will have

opportunity of doing in the new community."

W. Graham,

Socialism, New and Old,

pages 98-100.

Fourier died in 1837. After his death the leadership of his

disciples, who were still few in number, devolved upon M.

Considérant, the editor of 'La Phalange,' a journal which had

been started during the previous year for the advocacy of the

doctrines of the school. "The activity of the disciples

continued unabated. Every anniversary of the birthday of the

founder they celebrated by a public dinner. In 1838 the number

of guests was only 90; in the following year they had

increased to 200; and they afterwards rose to more than 1,000.

Every anniversary of his death they visited his grave at the

cemetery of Montmartre, and decorated it with wreaths of

immortelles. Upon these solemn occasions representatives

assembled from all parts of the world, and testified by their

presence to the faith they had embraced. In January, 1839, the

Librairie Sociale, in the Rue de I' Ecole de Medicine, was

established, and the works of Fourier and his disciples, with

those of other socialist writers, obtained a large

circulation. … In 1840 'La Phalange,' began to appear, as a

regular newspaper, three times a week. … Some of its

principles began to exercise a powerful influence. Several

newspapers in Paris, and throughout the country, demanded

social revolution rather than political agitation. The cries

of 'Organisation du Travail,' 'Droit au Travail,' that were

now beginning to be heard so frequently in after-dinner

toasts, and in the mouths of the populace, were traced back to

Fourier. Cabet had already published his 'Voyage en Icarie';

Louis Blanc was writing in 'La Revue du Progrès,' and many

other shades of socialism and communism were springing into

existence, and eagerly competing for public favour. … M.

Schneider communicated the theory to his countrymen in

Germany, in 1837. The knowledge was farther extended in a

series of newspaper articles by M. Gatzkow, in 1842; and

separate works treating of the subject were subsequently

published by M. Stein and M. Loose. In Spain, it found au

active disciple in Don Joachin Abreu; and a plan for

realisation was laid before the Regent by Don Manuel de Beloy.

In England, Mr. Hugh Doherty was already advocating it in the

'Morning Star.' In 1841, his paper appeared with the new name

of 'London Phalanx'; and it was announced that thousands of

pounds, and thousands of acres, were at the disposal of the

disciples. The Communists of the school of Owen received the

new opinions favourably, and wished them every success in

their undertaking. In America, Fourier soon obtained

followers; the doctrine seems to have been introduced by M.

Jean Manesca, who was the secretary of a phalansterian

society, established in New York so early as 1838. In 1840, no

less than 50 German families started from New York, under the

leadership of MM. Gaertner and Hempel, both Fourierists, to

establish a colony in Texas. They seem to have prospered for a

time at least, for their numbers subsequently rose to 200,000.

In October of the same year, the first number of the 'Phalanx'

appeared at Buffalo, in New York State. Mr. Albert Brisbane,

who had recently returned from Paris, had just published a

work on the 'Social Destiny of Man,' which is, to a great

extent, an abridgment of M. Considérant's 'Destinée Sociale.'

He became the editor of the 'Future,' which replaced the

'Phalanx,' and was published at New York. This paper obtained

but a small circulation, and Mr. Brisbane thought it advisable

to discontinue it, and, in its stead, to purchase a column in

the 'New York Tribune.' … When Mr. Brisbane began his

propaganda, there was a 'Society of Friends of Progress' in

existence in Boston. It included among its members some of the

most eminent men in the intellectual capital of the New World.

… A paper called the 'Dial' was started, to which Emerson,

Parker, and Margaret Fuller contributed. Their object was to

advocate a community upon the principles of Fourier, but so

modified as to suit their own peculiar views. The result was

the acquisition of Brook Farm. … But the influence of Mr.

Brisbane was not limited to indirectly inspiring these

eccentric experiments. It was said that in New York alone, in

1843, there were three newspapers reflecting the opinions of

Fourier, and no less than forty throughout the rest of the

States. Besides this, many reviews were occupied in discussing

them. The first association in America to call itself a

phalanx was Sylvania. It was begun in October, 1843, and

lasted for about a year and a half. There were 150 members,

and Mr. Horace Greeley's name appears among the list of its

officers; it consisted of 2,300 acres in Pennsylvania. … There

were thirty-four undertaken during the Fourier excitement, but

of these we have complete statistics of only fourteen. … The

years 1846-7 proved fatal to most of them. Indeed, Mr.

Brisbane acknowledged in July, 1847, that only three then

survived."

A. J. Booth,

Fourier,

(Fortnightly Review, December, 1872).

"Horace Greeley, under date of July 1847, wrote to the

'People's Journal' the following. 'As to the Associationists

(by their adversaries termed "Fourierites"), with whom I am

proud to be numbered, their beginnings are yet too recent to

justify me in asking for their history any considerable space

in your columns. Briefly, however, the first that was heard in

this country of Fourier and his views (beyond a little circle

of perhaps a hundred persons in two or three of our large

cities, who had picked up some notion of them in France or

from French writings), was in 1840, when Albert Brisbane

published his first synopsis of Fourier's theory of industrial

and household Association. Since then the subject has been

considerably discussed, and several attempts of some sort have

been made to actualize Fourier's ideas, generally by men

destitute alike of capacity, public confidence, energy and

means. In only one instance that I have heard of was the land

paid for on which the enterprise commenced; not one of these

vaunted "Fourier Associations" ever had the means of erecting

a proper dwelling for so many as three hundred people, even if

the land had been given them. Of course the time for paying

the first installment on the mortgage covering their land has

generally witnessed the dissipation of their sanguine dreams.

{2941}

Yet there are at least three of these embryo Associations

still in existence; and, as each of these is in its third or

fourth year, they may be supposed to give some promise of

vitality. They are the North American Phalanx, near

Leedsville, New Jersey; the Trumbull Phalanx, near Braceville,

Ohio; and the Wisconsin Phalanx, Ceresco, Wisconsin. Each of

these has a considerable domain nearly or wholly paid for, is

improving the soil, increasing its annual products, and

establishing some branches of manufactures. Each, though far

enough from being a perfect Association, is animated with the

hope of becoming one, as rapidly as experience, time and means

will allow.' Of the three Phalanxes thus mentioned as the

rear-guard of Fourierism, one—the Trumbull—disappeared about

four months afterward (very nearly at the time of the

dispersion of Brook Farm), and another—the Wisconsin—lasted

only a year longer, leaving the North American alone for the

last four years of its existence."

J. H. Noyes,

History of American Socialisms,

chapter 40.

ALSO IN:

R. Brisbane:

Albert Brisbane; a Mental Biography.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1839-1894.

Proudhon and his doctrines of Anarchism.

The Individualistic and Communistic Anarchists

of the present generation.

"Of the Socialistic thinkers who serve as a kind of link

between the Utopists and the school of the Socialism of

historical evolution, or scientific Socialists, by far the

most noteworthy figure is Proudhon, who was born at Besançon

in 1809. By birth he belonged to the working class, his father

being a brewer's cooper, and he himself as a youth followed

the occupation of cowherding. In 1838, however, he published

an essay on general grammar, and in 1839 he gained a

scholarship to be held for three years, a gift of one Madame

Suard to his native town. The result of this advantage was his

most important though far from his most voluminous work,

published the same year as the essay which Madame Suard's

scholars were bound to write: it bore the title of 'What is

Property?' (Qu' est-ce que la propriété?) his answer being

Property is Robbery (La propriété est Ie vol). As may be

imagined, this remarkable essay caused much stir and

indignation, and Proudhon was censured by the Besançon Academy

for its production, narrowly escaping a prosecution. In 1841

he was tried at Besançon for a letter he wrote to Victor

Considérant, the Fourierist, but was acquitted. In 1846 he

wrote his 'Philosophie de la Misère' (Philosophy of Poverty),

which received an elaborate reply and refutation from Karl

Marx. In 1847 he went to Paris. In the Revolution of 1848 he

showed himself a vigorous controversialist, and was elected

Deputy for the Seine. … After the failure of the revolution of

'48, Proudhon was imprisoned for three years, during which

time he married a young woman of the working class. In 1858 he

fully developed his system of 'Mutualism' in his last work,

entitled 'Justice in the Revolution and the Church.' In

consequence of the publication of this book he had to retire

to Brussels, but was amnestied in 1860, came back to France

and died at Passy in 1865."

W. Morris and E. B. Bax,

Socialism, its Growth and Outcome,

chapter 18.

"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.

In that connection he said: 'In a given society the authority

of man over man is inversely proportional to the stage of

intellectual development which that society has reached. …

Property and royalty have been crumbling to pieces ever since

the world began. As man seeks justice in equality, so society

seeks order in anarchy.' About twelve years before Proudhon

published his views Josiah Warren reached similar conclusions

in America. But as the Frenchman possessed the originality

necessary to the construction of a social philosophy, we must

regard him as altogether the chief authority upon scientific

anarchism. … Proudhon's social ideal was that of perfect

individual liberty. Those who have thought him a communist or

socialist have wholly mistaken his meaning. … Proudhon

believed that if the state in all its departments were

abolished, if authority were eradicated from society, and if

the principle of laissez faire were made universal in its

operation, every form of social ill would disappear. According

to his views men are wicked and ignorant because, either

directly or indirectly, they have been forced to be so: it is

because they have been subjected to the will of another, or

are able to transfer the evil results of their acts to

another. If the individual, after reaching the age of

discretion, could be freed from repression and compulsion in

every form and know that he alone is responsible for his acts

and must bear their consequences, he would become thrifty,

prudent, energetic; in short he would always see and follow

his highest interests. He would always respect the rights of

others; that is, act justly. Such individuals could carry on

all the great industrial enterprises of to-day either

separately or by voluntary association. No compulsion,

however, could be used to force one to fulfil a contract or

remain in an association longer than his interest dictated.

Thus we should have a perfectly free play of enlightened

self-interests: equitable competition, the only natural form

of social organization. … Proudhon's theory is the sum and

substance of scientific anarchism. How closely have the

American anarchists adhered to the teachings of their master?

One group, with its centre at Boston and with branch

associations in a few other cities, is composed of faithful

disciples of Proudhon. They believe that he is the leading

thinker among those who have found the source of evil in

society and the remedy therefor. They accept his analysis of

social phenomena and follow his lead generally, though not

implicitly. They call themselves Individualistic Anarchists,

and claim to be the only class who are entitled to that name.

{2942}

They do not attempt to organize very much, but rely upon

'active individuals, working here and there all over the

country.' It is supposed that they may number in all some five

thousand adherents in the United States. … They, like

Proudhon, consider the government of the United States to be

as oppressive and worthless as any of the European monarchies.

Liberty prevails here no more than there. In some respects the

system of majority rule is more obnoxious than that of

monarchy. It is quite as tyrannical, and in a republic it is

more difficult to reach the source of the despotism and remove

it. They regard the entire machinery of elections as worthless

and a hindrance to prosperity. They are opposed to political

machines of all kinds. They never vote or perform the duties

of citizens in any way, if it can be avoided. … Concerning the

family relation, the anarchists believe that civil marriage

should be abolished and 'autonomistic' marriage substituted.

This means that the contracting parties should agree to live

together as long as it seems best to do so, and that the

partnership should be dissolved whenever either one desires

it. Still, they would give the freest possible play to love

and honor as restraining motives. … The Individualistic

Anarchists … profess to have very little in common with the

Internationalists. The latter are Communistic Anarchists. They

borrow their analysis of existing social conditions from Marx,

or more accurately from the 'communistic manifesto' issued by

Marx and Engels in 1847. In the old International Workingman's

association they constituted the left wing, which, with its

leader, Bakunine, was expelled in 1872. Later the followers of

Marx, the socialists proper, disbanded, and since 1883 the

International in this country has been controlled wholly by

the anarchists. Their views and methods are similar to those

which Bakunine wished to carry out by means of his Universal

Alliance, and which exist more or less definitely in the minds

of Russian Nihilists. Like Bakunine, they desire to organize

an international revolutionary movement of the laboring

classes, to maintain it by means of conspiracy and, as soon as

possible, to bring about a general insurrection. In this way,

with the help of explosives, poisons and murderous weapons of

all kinds, they hope to destroy all existing institutions,

ecclesiastical, civil and economic. Upon the smoking ruins

they will erect the new and perfect society. Only a few weeks

or months will be necessary to make the transition. During

that time the laborers will take possession of all lands,

buildings, instruments of production and distribution. With

these in their possession, and without the interposition of

government, they will organize into associations or groups for

the purpose of carrying on the work of society."

H. L. Osgood,

Scientific Anarchism

(Political Science Quarterly, March, 1889).

ALSO IN:

F. Dubois,

The Anarchist Peril.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D.1840-1848.

Louis Blanc and his scheme of State-aided Co-operation.

"St. Simonism would destroy individual liberty, would weight

the State with endless responsibilities, and the whole details

of production, distribution, and transportation. It would

besides be a despotism if it could be carried out, and not a

beneficent despotism, considering the weakness and

imperfection of men. So objected Louis Blanc to St. Simonism,

in his 'Organisation du Travail' (1840), whilst bringing

forward a scheme of his own, which, he contends, would be at

once simple, immediately applicable, and of indefinite

extensibility; in fact a full and final solution of the Social

Problem. The large system of production, the large factory and

workshop, he saw was necessary. Large capital, too, was

necessary, but the large capitalist was not. On the contrary,

capitalism—capital in the hands of private individuals, with,

as a necessary consequence, unbounded competition, was ruinous

for the working classes, and not good for the middle classes,

including the capitalists themselves, because the larger

capitalists, if sufficiently astute or unscrupulous, can

destroy the smaller ones by under-selling, as in fact they

constantly did. His own scheme was what is now called

co·operative production, with the difference that instead of

voluntary effort, he looked to the State to give it its first

motion, by advancing the capital without interest, by drawing

up the necessary regulations, and by naming the hierarchy of

workers for one year, after which the co-operative groups were

to elect their own officers. He thought that if a number of

these co-operative associations were thus launched State-aided

in each of the greater provinces of industry, they could

compete successfully with the private capitalist, and would

beat him within no very long time. By competition he trusted

to drive him out in a moderate time, and without shock to

industry in general. But having conquered the capitalist by

competition, he wished competition to cease between the

different associations in any given industry; as he expressed

it, he would 'avail himself of the arm of competition to

destroy competition.' … The net proceeds each year would be

divided into three parts: the first to be divided equally

amongst the members of the association; the second to be

devoted partly to the support of the old, the sick, the

infirm, partly to the alleviation of crises which would weigh

on other industries; the third to furnish 'instruments of

labour' to those who might wish to join the association. …

Capitalists would be invited into the associations, and would

receive the current rate of interest at least, which interest

would be guaranteed to them out of the national budget; but

they would only participate in the net surplus in the

character of workers. … Such was the scheme of Louis Blanc,

which, in 1848, when member of the Provisional Government in

France, he had the opportunity, rarely granted to the social

system-maker, of partially trying in practice. He was allowed

to establish a number of associations of working men by the

aid of Government subsidies. The result did not realize

expectations. After a longer or shorter period of struggling,

every one of the associations failed; while, on the other

hand, a number of co-operative associations founded by the

workmen's own capital, as also some industrial partnerships

founded by capitalists, on Louis Blanc's principle of

distribution of the net proceeds, were successful. … I do not

refer to the 'ateliers nationaux,' [see FRANCE: A. D. 1848]

which were not countenanced by Louis Blanc; but to certain

associations of working men who received advances from the

Government on the principle advocated in his book. There were

not many of these at first. L. Blanc congratulated himself on

being able to start a few: after the second rising the

Government subsidized fifty-six associations, all but one of

which had failed by 1875."

W. Graham,

Socialism, New and Old,

chapter 3, section 5, with foot-note.

{2943}

"In 1848 the Constituent Assembly voted, in July, that is,

after the revolution of June, a subsidy of three millions of

francs in order to encourage the formation of working men's

associations. Six hundred applications, half coming from Paris

alone, were made to the commission entrusted with the

distribution of the funds, of which only fifty-six were

accepted. In Paris, thirty associations, twenty-seven of which

were composed of working men, comprising in all 434

associates, received 890,500 francs. Within six months, three

of the Parisian associations failed; and of the 434

associates, seventy-four resigned, fifteen were excluded, and

there were eleven changes of managers. In July, 1851, eighteen

associations had ceased to exist. One year later, twelve

others had vanished. In 1865 four were still extant, and had

been more or less successful. In 1875 there was but a single

one left, that of the file-cutters, which, as Citizen Finance

remarked, was unrepresented at the Congress."

E. de Laveleye,

The Socialism of To-day,

chapter 5, foot-note.

ALSO IN:

L. Blanc,

1848: Historical Revelations,

chapters 5-9, and 19.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1840-1883.

Icaria.

In 1840, Etienne Cabet published in France an Utopian romance,

the "Voyage en Icarie," which awakened remarkable interest,

very quickly. He described in this romance an ideal community,

and eight years later, having continued the propagation of his

social theories in the meantime, he undertook to carry them

into practice. A tract of land was secured in Texas, and in

February, 1848, sixty-nine emigrants—the advance guard of what

promised to be a great army of Icarians —set sail from Havre

for New Orleans. They were followed during the year by

others—a few hundreds in all; but even before the later comers

reached New Orleans the pioneers of the movement had abandoned

their Texas lands, disappointed in all their expectations and

finding themselves utterly unprepared for the work they had to

do, the expenditures they had to make, and the hardships they

had to endure. They retreated to New Orleans and were joined

there by Cabet. It happened that the Mormons, at this time,

were deserting their town of Nauvoo, in Illinois, and were

making their hejira to Salt Lake City. Cabet struck a bargain

with the retreating disciples of Joseph Smith, which gave his

community a home ready-made. The followers who adhered to him

were conveyed to Nauvoo in the spring; but two hundred more

gave up the socialistic experiment, and either remained at New

Orleans or returned to France. For a few years the colony was

fairly prosperous at Nauvoo. Good schools were maintained.

"Careful training in manners and morals, and in Icarian

principles and precepts, is work with which the schools are

especially charged. The printing office is a place of great

activity. Newspapers are printed in English, French and

German. Icarian school-books are published. … A library of

5,000 or 6,000 volumes, chiefly standard French works, seems

to be much patronized. … Frequent theatrical entertainments,

social dances, and lectures are common means of diversion. …

These families … are far from the condition of the happy

Icarians of the 'Voyage,' but considering the difficulties

they have encountered they must be accredited with having done

remarkably well." Dissensions arose however. In 1856 Cabet

found himself opposed by a majority of the community. In

November of that year he withdrew, with about 180 adherents,

and went to St. Louis, where he died suddenly, a few days

after his arrival. Those who had accompanied him settled

themselves upon an estate called Cheltenham, six miles west of

St. Louis; but they did not prosper, and were dispossessed, by

the foreclosure of a mortgage, in 1864, and the last of the

community was dispersed. The section left at Nauvoo held no

title to lands there, after Cabet separated from them, and

were forced to remove in 1860. They established themselves on

a tract of land in Adams county, southwestern Iowa, and there

Icaria, in a slender and modest form, has been maintained,

through many vicissitudes, to the present day. A new

secession, occurring 1879-83, sent forth a young colony which

settled at Cloverdale, California, and took the name of the

Icaria-Speranza Community, borrowing the name " Speranza" from

another Utopian romance by Pierre Leroux.

A. Shaw,

Icaria.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1841-1847.

Brook Farm.

On the 29th day of September, 1841, articles of association

were made and executed which gave existence to an Association

bearing the name and style of "The Subscribers to the Brook

Farm Institute of Agriculture and Education." By the second of

these articles, it was declared to be the object of the

Association "to purchase such estates as may be required for

the establishment and continuance of an agricultural,

literary, and scientific school or college, to provide such

lands and houses, animals, libraries and apparatus, as may be

found expedient or advantageous to the main purpose of the

Association." By article six, "the Association guarantees to

each shareholder the interest of five per cent. annually on

the amount of stock held by him in the Association." By

article seven, "the shareholders on their part, for

themselves, their heirs and assigns, do renounce all claim on

any profits accruing to the Association for the use of their

capital invested in the stock of the Association, except five

per cent. interest on the amount of stock held by them." By

article eight it was provided that "every subscriber may

receive the tuition of one pupil for every share held by him,

instead of five per cent. interest." The subscribers to these

Articles, for shares ranging in amount from $500 to $1,500,

were George Ripley, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Minot Pratt, Charles

A. Dana, William B. Allen, Sophia W. Ripley, Maria T. Pratt,

Sarah F. Stearns, Marianne Ripley, and Charles O. Whitmore.

"The 'Brook Farm Association for Education and Agriculture'

was put in motion in the spring of 1841. There was no

difficulty in collecting a company of men and women large

enough to make a beginning. One third of the subscriptions was

actually paid in, Mr'. Ripley pledging his library for four

hundred dollars of his amount. With the sum subscribed a farm

of a little less than two hundred acres was bought for ten

thousand five hundred dollars, in West Roxbury, about nine

miles from Boston. The site was a pleasant one, not far from

Theodore Parker's meeting-house in Spring Street, and in close

vicinity to some of the most wealthy, capable, and zealous

friends of the enterprise.

{2944}

It was charmingly diversified with hill and hollow, meadow and

upland. … Later experience showed its unfitness for lucrative

tillage, but for an institute of education, a semi-æsthetic,

humane undertaking, nothing could be better. This is the place

to say, once for all, with the utmost possible emphasis, that

Brook Farm was not a 'community' in the usual sense of the

term. There was no element of 'socialism' in it. There was

about it no savor of antinomianism, no taint of pessimism, no

aroma, however faint, of nihilism. It was wholly unlike any of

the 'religious' associations which had been established in

generations before, or any of the atheistic or mechanical

arrangements which were attempted simultaneously or

afterwards. … The institution of Brook Farm, though far from

being 'religious' in the usual sense of the word, was

enthusiastically religious in spirit and purpose. … There was

no theological creed, no ecclesiastical form, no inquisition

into opinions, no avowed reliance on super-human aid. The

thoughts of all were heartily respected; and while some

listened with sympathy to Theodore Parker, others went to

church nowhere, or sought the privileges of their own

communion. … A sympathizing critic published in the 'Dial'

(January, 1842) an account of the enterprise as it then

appeared: … 'They have bought a farm in order to make

agriculture the basis of their life, it being the most direct

and simple in relation to nature. … The plan of the Community,

as an economy, is, in brief, this: for all who have property

to take stock, and receive a fixed interest thereon; then to

keep house or board in common, as they shall severally desire,

at the cost of provisions purchased at wholesale, or raised on

the farm; and for all to labor in community and be paid at a

certain rate an hour, choosing their own number of hours and

their own kind of work. With the results of this labor and

their interest they are to pay their board, and also purchase

whatever else they require, at cost, at the warehouses of the

community, which are to be filled by the community as such. To

perfect this economy, in the course of time they must have all

trades and all modes of business carried on among themselves,

from the lowest mechanical trade which contributes to the

health and comfort of life, to the finest art which adorns it

with food or drapery for the mind. All labor, whether bodily

or intellectual, is to be paid at the same rate of wages, on

the principle that, as the labor becomes merely bodily, it is

a greater sacrifice to the individual laborer to give his time

to it.' … The daily life at Brook Farm was, of course,

extremely simple, even homely. … There was at no time too much

room for the one hundred and fifty inmates. … The highest

moral refinement prevailed in all departments. In the morning,

every species of industrial activity went on. In the

afternoon, the laborers changed their garments and became

teachers, often of abstruse branches of knowledge. The

evenings were devoted to such recreations as suited the taste

of the individual. The farm was never thoroughly tilled, from

the want of sufficient hands. A good deal of hay was raised,

and milk was produced from a dozen cows. … Some worked all day

in the field, some only a few hours, some none at all, being

otherwise employed, or by some reason disqualified. The most

cultivated worked the hardest. … The serious difficulties were

financial. … As early as 1843 the wisdom of making changes in

the direction of scientific arrangement was agitated; in the

first months of 1844 the reformation was seriously begun," and

the model of the new organization was Fourier's "Phalanx."

"The most powerful instrument in the conversion of Brook Farm

was Mr. Albert Brisbane. He had studied the system [of

Fourier] in France, and made it his business to introduce it

here. … In March, 1845, the Brook Farm Phalanx was

incorporated by the Legislature of Massachusetts. The

Constitution breathes a spirit of hope which is pathetic at

this distance of time. … The publication of the Constitution

was followed in the summer by 'The Harbinger,' which became

the leading journal of Fourierism in the country. The first

number appeared on June 14th. … Its list of contributors was

about the most remarkable ever presented. Besides Ripley,

Dwight, Dana, and Rykman, of Brook Farm, there were Brisbane,

Channing, Curtis [George W., who had lived at Brook Farm for

two years], Cranch, Godwin, Greeley, Lowell, Whittier, Story,

Higginson, to say nothing of gentlemen less known. … 'The

Harbinger' lived nearly four years, a little more than two at

Brook Farm, less than two in New York. The last number was

issued on the 10th of February, 1849. … It is unnecessary to

speculate on the causes of the failure at Brook Farm. There

was every reason why it should fail; there was no earthly,

however much heavenly reason there may have been, why it

should succeed." In August, 1847, a meeting of stockholders

and creditors authorized the transfer of the property of the

Brook Farm Phalanx to a board of three trustees, "for the

purpose and with the power of disposing of it to the best

advantage of all concerned." And so the most attractive of all

social experiments came to an end.

O. B. Frothingham,

George Ripley,

chapters 3-4.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1842-1889.

Profit-sharing experiments.

Profit sharing was first practised systematically by M.

Leclaire, a Parisian house-painter and decorator. Beginning to

admit his workmen to participation in the profits of his

business in 1842, he continued the system, with modifications

and developments, until his death in 1872. His financial

success was signal. It was not due to mere good fortune.

Leclaire was a man of high business capacity. … In France, the

increase in the number of participating firms, from 1855

onwards, has been comparatively steady, the number now [1889]

standing between 55 and 60. In Switzerland, the 10 instances,

dating ten years back or more, have no followers recorded in

the sources of information open to me. This fact may be

explained in some degree by the circumstances that Dr.

Böhmert's work, the chief authority thus far on this subject,

was published in 1878, and that the principal investigations

since that time have been concerned mainly with France,

England, and the United States. This remark will apply to

Germany also; but the prevalence there of socialism has

probably been an important reason for the small and slow

increase in the number of firms making a trial of the system

of participation. …

{2945}

In England, the abandonment of their noted trials of

industrial partnership by the Messrs. Briggs and by Fox, Head

and Co. in 1874 checked the advance of the scheme to a more

general trial; but in the last five years, 7 houses have

entered upon the plan. In the United States, the experience of

the Messrs. Brewster and Co. exerted a similar influence, but

by 1882 6 concerns had introduced profit sharing; these were

followed by 11 in 1886, and in 1887 by 12 others. There are,

then, at least 29 cases of profit sharing in actual operation

at this time [1889] in this country, which began in 1887,

1886, or 1882. As compared with France, Germany, and

Switzerland, the United States show a smaller number of cases

of long standing, and a considerably larger number of

instances of adoption of the system in the last three years

[1887-1889]. … Not by mere chance, apparently, the two

republics of France and the United States show the longest

lists of profit sharing firms."

N. P. Gilman,

Profit Sharing,

chapter 9.

See, also,

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887.

The "Social Palace" of M. Godin at Guise.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1843-1874.

Ebenezer and Amana, the communities of the

"True Inspiration Congregations."

In 1843 the first detachment of a company of immigrants,

belonging to a sect called the "True Inspiration

Congregations" which had existed in Germany for more than a

century, was brought to America and settled on a tract of land

in Western New York, near the city of Buffalo. Others

followed, until more than a thousand persons were gathered in

the community which they called "Ebenezer." They were a

thrifty, industrious, pious people, who believed that their

leader, Christian Metz, and some others, were "inspired

instruments," through whom Divine messages came to them. These

messages have all been carefully preserved and printed.

Communism appears to have been no part of their religious

doctrine, but practically forced upon them, as affording the

only condition under which they could dwell simply and piously

together. In 1854 they were "commanded by inspiration" to

remove to the West. Their land at Ebenezer was advantageously

sold, having been reached by the widening boundaries of

Buffalo, and they purchased a large tract in Iowa. The removal

was accomplished gradually during the next ten years, and in

their new settlement, comprising seven villages, with the

common name, Amana, the community is said to be remarkably

thriving. In 1874 Amana contained a population of 1,485 men,

women and children.

C. Nordhoff,

The Communistic Societies of the United States,

pages 25-43.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1843-1883.

Karl Marx.

His theory of Capital.

His socialistic influence.

"The greatest and most influential name in the history of

socialism is unquestionably Karl Marx. … Like Ferdinand

Lassalle, he was of Jewish extraction. He was born at Treves

in 1818, his father being a lawyer in that town; and he

studied at Berlin and Bonn, but neglected the specialty of

law, which he nominally adopted, for the more congenial

subjects of philosophy and history. Marx was a zealous

student, and apparently an adherent of Hegelianism, but soon

gave up his intention of following an academic career as a

teacher of philosophy, and joined the staff of the Rhenish

Gazette, published at Cologne as an organ of the extreme

democracy. While thus engaged, however, he found that his

knowledge of economics required to be enlarged and corrected,

and accordingly in 1843, after marrying the sister of the

Prussian Minister, Von Westfalen, he removed to Paris, where

he applied himself to the study of the questions to which his

life and activity were henceforward to be devoted so entirely.

Here also he began to publish those youthful writings which

must be reckoned among the most powerful expositions of the

early form of German socialism. With Arnold Ruge he edited the

'Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.' In 1845 he was expelled

from Paris and settled in Brussels, where he published his

'Discours sur Je Libre ÉChange,' and his criticism of

Proudhon's 'Philosophie de la Misère,' entitled, 'Misère de la

Philosophie.' In Paris he had already met Friedrich Engels,

who was destined to be his lifelong and loyal friend and

companion-in-arms, and who in 1845 published his important

work, 'The Condition of the Working Class in England.' The two

friends found that they had arrived at a complete identity of

opinion; and an opportunity soon occurred for an emphatic

expression of their common views. A society of socialists, a

kind of forerunner of the International, had established

itself in London, and had been attracted by the new theories

of Marx and the spirit of strong and uncompromising conviction

with which he advocated them. They entered into relation with

Marx and Engels; the society was re-organised under the name

of the Communist League; and a congress was held, which

resulted (1847) in the framing of the 'Manifesto of the

Communist Party,' which was published in most of the languages

of Western Europe, and is the first proclamation of that

revolutionary socialism armed with all the learning of the

nineteenth century, but expressed with the fire and energy of

the agitator, which in the International and other movements

has so startled the world. During the revolutionary troubles

in 1848 Marx returned to Germany, and along with his comrades,

Engels, Wolff, &c., he supported the most advanced democracy

in the 'New Rhenish Gazette.' In 1849 he settled in London,

where he spent his after-life in the elaboration of his

economic views and in the realisation of his revolutionary

programme. During this period he published 'Zur Kritik der

politischen Oekonomie' (1859), and the first volume of his

great work on capital, 'Das Kapital' (1867). He died in

London, March 14, 1883."

T. Kirkup,

A History of Socialism,

chapter 7.

"As to the collectivist creed, Marx looks upon history as

ruled by material interests. He borrows from Hegel the idea of

development in history, and sees in the progress of

civilization merely the development of economic production,

which involves a conflict of classes. The older socialists

were idealists, and constructed a perfect social system. Marx

simply studies economic changes, and their effects on the

conflict of classes, as a basis for predicting the future.

Starting from the principle that there are no permanent

economic laws, but merely transitory phases, a principle

denied by the modern French economists, he does not criticise

but explains our modern capitalistic industrial system, and

its effects on society. Formerly, says Engels, an artisan

owned his tools and also the product of his labor. If he chose

to employ wage earners, these were merely apprentices, and

worked not so much for wages, but in order to learn the trade.

{2946}

All this is changed by the introduction of capital and the

modern industrial system. Marx explains the origin of capital

by saying that it was formerly the result of conquest, the

pillage of peasants, and of colonies, and the secularization

of church property. However, he does not hold the present

capitalists to be robbers. He does not deal with the

capitalist but with capital. His primary theory then is that

profit on capital, on which the possibility of accumulating

wealth depends, is due to the fact that the laborer does not

receive the entire product of his labor as his reward, but

that the capitalist takes the lion's share. Under the old

industrial system, the laborer's tools, his means of

production, belonged to him. Now they are owned by the

capitalist. Owing to the improvement of machinery, and the

invention of steam-power, the laborer can no longer apply his

energy in such a way as to be fully remunerated. He now must

sell his muscular energy in the market. The capitalist who

buys it offers him no just reward. He gives the laborers only

a part of the product of his labors, pocketing the remainder

as interest on capital, and returns for risks incurred. The

laborer is cheated out of the difference between his wages and

the full product of his labor, while the capitalist's share is

increased, day by day, by this stolen amount. 'Production by

all, distribution among a few.' This is the gist of Marx's

theories. Capital is not the result of intelligent savings. It

is simply an amount of wealth appropriated by the capitalist

from the laborer's share in his product."

J. Bourdeau,

German Socialism

(New Englander and Yale Review, September, 1891,

translated from Revue des Deux Mondes).

"The principal lever of Marx against the present form of

industry, and of the distribution of its results, is the

doctrine that value—that is, value in exchange—is created by

labor alone. Now this value, as ascertained by exchanges in

the market or measured by some standard, does not actually all

go to the laborer, in the shape of wages. Perhaps a certain

number of yards of cotton cloth, for instance, when sold,

actually pay for the wages of laborers and leave a surplus,

which the employer appropriates. Perhaps six hours of labor

per diem might enable the laborer to create products enough to

support himself and to rear up an average family; but at

present he has to work ten hours for his subsistence. Where do

the results of the four additional hours go? To the employer,

and the capitalist from whom the employer borrows money; or to

the employer who also is a capitalist and invests his capital

in his works, with a view to a future return. The laborer

works, and brings new workmen into the world, who in turn do

the same. The tendency of wages being toward an amount just

sufficient for the maintenance of the labor, there is no hope

for the future class of laborers. Nor can competition or

concurrence help the matter. A concurrence of capitalists will

tend to reduce wages to the minimum, if other conditions

remain as they were before. A concurrence of laborers may

raise wages above the living point for a while; but these fall

again, through the stimulus which high wages give to the

increase of population. A general fall of profits may lower

the price of articles used by laborers; but the effect of this

is not to add in the end to the laborer's share. He can live

at less expense, it is true, but he will need and will get

lower wages. Thus the system of labor and capital is a system

of robbery. The capitalist is an 'expropriator' who must be

expropriated, as Marx expresses it. A just system can never

exist as long as wages are determined by free contract between

laborers and employers; that is, as long as the means of

carrying on production are in private hands. The only cure for

the evils of the present industrial system is the destruction

of private property—so far, at least, as it is used in

production; and the substitution of the state, or of bodies or

districts controlled by the state, for the private owner of

the means of production. Instead of a number of classes in

society, especially instead of a bourgeoisie and a

proletariat, there must be but one class, which works directly

or indirectly for the state, and receives as wages what the

state decides to give to them. The state, it is taken for

granted, will give in return for hours of labor as much as can

be afforded, consistently with the interests of future labor

and with the expenses necessary for carrying on the state

system itself."

T. D. Woolsey,

Communism and Socialism,

pages 162-163.

ALSO IN:

K. Marx,

Capital.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848.

The founding of the Oneida Community.

The Oneida and Wallingford communities of Perfectionists are

followers of doctrines taught by one John Humphrey Noyes, a

native of Vermont, who began his preaching at Putney, in that

state, about 1834. The community at Oneida, in Madison county,

New York, was formed in 1848, and had a struggling existence

for many years; but gradually several branches of industry,

such as the making of traps, travelling bags, and the like,

were successfully established, and the community became

prosperous. Everything is owned in common, and they extend the

community system" beyond property to persons." That is to say,

there is no marriage among them, and "exclusiveness in regard

to women and children" is displaced by what they claim to be a

scientific regulation of the intercourse of the sexes. In the

early years of the Oneida Community several other settlements

of the followers of Noyes were attempted; but one at

Wallingford, Connecticut, is the only survivor.

C. Nordhoff,

The Communistic Societies of the United States,

pages 259-293.

ALSO IN:

J. H. Noyes,

History of American Socialisms,

chapter 46.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848-1883.

Schulze-Delitzsch and the Co-operative movement in Germany.

"Hermann Schulze was born at Delitzsch, in Prussian Saxony,

August 29th, 1808. He studied jurisprudence at Leipzig and

Halle, and afterwards occupied judicial posts under the

Government, becoming District Judge at Delitzsch in 1841, a

position which he held until 1850. In 1848, he was elected to

the Prussian National Assembly, and the following year he

became a member of the Second Chamber, in which he sat as

Schulze-Delitzsch, a name which has since adhered to him.

Being a member of the Progressist party, he proved a thorn in

the Government's flesh, and he was made District Judge at

Wreschen, but he returned later to the Prussian Diet, and

became also a member of the North German and German

Reichstags.

{2947}

For more than thirty years Schulze headed the co·operative

movement in Germany, but his self-sacrifice impoverished him,

and although his motto as a social reformer had always been

'Self-help,' as opposed to Lassalle's 'State-help,' he was

compelled in his declining years to accept a gift of £7,000

from his friends. Schulze died honoured if not famous on April

29th, 1883. Schulze-Delitzsch is the father of the

co-operative movement in Germany. He had watched the

development of this movement in England, and as early as 1848

he had lifted up his voice in espousal of co-operative

principles in his own country. Though a Radical, Schulze was

no Socialist, and he believed co-operation to be a powerful

weapon wherewith to withstand the steady advance of

Socialistic doctrines in Germany. Besides carrying on

agitation by means of platform-speaking, he published various

works on the subject, the chief of which are: 'Die arbeitenden

Klassen und das Associationswesen in Deutschland, als Programm

zu einem deutschen Congress,' (Leipzig, 1858); 'Kapitel zu

einem deutschen Arbeitercatechismus,' (Leipzig, 1863); 'Die

Abschaffung des geschäftlichen Risico durch Herrn Lassalle,'

(Berlin, 1865); 'Die Entwickelung des Genossenschaften in

einzelnen Gewerbszweigen,' (Leipzig, 1873). Schulze advocated

the application of the co-operative principle to other

organisations than the English stores, and especially to loan,

raw material, and industrial associations. He made a practical

beginning at his own home and the adjacent town of Eilenburg,

where in 1849 he established two co-operative associations of

shoemakers and joiners, the object of which was the purchase

and supply to members of raw material at cost price. In 1850

he formed a Loan Association (Vorschussverein) at Delitzsch on

the principle of monthly payments, and in the following year a

similar association on a larger scale at Eilenburg. For a long

time Schulze had the field of agitation to himself, and the

consequence was that the more intelligent sections of the

working classes took to his proposals readily. Another reason

for his success, however, was the fact that the movement was

practical and entirely unpolitical. It was a movement from

which the Socialistic element was absent, and one in which,

therefore, the moneyed classes could safely co-operate.

Schulze, in fact, sought to introduce reforms social rather

than Socialistic. The fault of his scheme as a regenerative

agency was that it did not affect the masses of the people,

and thus the roots of the social question were not touched.

Schulze could only look for any considerable support to small

tradesmen and artisans, to those who were really able to help

themselves if' shown the way. But his motto of 'Self-help' was

an unmeaning gospel to the vast class of people who were not

in this happy position. … The movement neared a turning point

in 1858. In that year Schulze identified himself with the

capitalist party at a Congress of German economists, held at

Gotha, and he soon began to lose favour with the popular

classes. The high-water mark was reached in 1860, at which

time the co-operative associations had a membership of

200,000, and the business done amounted to 40,000,000 thalers

or about £6,000,000; the capital raised by contribution or

loan approaching a third of this sum. In the year 1864 no

fewer than 800 Loan and Credit Associations had been

established, while in 1861 the number of Raw Material and

Productive Associations was 172, and that of Co-operative

Stores 66. Possibly the movement might have continued to

prosper, even though Schulze was suspected of sympathy with

the capitalists, had no rival appeared on the scene. But a

rival did appear, and he was none other than Lassalle."

W. H. Dawson,

German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle,

chapter 7.

The co-operative societies in Germany on the Schulze-Delitzsch

plan have been regularly organized into an association. "The

number of societies in this association increased from 171 in

1859, to 771 in 1864, and was 3,822 in 1885. At the last named

date they were distributed thus: loan and credit societies,

1,965; co-operative societies in various branches of trade,

1,146; co-operative store societies, 678; building societies,

33. At the end of 1884 the membership was 1,500,000. Of their

own capital, in shares and reserve funds, they possessed

300,000,000 marks; and of borrowed capital 500,000,000 marks."

Science,

September 9, 1887.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887.

The "Social Palace" of M. Godin at Guise.

"The Familistère founded at Guise (Aisne), France, by the late

M. Jean Baptiste Andre Godin, has a world-wide reputation. The

Social Palace itself, a marvel of ingenious philanthropy,

which realizes successfully some of the characteristic ideas

of Fourier, … entitles M. Godin to a high place among the

social reformers of the 19th century. He was the son of a

worker in iron, and even before his apprenticeship had

conceived the idea that he was destined to set a great example

to the industrial world. … The business carried on in the

great foundries at Guise is the manufacture of cast-iron wares

for the kitchen and general house use, and of heating

apparatus of various kinds. M. Godin was the first man in

France to use cast iron in making stoves, in place of sheet

iron; this was but one example of his inventive powers. He

began in 1840, with 20 workmen, the manufacture which employed

in 1883 over 1,400 at Guise and 300 in the branch

establishment at Laeken, in Belgium. From the beginning there

was an organization for mutual aid among the workmen, assisted

by the proprietor. The Familistère was opened in 1860; but it

was not until 1877, owing to the obstacles presented by the

French law to the plan which he had in mind, that M. Godin

introduced participation by the workmen in the profits of his

gigantic establishment. … In 1880 the establishment became a

joint-stock company with limited liability, and the system of

profit sharing was begun which still [1889] obtains there. M.

Godin's main idea was gradually to transfer the ownership of

the business and of the associated Familistère into the hands

of his workmen. … No workman is admitted to participation [in

the profit-sharing] who is not the owner already of a share.

But the facility of purchase is great: and the interest on his

stock adds materially to the income of the average workman. M.

Godin was gradually disposing of his capital to the workmen up

to his death [in 1888], and this process will go on until

Madame Godin simply retains the direction of the business. But

when this shall have happened, the oldest workmen shall, in

like manner, release their shares to the younger, in order to

keep the ownership of the establishment in the hands of the

actual workers from generation to generation. In this way a

true cooperative productive house will be formed within ten or

a dozen years. M. Godin's capital in 1880 was 4,600,000

francs; the whole capital of the house in 1883 had risen to

6,000,000 francs, and of this sum 2,753,500 francs were held

by various employees in October, 1887.

{2948}

The organization of the workmen as participators forms quite a

hierarchy," at the head of which stand the "associates." "The

'associates' must own at least 500 francs' worth of stock;

they must be engaged in work, and have their home in the

Familistère: they elect new members themselves. … They will

furnish Madame Godin's successor from their ranks."

N. P. Gilman,

Profit Sharing,

pages 173-177.

In April, 1859, M. Godin began to realize the most important

of his ideas of social reform, namely, "the substitution for

our present isolated dwellings of homes and dwellings combined

into Social Palaces, where, to use M. Godin's expressive

words, 'the equivalents of riches,' that is the most essential

advantages which wealth bestows on our common life, may be

brought within reach of the mass of the population. In April,

1859, he laid the foundation of the east wing of such a

palace, the Familistère of Guise. It was covered in in

September of the same year, completed in 1860, and fully

occupied in the year following. In 1862 the central building

was commenced. It was completed in 1864 and occupied in 1865.

The offices in front of the east wing were built at the same

time as that wing—in 1860. The other appendages of the palace

were added in the following order—the nursery and babies'

school in 1866; the schools and theatre in 1869; and the baths

and wash-houses in 1870. The west wing was begun in 1877,

finished in 1879, and fully occupied in 1880. Till its

completion the inhabitants of the Familistère numbered about

900 persons; at present [1880] it accommodates 1,200. Its

population therefore already assumes the proportion of a

considerable village; while its style of construction would

easily allow of the addition of quadrangles, communicating

with the north-eastern and north-western angles of the central

building, by which the number of occupants might be raised to

1,800 or 2,000, without in any way interfering with the

enjoyments of the present inmates, supposing circumstances

made it desirable to increase their numbers to this extent. …

Of the moral effect upon the population of the free and yet

social life which a unitary dwelling makes possible, M. Godin

wrote in 1874:—'For the edification of those who believe that

the working classes are undisciplined or undisciplinable, I

must say that there has not been in the Familistère since its

foundation a single police case, and yet the palace contains

900 persons; meetings in it are frequent and numerous; and the

most active intercourse and relations exist among all the

inhabitants.' And this is not the consequence of any strict

control exercised over the inmates. On the contrary, the whole

life of the Familistère is one of carefully-guarded individual

liberty, which is prevented from degenerating into license

simply by the influence of public opinion among its

inhabitants, who, administering their own internal affairs as

a united body, exercise a disciplinary action upon each other.

There are no gates, beyond doors turning on a central pivot

and never fastened, introduced in winter for the sake of

warmth; no porter to mark the time of entrance or egress of

anyone. Every set of apartments is accessible to its occupants

at any hour of the day or night, with the same facility as if

it opened out of a well-lighted street, since all the halls of

the Familistère are lighted during the whole night. And as

there are ten different entrances, each freely communicating

with the whole building, it would be less easy for one inmate

to spy the movements of another than it is for the neighbours

in an ordinary street to keep an outlook on each other's

actions. … But one factor, and I conceive a very important

factor, in this effort, must not be lost sight of, namely that

the Social Palace at Guise is not a home provided for the

poor, by a benevolence which houses its own fine clay in its

isolated dwelling over against the abodes where those of

coarser clay are clustered together. It is a home for M. Godin

and members of his family, the heads of departments and other

persons connected with him, whose means rise considerably

above those of the workers, no less than for the workers in

the foundry—a mansion of which it is the glory that all the

rooms on every floor originally differ only by a few inches of

height, and such slight differences in the height and width of

doors and windows as require careful observation to detect,

and that all participate alike, according to the quarter of

the sky to which they look, in air and light. So that the

difference of accommodation is [practically reduced to the

number of square feet which the means of the inmate enables

him to occupy, and the internal arrangement of the space at

his disposal."

E. V. Neale,

Associated Homes.

ALSO IN:

E. Howland,

The Social Palace at Guise, and

The Familistère at Guise

(Harper's Monthly Magazine, April, 1872,

and November, 1885).

M. Godin,

Social Solutions.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1860-1870.

Nihilism in Russia.

"For the origin of nihilism [which had its period of activity

between 1860 and 1870] we must go back half a century to a

little company of gifted young men, most of whom rose to great

distinction, who used at that time to meet together at the

house of a rich merchant in Moscow, for the discussion of

philosophy, politics and religion. They were of the most

various views. Some of them became Liberal leaders, and wanted

Russia to follow the constitutional development of the West

nations; others became founders of the new Slavophil party,

contending that Russia should be no imitator, but develop her

own native institutions in her own way; and there were at

least two among them—Alexander Herzen and Michael Bakunin—who

were to be prominent exponents of revolutionary socialism. But

they all owned at this period one common master—Hegel. Their

host was an ardent Hegelian, and his young friends threw

themselves into the study of Hegel with the greatest zeal.

Herzen himself tells us in his autobiography how assiduously

they read everything that came from his pen, how they devoted

nights and weeks to clearing up the meaning of single passages

in his writings, and how greedily they devoured every new

pamphlet that issued from the German press on any part of his

system. From Hegel, Herzen and Bakunin were led, exactly like

Marx and the German Young Hegelians, to Feuerbach, and from

Feuerbach to socialism. Bakunin, when he retired from the

army, rather than be the instrument of oppressing the Poles

among whom he was stationed, went for some years to Germany,

where he lived among the Young Hegelians and wrote for their

organ, the 'Hallische Jahrbücher'; but before either he or

Herzen ever had any personal intercommunication with the

members of that school of thought, they had passed through

precisely the same development.

{2949}

Herzen speaks of socialism almost in the very phrases of the

Young Hegelians, as being the new 'terrestrial religion,' in

which there was to be neither God nor heaven; as a new system

of society which would dispense with an authoritative

government, human or Divine, and which should be at once the

completion of Christianity and the realization of the

Revolution. 'Christianity,' he said, 'made the slave a son of

man; the Revolution has emancipated him into a citizen.

Socialism would make him a man.' This tendency of thought was

strongly supported in the Russian mind by Haxthausen's

discovery and laudation of the rural commune of Russia. The

Russian State was the most arbitrary, oppressive, and corrupt

in Europe, and the Russian Church was the most ignorant and

superstitious; but here at last was a Russian institution

which was regarded with envy even by wise men of the west, and

was really a practical anticipation of that very social system

which was the last work of European philosophy. It was with no

small pride, therefore, that Alexander Herzen declared that

the Muscovite peasant in his dirty sheepskin had solved the

social problem of the nineteenth century, and that for Russia,

with this great problem already solved, the Revolution was

obviously a comparatively simple operation. You had but to

remove the Czardom, the services, and the priesthood, and the

great mass of the people would still remain organized in fifty

thousand complete little self-governing communities living on

their common land and ruling their common affairs as they had

been doing long before the Czardom came into being. … All the

wildest phases of nihilist opinion in the sixties were already

raging in Russia in the forties. … Although the only political

outbreak of Nicholas's reign, the Petracheffsky conspiracy of

1849, was little more than a petty street riot, a storm of

serious revolt against the tyranny of the Czar was long

gathering, which would have burst upon his head after the

disasters to his army in the Crimea, had he survived them. He

saw it thickening, however, and on his death-bed said to his

son, the noble and unfortunate Alexander II., 'I fear you will

find the burden too heavy.' The son found it eventually heavy

enough, but in the meantime he wisely bent before the storm,

relaxed the restraints the father had imposed, and gave

pledges of the most liberal reforms in every department of

State—judicial administration, local government, popular

education, serf emancipation. … An independent press was not

among the liberties conceded, but Russian opinion at this

period found a most effective voice in a newspaper started in

London by Alexander Herzen, called the 'Kolokol ' (Bell),

which for a number of years made a great impression in Russia.

… Herzen was the hero of the young. Herzenism, we are told,

became the rage, and Herzenism appears to have meant, before

all, a free handling of everything in Church or State which

was previously thought too sacred to be touched. This

iconoclastic spirit grew more and more characteristic of

Russian society at this period, and presently, under its

influence, Herzenism fell into the shade, and nihilism

occupied the scene. We possess various accounts of the meaning

and nature of nihilism, and they all agree substantially in

their description of it. The word was first employed by

Turgenieff in his novel 'Fathers and Sons,' where Arcadi

Petrovitch surprises his father and uncle by describing his

friend Bazaroff as a nihilist. 'A nihilist,' said Nicholas

Petrovitch. 'This word must come from the Latin nihil,

nothing, as far as I can judge, and consequently it signifies

a man who recognises nothing.' 'Or rather who respects

nothing,' said Paul Petrovitch. 'A man who looks at everything

from a critical point of view,' said Arcadi. 'Does not that

come to the same thing?' asked his uncle. 'No, not at all. A

nihilist is a man who bows before no authority, who accepts no

principle without examination, no matter what credit the

principle has.' … 'Yes, before we had Hegelians; now we have

nihilists. We shall see what you will do to exist in

nothingness, in a vacuum, as if under an air pump.'

Koscheleff, writing in 1874, gives a similar explanation of

nihilism. 'Our disease is a disease of character, and the most

dangerous possible. We suffer from a fatal unbelief in

everything. We have ceased to believe in this or in that, not

because we have studied the subject thoroughly and become

convinced of the untenability of our views, but only because

some author or another in Germany or England holds this or

that doctrine to be unfounded. … Our nihilists are simply

Radicals. Their loud speeches, their fault-finding, their

strong assertions, are grounded on nothing.'"

J. Rae,

Contemporary Socialism,

chapter 9.

See, also, NIHILISM.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1864.

Ferdinand Lassalle and the formation of the

Social Democratic Party in Germany.

"There has probably been no more interesting appearance in the

later political history of Germany than Lassalle's—no

character that has secured more completely the attention of

its world. There may be and there are many difficulties in the

way of accepting Lassalle's political creed, but he had

sufficient breadth and strength to win a secure place in the

two widely separated domains of German science and politics

and to profoundly influence the leading spirits of his time. …

In addition to his worth in the department of science Lassalle

was also a man of affairs, a practical politician, and—however

large an element of the actor and sophist there may have been

in him—the greatest German orator since Luther and John

Tauler. Besides this, he was naturally heroic, as beautiful in

person as Goethe; and when we remember that he was crossed in

love and met in consequence with a romantic death at the age

of thirty-nine, we see at once, as the publicist de Laveleye

has suggested, the making of a story like that of Abelard.

Lassalle has been the poetry of the various accounts of

contemporary socialism, and has already created a literature

which is still growing almost with the rapidity of the Goethe

literature. The estimate of Lassalle's worth has been in each

account naturally influenced by the economical or sentimental

standpoint of the writer. To de Laveleye, who takes so much

interest in socialism, Lassalle was a handsome agitator, whose

merit lies chiefly in his work as interpreter of Karl Marx. To

Montefiore he was a man of science who was led by accident

into politics; and Franz Mehring, who was once the follower of

Lassalle, in his 'Geschichte der deutschen Social-Demokratie,'

discusses his career in the intolerant mood in which one

generally approaches a forsaken worship.

{2950}

The Englishman John Rae, on the contrary, in his account of

socialism, makes Lassalle a hero; and in the narrative of the

talented Dane, Georg Brandes, Lassalle is already on the broad

road to his place as a god. In the same spirit Rudolf Meyer in

his work 'The Fourth Estate's Struggle for Emancipation' does

not hesitate to use the chief hyperbole of our modern writers,

and compares Lassalle with Jesus of Nazareth. Heine also, who

saw in his fellow Israelite that perfect Hegelian 'freedom

from God' which he himself had attempted in vain, hails

Lassalle as the 'Messiah of the age.' Among Lassalle's more

immediate disciples this deification seems to have become a

formal cultus, and it is affirmed, hard as one finds it to

believe the story, that after Lassalle's death he became an

object of worship with the German laborers. … The father of

Lassalle was a Jewish merchant in Breslau, where the future

'fighter and thinker' as Boeckh wrote mournfully over his

tomb, was born on the 11th of April, 1825. The Israelite

Lassal, for so the family name is still written, was a wealthy

wholesale dealer in cloth, and with a consciousness of the

good in such an avocation had from the first intended that

Ferdinand should be a merchant. … But this was not his

destiny. … The first feature in Lassalle was his will, the

source of his strength and his ruin, and one can find no

period in his life when this will seemed in the least capable

of compromise or submission. … When he decided to become a

Christian and a philosopher instead of a merchant, the family

had nothing to do but to accommodate themselves as best they

could to this arrangement."

L. J. Huff,

Ferdinand Lassalle

(Political Science Quarterly, September, 1887).

"It was in 1862 that Lassalle began his agitation in behalf of

the laboring classes, an agitation which resulted in the

formation of the German Social Democratic Party. Previous to

his time, German laborers had been considered contented and

peaceable. It had been thought that a working men's party

might be established in France or England, but that it was

hopeless to attempt to move the phlegmatic German laborers.

Lassalle's historical importance lies in the fact that he was

able to work upon the laborers so powerfully as to arouse them

to action. It is due to Lassalle above all others that German

working men's battalions, to use the social democratic

expression, now form the vanguard in the struggle for the

emancipation of labor. Lassalle's writings did not advance

materially the theory of social democracy. He drew from

Rodbertus and Marx in his economic writings, but he clothed

their thoughts in such manner as to enable ordinary laborers

to understand them, and this they never could have done

without such help. … Lassalle gave to Ricardo's law of wages

the designation, the iron law of wages, and expounded to the

laborers its full significance, showing them how it inevitably

forced wages down to a level just sufficient to enable them to

live. He acknowledged that it was the key-stone of his system

and that his doctrines stood or fell with it. Laborers were

told that this law could be overthrown only by the abolition

of the wages system. How Lassalle really thought this was to

be accomplished is not so evident. He proposed to the laborers

that government should aid them by the use of its credit to

the extent of 100,000,000 of thalers, to establish

co-operative associations for production; and a great deal of

breath has been wasted to show the inadequacy of his proposed

measures. Lassalle could not himself have supposed that so

insignificant a matter as the granting of a small loan would

solve the labor question. He recognized, however, that it was

necessary to have some definite party programme to insure

success in agitation. … On the 23d of May, 1863, German social

democracy was born. Little importance was attached to the

event at the time. A few men met at Leipsic, and, under the

leadership of Ferdinand Lassalle, formed a new political party

called the 'Universal German Laborers' Union' ('Der Allgemeine

Deutsche Arbeiterverein'). … Lassalle did not live to see the

fruits of his labors. He met with some success and celebrated

a few triumphs, but the Union did not flourish as he hoped. At

the time of his death he did not appear to have a firm,

lasting hold on the laboring population. There then existed no

social-democratic party with political power. Although

Lassalle lost his life in a duel [1864], which had its origin

in a love affair, and not in any struggle for the rights of

labor, he was canonized at once by the working men. … His

influence increased more than ten-fold as soon as he ceased to

live."

R. T. Ely,

French and German Socialism in Modern Times,

chapter 12.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1872.

The International in Europe.

The International came into being immediately after the

holding of the International Exhibition at London, in 1862. At

least it was then that it took bodily shape, for the idea, in

its theoretical form, dates from much earlier. … In 1862

certain manufacturers, such as M. Arlès-Dufour, and certain

newspapers, such as 'Le Temps' and 'L' Opinion Nationale,'

started the idea that it would be a good thing to send

delegates from the French working men to the London

Exhibition. 'The visit to their comrades in England,' said 'L'

Opinion Nationale,' 'would establish mutual relations in every

way advantageous. While they would be able to get an idea of

the great artistic and industrial works at the Exhibition,

they would at the same time feel more strongly the mutual

interests which bind the working men of both countries

together; the old leaven of international discord would settle

down, and national jealousy would give place to a healthy

fraternal emulation.' The whole programme of the International

is summed up in these lines; but the manufacturers little

foresaw the manner in which it was going to be carried out.

Napoleon III. appeared to be very favourable to the sending of

the delegates to London. He allowed them to be chosen by

universal suffrage among the members of the several trades,

and, naturally, those who spoke the strongest on the rights of

labour were chosen. By the Emperor's orders, their journey was

facilitated in every way. At that time Napoleon still dreamed

of relying, for the maintenance of his Empire, on the working

men and peasants, and of thus coping with the liberal middle

classes. At London the English working men gave the most

cordial welcome to 'their brothers of France.' On the 5th of

August they organized a fête of 'international fraternization'

at the Freemasons' Tavern. …

{2951}

They proposed to create committees of working men 'as a medium

for the interchange of ideas on questions of international

trade.' The conception of a universal association appears here

in embryo. Two years afterwards it saw the light. On the 28th

of September, 1864, a great meeting of working men of all

nations was held at St. Martin's Hall, London, under the

presidency of Professor Beesly. M. Tolain spoke in the name of

France. Karl Marx was the real inspirer of the movement,

though Mazzini's secretary, Major Wolff, assisted him—a fact

which has given rise to the statement that Mazzini was the

founder of the International. So far was this from being the

case that he only joined it with distrust, and soon left it.

The meeting appointed a provisional committee to draw up the

statutes of the association, to be submitted to the Universal

Congress, which was expected to meet at Brussels in the

following year. In this committee England, France, Italy,

Poland, Switzerland, and Germany were represented; and

afterwards delegates from other countries were admitted. They

were fifty in all. They adopted none of the ways of a secret

society. On the contrary, it was by publicity that they hoped

to carry on their propaganda. Their office was in London. …

Mazzini, by his secretary, Wolff, proposed a highly

centralized organization, which would entrust the entire

management to the leaders. Marx took the other side. … Marx

carried the day. Soon, in his turn, he too was to be opposed

and turned off as too dictatorial. Mazzini and his followers

seceded. … The progress of the new association was at first

very slow." After its second congress, held at Lausanne, in

1867, it spread rapidly and acquired an influence which was

especially alarming to the French government. In 1870 the

International was at the summit of its power. In 1872 its

congress, at the Hague, was a battlefield of struggling

factions and clashing ideas, and practically it perished in

the conflict. "The causes of the rapid decline of the famous

Association are easy to discover, and they are instructive.

First of all, as the organizer of strikes, its principal and

most practical end, it proved itself timid and impotent. The

various bodies of working men were not slow to perceive this,

and gave it up. Next, it had taken for motto, 'Emancipation of

the workers by the workers themselves.' It was intended, then,

to do without the bourgeois-radicals, 'the palaverers,' 'the

adventurers,' who when the revolution was made, would step

into power and leave the working men as they were before. The

majority of the delegates were nevertheless bourgeois; but, in

reality, the sentiment of revolt against the aristocratic

direction of the more intelligent members always persisted,

and it fastened principally on Karl Marx, the true founder of

the International, and the only political brain that it

contained. But to keep in existence a vast association

embracing very numerous groups of different nationalities, and

influenced sometimes by divergent currents of ideas, to make

use of publicity as the sole means of propaganda, and yet to

escape the repressive laws of different States, was evidently

no easy task. How could it possibly have lasted after the only

man capable of directing it had been ostracized? The cause of

the failure was not accidental; it was part of the very

essence of the attempt. The proletariat will not follow the

middle-class radicals, because political liberties, republican

institutions, and even universal suffrage, which the latter

claim or are ready to decree, do not change the relations of

capital and labour. On the other hand, the working man is

evidently incapable of directing a revolutionary movement

which is to solve the thousand difficulties created by any

complete change in the economic order. Revolutionary Socialism

thus leads to an insoluble dilemma and to practical impotence.

A further cause contributed to the rapid fall of the

International, namely, personal jealousies."

E. de Laveleye,

The Socialism of To-day,

chapter 9.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1866-1875.

Rise and growth of the Patrons of Husbandry, or Grangers,

in the United States.

The order, composed of farmers, known as Patrons of Husbandry,

or Grangers, was founded in 1866. It grew rapidly during the

first decade of its existence, and reported a membership, in

November, 1875, of 763,263. After that period the numbers

declined. The general aims of the order were set forth in a

"Declaration of Purposes," as follows: "We shall endeavor to

advance our cause by laboring to accomplishing the following

objects: To develop a better and higher manhood and womanhood

among ourselves. To enhance the comforts and attractions of

our homes, and strengthen our attachments to our pursuits. To

foster mutual understanding and co-operation. … To

discountenance the credit system, the mortgage system, the

fashion system, and every other system tending to prodigality

and bankruptcy. We propose meeting together, talking together,

working together, buying together, selling together, and in

general acting together for our mutual protection and

advancement, as occasion may require. We shall avoid

litigation as much as possible by arbitration in the Grange. …

We are not enemies to capital, but we oppose the tyranny of

monopolies. We long to see the antagonism between labor and

capital removed by common consent and by an enlightened

statesmanship worthy of the nineteenth century. … Last, but

not least, we proclaim it among our purposes to inculcate a

proper appreciation of the abilities and sphere of woman, as

is indicated by admitting her to membership and position in

our order."

R. T. Ely,

The Labor Movement in America,

chapter 3.

See, also,

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

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1867-1875.

The Brocton Community of the Brotherhood of the New Life.

The Community of the Brotherhood of the New Life was

established at Brocton, on the shore of Lake Erie, by Thomas

Lake Harris, in 1867. Harris had been, partly at least, the

founder of an earlier community at Mountain Cove, in North

Carolina, which went to pieces after two years. For some time

he travelled and lectured in America and England, and during a

certain period he engaged in business as a banker, at Amenia,

in Dutchess county, New York. He possessed qualities which

exercised a fascinating influence upon many people of superior

cultivation, and made them docile recipients of a very

peculiar religious teaching. He claimed to have made a strange

spiritual discovery, through which those who disciplined

themselves to the acceptance of what it offered might attain

to a "new life."

{2952}

The discipline required seems to have involved a very complete

surrender to the leader, Harris; and it was on such terms,

apparently, that the Community at Brocton—or Salem-on-Erie as

the Brotherhood renamed the place-was constituted. Among those

who entered it was the brilliant writer, diplomatist, and man

of society, Laurence Oliphant, who joined, with his wife, and

with Lady Oliphant, his mother. The connection of Oliphant

with the society drew to it more attention than it might

otherwise have received. The Community bought and owned about

2,000 acres of land, and devoted its labors extensively and

with success to the culture of grapes and the making of wine.

The breaking up of the Brotherhood appears to be covered with

a good deal of obscurity. Harris left Brocton in 1875 and went

to California, where he is reported to be living, at Sonoma,

on a great estate. Some of the Brotherhood went with him;

others were scattered, and the Brocton vineyards are now

cultivated by other hands.

W. E. K.,

Brocton (Buffalo Courier, July 19, 1891).

ALSO IN:

M. O. W. Oliphant,

Memoir of the life of Laurence Oliphant.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1869-1883.

The Knights of Labor.

"The second great attempt [the first having been 'the

International'] to organize labor on a broad basis—as broad as

society itself, in which all trades should be recognized—was

the Noble Order of Knights of Labor of America. This

organization was born on Thanksgiving Day, 1869, in the city

of Philadelphia, and was the result of the efforts of Uriah S.

Stephens, as the leader, and six associates, all

garment-cutters. For several years previous to this date, the

garment-cutters of Philadelphia had been organized as a

trades-union, but had failed to maintain a satisfactory rate

of wages in their trade. A feeling of dissatisfaction

prevailed, which resulted, in the fall of 1869, in a vote to

disband the union. Stephens, foreseeing this result, had

quietly prepared the outlines of a plan for an organization

embracing 'all branches of honorable toil,' and based upon

education, which, through co-operation and an intelligent use

of the ballot, should gradually abolish the present wages

system. Stephens himself was a man of great force of

character, a skilled mechanic, with the love of books which

enabled him to pursue his studies during his apprenticeship,

and feeling withal a strong affection for secret

organizations, having been for many years connected with the

Masonic order. … He believed it was necessary to bring all

wage-workers together in one organization, where measures

affecting the interests of all could be intelligently

discussed and acted upon; and this he held could not be done

in a trades-union. At the last session of the Garment-cutters'

Union, and after the motion to disband had prevailed, Stephens

invited the few members present to meet him, in order to

discuss his new plan of organization. … Stephens then laid

before his guests his plan of an organization, which he

designated 'The Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor.'

It was a new departure in labor organization. The founder

described what he considered a tendency toward large

combinations of capital, and argued that the trades-union form

of organization was like a bundle of sticks when unbound,—weak

and powerless to resist combination. … Stephens' great

controlling ideas may be formulated as follows: first that

surplus labor always keeps wages down; and, second, that

nothing can remedy this evil but a purely and deeply secret

organization, based upon a plan that shall teach, or rather

inculcate, organization, and at the same time educate its

membership to one set of ideas ultimately subversive of the

present wages system. … At a subsequent meeting, held December

28, 1869, upon the report of a Committee on Ritual, involving

obligations and oaths, Mr. Stephens and his six associates

subscribed their names to the obligations; and, when the

ritual was adopted, Mr. James L. Wright moved that the new

Order be named the 'Knights of Labor.' … The members were

sworn to the strictest secrecy. The name even of the Order was

not to be divulged. … The rules of government. … excluded

physicians from the Order, because professional confidence

might force the societies' secrets into unfriendly ears. The

rule prohibiting the admission of physicians, however, was

repealed at Detroit in 1881. Politicians were to be excluded,

because the founders of the Order considered that their moral

character was on too low a plane for the sacred work of the

new Order; and, besides, it was considered that professional

politicians would not keep the secrets of the Order, if such

secrets could be used for their own advantage. Men engaged in

political work are not now excluded for that cause alone.

Lawyers were to be excluded, and still are, because the

founders considered that the logical, if not the practical,

career of the lawyer is to get money by his aptitudes and

cunning, which, if used to the advantage of one, must be at

the expense of another. … Rum-sellers were and are excluded,

because the trade is not only useless, by being non-productive

of articles of use, but results in great suffering and

immorality. … The founders also considered that those who sell

or otherwise handle liquors should be excluded, because such

persons would be a defilement to the Order. In consequence of

the close secrecy thrown around the new organization, it did

not grow rapidly. Stephens, impressed with the Masonic ritual

and that of the Odd Fellows, was unwilling to allow any

change. … So the society struggled on, admitting now and then

a member, its affairs running smoothly, as a whole, but the

name of the organization never divulged. … In January, 1878,

when the whole machinery of the organization was perfected so

far as bodies were concerned, there had been no general

declaration of principles. The Order had been intensely

secret, as much as the society of the Masons or of the Odd

Fellows. The name of the Order began to be whispered about;

but beyond the name and most exaggerated accounts of the

membership, nothing was known of the Knights of Labor. The

membership must have been small,—indeed, not counting far into

the thousands. In fact, it did not reach fifty thousand until

five years later. … About this time [1878] the strict secrecy

in the workings of the Order, and the fact that the

obligations were oaths taken on the Bible, brought on a

conflict with the Catholic Church, and during the years

1877-78 many Local and several District Assemblies lapsed. …

Measures were adopted whereby a satisfactory conciliation was

brought about, on the general ground that the labor movement

could consistently take no interest in the advocacy of any

kind of religion, nor assume any position for or against

creeds.

{2953}

The prejudices against the Knights of Labor on account of

Catholic opposition then naturally, but gradually,

disappeared; and the Order took on new strength, until there

were in 1879 twenty-three District Assemblies and about

thirteen hundred Local Assemblies in the United States. … The

third annual session of the General Assembly was held at

Chicago, in September, 1879, when the federal body busied

itself with general legislation, and was called upon to

consider the resignation of Mr. Stephens as Master Workman.

This resignation, urgently pressed by Mr. Stephens, was

accepted; and Hon. Terrence V. Powderly was elected Grand

Master Workman in his place. … The membership was stated to be

five thousand in good standing. … The next annual meeting of

the General Assembly (the fourth) took place at Pittsburg, in

September, 1880, and consisted of forty delegates. At this

session, strikes were denounced as injurious, and as not

worthy of support except in extreme cases. … The fifth session

was held in September, 1881, at Detroit. This session had to

deal with one of the most important actions in the history of

the Order. The General Assembly then declared that on and

after January 1, 1882, the name and objects of the Order

should be made public. It also declared that women should be

admitted upon an equal footing with men. … A benefit insurance

law was also passed, and an entire change of the ritual was

advised. … The sixth annual assembly was held in New York in

September, 1882, the chief business consisting in the

discussion, and finally in the adoption, of a revised

constitution and ritual. At this Assembly, what is known as

the 'strike' element—that is, the supporters and believers in

strikes—was in the majority, and laws and regulations for

supporting strikes were adopted; and the co-operation of

members was suppressed by a change of the co-operative law of

the Order. … The seventh annual session of the General

Assembly was held at Cincinnati in September, 1883, and

consisted of one hundred and ten representative delegates. …

This large representation was owing to the rapid growth of the

Order since the name and objects had been made public. … The

membership of the Order was reported to this Assembly to be,

in round numbers, fifty-two thousand. In September, 1884, the

eighth annual Assembly convened at Philadelphia. Strikes and

boycotts were denounced. … The ninth General Assembly convened

at Hamilton, Ontario, in October, 1885, and adopted

legislation looking to the prevention of strikes and boycotts.

The session lasted eight days, the membership being reported

at one hundred and eleven thousand. … The tenth annual session

of the General Assembly was held at Richmond, Virginia, in

October, 1886. … Mr. Powderly, in his testimony before the

Strike Investigating Committee of Congress, April 21, 1886,

made the following statement as to membership: 'Our present

membership does not exceed 500,000, although we have been

credited with 5,000,000.' This statement indicates a growth of

nearly 400,000 in one year. The growth was so rapid that the

Executive Board of the Order felt constrained to call a halt

in the initiation of new members. To-day (December 10, 1886),

while the membership has fallen off in some localities, from

various causes, in the whole country it has increased, and is,

according to the best inside estimates, not much less than one

million."

Carroll D. Wright,

Historical Sketch of the Knights of Labor

(Quarterly Journal of Economics, January, 1887).

"At the annual convention of the Knights of Labor, held at

Philadelphia, November 14-28 [1893], Grand Master Workman

Powderly, for fifteen years the head of the order, was

succeeded by J. R. Sovereign, of Iowa. The new leader's first

address to the organization, issued December 7, contained in

addition to the usual denunciation of capitalists, a strong

demand for the free coinage of silver and an expansion of the

currency."

Political Science Quarterly, June, 1894;

Record of Political Events.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1872-1886.

The International in America.

By the order of the congress of the International held at the

Hague in 1872, the General Council of the Association was

transferred to New York. "Modern socialism had then

undoubtedly begun to exist in America. The first proclamation

of the council from their new headquarters was an appeal to

workingmen 'to emancipate labor and eradicate all

international and national strife.' … The 'Exceptional Law'

passed against socialists by the German Parliament in 1878

drove many socialists from Germany to this country, and these

have strengthened the cause of American socialism through

membership in trades-unions and in the Socialistic Labor

Party. There have been several changes among the socialists in

party organization and name since 1873, and national

conventions or congresses have met from time to time. … The

name Socialistic Labor Party was adopted in 1877 at the Newark

Convention. In 1883 the split between the moderates and

extremists had become definite, and the latter held their

congress in Pittsburg, and the former in Baltimore. … The

terrible affair of May 4, 1886, when the Chicago

Internationalists endeavored to resist the police by the use

of dynamite, terminated all possibility of joint action—even

if there could previously have been any remote hope of it; for

that was denounced as criminal folly by the Socialistic Labor

Party. … The Internationalists, at their congress in

Pittsburg, adopted unanimously a manifesto or declaration of

motives and principles, often called the Pittsburg

Proclamation, in which they describe their ultimate goal in

these words:—'What we would achieve is, therefore, plainly

and simply,—First, Destruction of the existing class rule, by

all means, i. e., by energetic, relentless, revolutionary, and

international action. Second, Establishment of a free society

based upon co-operative organization of production. Third,

Free exchange of equivalent products by and between the

productive organizations without commerce and profit-mongery.

Fourth, Organization of education on a secular, scientific and

equal basis for both sexes. Fifth, Equal rights for all

without distinction to sex or race. Sixth, Regulation of all

public affairs by free contracts between the autonomous

(independent} communes and associations, resting on a

federalistic basis.'"

R. T. Ely,

The Labor Movement in America,

chapters 8-9.

{2954}

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1875-1893.

Socialist parties in Germany.

Their increasing strength.

Before 1875, there existed in Germany two powerful Socialist

associations. The first was called the 'General Association of

German Working Men' (der allgemeine deutsche Arbeiterverein).

Founded by Lassalle in 1863, it afterwards had for president

the deputy Schweizer, and then the deputy Hasenclever. Its

principal centre of activity was North Germany. The second was

the 'Social-democratic Working Men's Party' (die

Social·democratische Arbeiterpartei), led by two well-known

deputies of the Reichstag, Herr Bebel and Herr Liebknecht. Its

adherents were chiefly in Saxony and Southern Germany. The

first took into account the ties of nationality, and claimed

the intervention of the State in order to bring about a

gradual transformation of society; the second, on the

contrary, expected the triumph of its cause only from a

revolutionary movement. These two associations existed for a

long time in open hostility towards each other; less, however,

from the difference of the aims they had in view than in

consequence of personal rivalry. Nevertheless, in May, 1875,

at the Congress of Gotha, they amalgamated under the title of

the 'Socialist Working Men's Party of Germany' (Socialistische

Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands). The deputy Hasenclever was

nominated president; but the union did not last long, or was

never complete, for as early as the month of August following

a separate meeting of the 'General Association of German

Working Men' was held at Hamburg. … The German Socialist party

does not confine itself to stating general principles. Now

that it has gained foothold on political soil, and sends

representatives to Parliament, it endeavours to make known the

means by which it hopes to realize the reforms it has in view.

This is what it claims:—'The German Socialist party demands,

in order to pave the way for the solution of the social

question, the creation of socialistic productive associations

aided by the State, under the democratic control of the

working people. These productive associations for manufacture

and agriculture should be created on a sufficiently large

scale to enable the socialistic organization of labour to

arise out of them. As basis of the State, it demands direct

and universal suffrage for all citizens of twenty years of

age, in all elections both of State and Commune; direct

legislation, by the people, including the decision of peace or

war; general liability to bear arms and a militia composed of

civilians instead of a standing army; the abolition of all

laws restricting the right of association, the right of

assembly, the free expression of opinion, free thought, and

free inquiry; gratuitous justice administered by the people;

compulsory education, the same for all and given by the State;

and a declaration that religion is an object of private

concern.'"

E. de Laveleye,

The Socialism of To-day,

introduction and chapter 1.

"The social democratic party [in Germany] advanced in

strength, as far as that is measured by votes, until 1878,

when the decrease was only slight. Two attempts were made on

the life of the Emperor William in that year, and the social

democrats had to bear a good share of the blame. … In the

Reichstag the celebrated socialistic law was passed, which

gave government exceptional and despotic powers to proceed

against social democracy. … Governmental persecution united

the divided members and gave new energy to all. … They all

became secret missionaries, distributing tracts and exhorting

individually their fellow-laborers to join the struggle for

the emancipation of labor. The German social democrats have

held two congresses since the socialistic law, both, of

course, on foreign soil, and both have indicated progress. The

first was held at Wyden, Switzerland, August 20-23, 1880. This

resulted in a complete triumph for the more moderate party.

The two leading extremists, Hasselmann and Most, were both

expelled from the party—the former by all save three votes,

the latter by all save two. The next congress was held at

Copenhagen, Denmark, from March 29 to April 2, 1883. It

exhibited greater unanimity of sentiment and plan, and a more

wide-spread interest in social democracy, than any previous

congress."

R. T. Ely,

French and German Socialism,

chapter 14.

At the general election, February, 1890, in Germany, the

Social Democratic party "polled more votes than any other

single party in the Empire, and returned to the Imperial Diet

a body of representatives strong enough, by skilful alliances,

to exercise an effective influence on the course of affairs.

The advance of the party may be seen in the increase of the

socialist vote at the successive elections since the creation

of the Empire:

In 1871 it was 101,927;

1874, 351,670;

1877, 493,447;

1878, 437,438;

1881, 311,961;

1884, 549,000;

1887, 774,128;

1890, 1,427,000.

The effect of the coercive laws of 1878, as shown by these

figures, is very noteworthy. … The first effect … was, as was

natural, to disorganize the socialist party for the time.

Hundreds of its leaders were expelled from the country;

hundreds were thrown into prison or placed under police

restriction; its clubs and newspapers were suppressed; it was

not allowed to hold meetings, to make speeches, or to

circulate literature of any kind. In the course of the twelve

years during which this exceptional legislation has subsisted,

it was stated at the recent Socialist Congress at Halle

[1890], that 155 socialist journals and 1,200 books or

pamphlets had been prohibited; 900 members of the party had

been banished without trial; 1,500 had been apprehended and

300 punished for contraventions of the Anti-Socialist Laws."

But this "policy of repression has ended in tripling the

strength of the party it was designed to crush, and placing it

in possession of one-fifth of the whole voting power of the

nation. It was high time, therefore, to abandon so ineffectual

a policy, and the socialist coercive laws expired on the 30th

September, 1890. … The strength of the party in Parliament has

never corresponded with its strength at the polls. … In 1890,

with an electoral vote which, under a system of proportional

representation, would have secured for it 80 members, it has

carried only 37."

J. Rae,

Contemporary Socialism,

pages 33-34.

The Social Democrats "retained their position as the strongest

party in the empire in the elections of 1893, casting nearly

1,800,000 votes, and electing 44 members of parliament. …

Another indication of the growth of social democracy, is the

fact that it has gained a foothold among the students of the

universities."

R. T. Ely,

Socialism,

page 59.

"The two principal leaders of the Social-Democratic party in

Germany—in fact, the only members of the party to whom the

term leader can properly be applied—are now Wilhelm Liebknecht

and August Bebel. Both men have lived eventful lives and have

suffered often and severely for the sake of their cause. …

Liebknecht has done a great deal to popularise the political

and social theories of men like Marx and Lassalle.

{2955}

He is through and through a Communist and a Republican, and he

is determined upon realising his ideals by hook or by crook. …

He works for the subversion of the monarchical principle and

for the establishment of a Free People's State. In this State

all subjects will stand upon the same level: there will be no

classes and no privileges. … Bebel once summarised his views

in a sentence which, so far as he spoke for himself, is as

true as it is short. 'We aim,' he said, 'in the domain of

politics at Republicanism, in the domain of economics at

Socialism, and in the domain of what is to-day called religion

at Atheism.' Here we see Bebel as in a mirror. He is a

Republican and a Socialist, and he is proud of it; he is

without religion, and he is never tired of parading the fact,

even having himself described in the Parliamentary Almanacs as

'religionslos.' Like his colleague Liebknecht he is a warm

admirer of England."

W. H. Dawson,

German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle,

chapter 15.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1880.

Mr. Henry George, and the proposed confiscation of rent.

The Single-Tax movement.

The doctrine of Mr. Henry George, set forth in his famous

book, "Progress and Poverty," published in 1880, is stated in

his own language as follows: "We have traced the want and

suffering that everywhere prevail among the working classes,

the recurring paroxysms of industrial depression, the scarcity

of employment, the stagnation of capital, the tendency of

wages to the starvation point, that exhibit themselves more

and more strongly as material progress goes on, to the fact

that the land on which and from which all must live is made

the exclusive property of some. We have seen that there is no

possible remedy for these evils but the abolition of their

cause; we have seen that private property in land has no

warrant in justice, but stands condemned as the denial of

natural right—a subversion of the law of nature that as social

development goes on must condemn the masses of men to a

slavery the hardest and most degrading. … I do not propose

either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land.

The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the

individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to,

possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let

them continue to call it their land. Let them buy and sell,

and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave them the

shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to

confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent. Nor

to take rent for public uses is it necessary that the State

should bother with the letting of lands, and assume the

chances of the favoritism, collusion, and corruption that

might involve. It is not necessary that any new machinery

should be created. The machinery already exists. Instead of

extending it, all we have to do is to simplify and reduce it.

By leaving to land owners a percentage of rent which would

probably be much less than the cost and loss involved in

attempting to rent lands through State agency, and by making

use of this existing machinery, we may, without jar or shock,

assert the common right to land by taking rent for public

uses. We already take some rent in taxation. We have only to

make some changes in our modes of taxation to take it all.

What I, therefore, propose, as the simple yet sovereign

remedy, which will raise wages, increase the earnings of

capital, extirpate pauperism, abolish poverty, give

remunerative employment to whoever wishes it, afford free

scope to human powers, lessen crime, elevate morals, and

taste, and intelligence, purify government and carry

civilization to yet nobler heights, is—to appropriate rent by

taxation. In this way, the State may become the universal

landlord without calling herself so, and without assuming a

single new function. In form, the ownership of land would

remain just as now. No owner of land need be dispossessed, and

no restriction need be placed upon the amount of land any one

could hold. For, rent being taken by the State in taxes, land,

no matter in whose name it stood, or in what parcels it was

held, would be really common property, and every member of the

community would participate in the advantages of its

ownership. Now, insomuch as the taxation of rent, or land

values, must necessarily be increased just as we abolish other

taxes, we may put the proposition into practical form by

proposing—To abolish all taxation save that upon land values."

H. George,

Progress and Poverty,

book 8, chapter 2.

"Mr. George sent his 'Progress and Poverty' into the world

with the remarkable prediction that it would find not only

readers but apostles. … Mr. George's prediction is not more

remarkable than its fulfilment. His work has had an unusually

extensive sale; a hundred editions in America, and an edition

of 60,000 copies in this country [England, 1891] are

sufficient evidences of that; but the most striking feature in

its reception is precisely that which its author foretold; it

created an army of apostles, and was enthusiastically

circulated, like the testament of a new dispensation.

Societies were formed, journals were devised to propagate its

saving doctrines, and little companies of the faithful held

stated meetings for its reading and exposition. … The author

was hailed as a new and better Adam Smith, as at once a

reformer of science and a renovator of society."

J. Rae,

Contemporary Socialism,

chapter 12.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1883-1889.

State Socialistic measures of the German Government.

"Replying once to the accusation made by an opponent in the

Reichstag that his social-political measures were tainted with

Socialism, Prince Bismarck said, 'You will be compelled yet to

add a few drops of social oil in the recipe you prescribe for

the State; how many I cannot say.' In no measures has more of

the Chancellor's 'social oil' been introduced than in the

industrial insurance laws. These may be said to indicate the

high-water mark of German State Socialism. … The Sickness

Insurance Law of 1883. the Accident Insurance Laws of 1884 and

1885, and the Old Age Insurance Law of 1889 are based upon the

principle of compulsion which was introduced into the sick

insurance legislation of Prussia in 1854. … The trio of

insurance laws was completed in 1889 by the passing of a

measure providing for the insurance of workpeople against the

time of incapacity and old age (Invalidäts und

Altersversicherungsgesetz). This was no after-thought

suggested by the laws which preceded. It formed from the first

part of the complete plan of insurance foreshadowed by Prince

Bismarck over a decade ago, and in some of the Chancellor's

early speeches on the social question he regarded the

pensioning of old and incapacitated workpeople as at once

desirable and inevitable. …

{2956}

The Old Age Insurance Law is expected to apply to about twelve

million workpeople, including labourers, factory operatives,

journeymen, domestic servants, clerks, assistants, and

apprentices in handicrafts and in trade (apothecaries

excluded), and smaller officials (as on railways, etc.), so

long as their wages do not reach 2,000 marks (about £100) a

year; also persons employed in shipping, whether maritime,

river, or lake; and, if the Federal Council so determine,

certain classes of small independent undertakers. The

obligation to insure begins with the completion of the

sixteenth year, but there are exemptions, including persons

who, owing to physical or mental weakness, are unable to earn

fixed minimum wages, and persons already entitled to public

pensions, equal in amount to the benefits secured by the law,

or who are assured accident annuities. The contributions are

paid by the employers and work-people in equal shares, but the

State also guarantees a yearly subsidy of 50 marks (£2.10s.)

for every annuity paid. Contributions are only to be paid when

the insured is in work. The law fixes four wages classes, with

proportionate contributions as follows:

Wages.                    | Contributions.

| Weekly.    | Yearly (47 weeks).

1st class 300 marks (£15) | 14 pfennig | 3'29 marks (3s. 3½d.)

2nd class 500 marks (£25) | 20 pfennig | 4'70 marks (4s. 8½d.)

3rd class 720 marks (£36) | 24 pfennig | 5'64 marks (5s. 7½d.)

4th class 960 marks (£78) | 30 pfennig | 7'05 marks (7s.     ).

Of course, of these contributions the workpeople only pay

half. Old age annuities are first claimable at the beginning

of the seventy-first year, but annuities on account of

permanent incapacity may begin at any time after the workman

has been insured for five years. The minimum period of

contribution in the case of old age pensioning is thirty years

of forty-seven premiums each. Where a workman is prevented by

illness (exceeding a week but not exceeding a year), caused by

no fault of his own, or by military duties, from continuing

his contributions, the period of his absence from work is

reckoned part of the contributory year. … Contributions are

made in postage stamps affixed to yearly receipt cards

supplied to the insured. Annuities are to be paid through the

post-office monthly in advance."

W. H. Dawson,

Bismarck and State Socialism,

chapter 9.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1887-1888.

Development of the "New Trade Unionism."

"The elements composing what is termed the New Trade Unionism

are not to be found in the constitution, organization, and

rules of the Unions started within the last two or three

years. In these respects they either conform to the experience

of modern Unions, or they revive the practices of the older

Unions. There is scarcely a feature in which any of them

differ from types of Unions long in existence. In what, then,

consists the 'New Trade Unionism,' of which we hear so much?

Mainly in the aspirations, conduct, modes of advocacy, and

methods of procedure of, and also in the expressions used, and

principles inculcated by the new leaders in labour movements,

in their speeches and by their acts. This New Unionism has

been formulated and promulgated at Trades Union Congresses, at

other Congresses and Conferences, and at the meetings held in

various parts of the country; and in letters and articles

which have appeared in the newspaper, press, and public

journals from the pens of the new leaders. … The institution

of Labour Bureaus, or the establishment of Labour Registries,

is one of the acknowledged objects of the Dockers' Union.

Singularly enough this is the first time that any such project

has had the sanction of a bona-fide Trade Union. All the older

Unions repudiate every such scheme. It has hitherto been

regarded as opposed in principle to Trade Unionism. … At the

recent Trades Union Congress held in Liverpool, September

1890, the following resolution was moved by one of the London

delegates representing the 'South Side Labour Protection

League'—'That in the opinion of this Congress, in order to

carry on more effectually the organization of the large mass

of unorganized labour, to bring into closer combination those

sections of labour already organized, to provide means for

communication and the interchange of information between all

sections of industry, and the proper tabulation of statistics

as to employment, &c., of advantage to the workmen, it is

necessary that a labour exchange, on the model of the Paris

Bourse des Travail, should be provided and maintained by

public funds in every industrial centre in the kingdom." … The

mover said that 'not a single delegate could deny the

necessity for such an institution, in every industrial

centre.' The Congress evidently thought otherwise, for only 74

voted for the resolution, while 92 voted against it. … The

proposal, however, shows to what an extent the New Trade

Unionism seeks for Government aid, or municipal assistance, in

labour movements. The most astonishing resolution carried by

the Congress was the following—'Whereas the ever-changing

methods of manufacture affect large numbers of workers

adversely by throwing them out of employment, without

compensation for loss of situation, and whereas those persons

are in many instances driven to destitution, crime, and

pauperism: Resolved, that this Congress is of opinion that

power should at once be granted to each municipality or County

Council to establish workshops and factories under municipal

control, where such persons shall be put to useful employment,

and that it be an instruction to the Parliamentary Committee

to at once take the matter in hand.' … The proposal of all

others which the new Trade Unionists sought to ingraft upon,

and had determined to carry as a portion of the programme of

the Trades Union Congress, was the 'legal Eight Hour day;' and

they actually succeeded in their design after a stormy battle.

The new leaders, with their socialist allies, had been working

to that end for over two years."

G. Howell,

Trade Unionism, New and Old,

chapter 8, part. 2.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1888-1893.

Mr. Bellamy's "Looking Backward,"

and the Nationalist movement.

"The so-called 'Nationalist' movement, originating in an

ingenious novel called 'Looking Backward' [published in 1888],

is one of the most interesting phenomena of the present

condition of public opinion in this country. Mr. Edward

Bellamy, a novelist by profession, is the recognized father of

the Nationalist Clubs which have been formed in various parts

of the United States within the last twelve months. His

romance of the year 2000 A. D. is the reason for their

existence, and furnishes the inspiration of their

declarations. …

{2957}

The new society [depicted in Mr. Bellamy's romance] is

industrial, rather than militant, in every feature. There are

no wars or government war powers. But the function has been

assumed by the nation of directing the industry of every

citizen. Every man and woman is enrolled in the 'industrial

army,' this conception being fundamental. This universal

industrial service rests upon the recognized duty of every

citizen 'to contribute his quota of industrial or intellectual

work to the maintenance of the nation.' The period of service'

is twenty-four years, beginning at the close of the course of

education at twenty-one, and terminating at forty-five. After

forty-five, while discharged from labor, the citizen still

remains liable to special calls, in case of emergencies.'

There are, of course, no such numerous exemptions from this

industrial service as qualify very greatly the rigor of the

Continental military service of the present day. Every new

recruit belongs for three years to the class of unskilled or

common laborers. After this term, he is free to choose in what

branch of the service he will engage, to work with hand or

with brain:—'It is the business of the administration to seek

constantly to equalize the attractions of the trades, so far

as the conditions in them are concerned, so that all trades

shall be equally attractive to persons having natural tastes

for them. This is done by making the hours of labor in

different trades to differ according to their arduousness. The

principle is that no man's work ought to be, on the whole,

harder for him than any other man's for him, the workers

themselves to be the judges.' The headship of the industrial

army of the nation is the most important function of the

President of the United States. Promotion from the ranks lies

through three grades up to the officers. These officers are,

in ascending order, lieutenants, captains, or foremen,

colonels, or superintendents, and generals of the guilds. The

various trades are grouped into ten great departments, each of

which has a chief. These chiefs form the council of the

general-in-chief, who is the President. He must have passed

through all the grades, from the common laborers up. …

Congress has but little to do beyond passing upon the reports

of the President and the heads of departments at the end of

their terms of office. Any laws which one Congress enacts must

receive the assent of another, five years later, before going

into effect; but, as there are no parties or politicians in

the year 2000 A. D., this is a matter of little consequence.

In Mr. Bellamy's Utopia, money is unknown: there is,

therefore, no need of banks or bankers. Buying and selling are

processes entirely antiquated. The nation is the sole producer

of commodities. All persons being in the employment of the

nation, there is supposed to be no need of exchanges between

individuals. A credit-card is issued to each person, which he

presents at a national distributing shop when in need of

anything, and the amount due the government is punched out.

The yearly allowance made to each person Mr. Bellamy does not

put into figures. … Every person is free to spend his income

as he pleases; but it is the same for all, the sole basis on

which it is awarded being the fact that the person is a human

being. Consequently, cripples and idiots, as well as children,

are entitled to the same share of the products of the national

industries as is allowed the most stalwart or the most

capable, a certain amount of effort only being required, not

of performance. Such is the force of public opinion that no

one of able body or able mind refuses to exert himself: the

comparative results of his effort are not considered. Absolute

equality of recompense is thus the rule; and the notion of

charity with respect to the infirm in body or mind is

dismissed, a credit-card of the usual amount being issued to

every such person as his natural right. 'The account of every

person, man, woman, and child … is always with the nation

directly, and never through any intermediary, except, of

course, that parents to a certain extent act for children as

their guardians. … It is by virtue of the relation of

individuals to the nation, of their membership in it, that

they are entitled to support.' … The idea naturally occurred

to a considerable number of Bostonians, who had read Mr.

Bellamy's socialistic romance with an enthusiastic conviction

that here at last the true social gospel was delivered, that

associations for the purpose of disseminating the views set

forth in the book could not be formed too soon, as the

forerunners of this National party of the future. Accordingly,

a club, called 'The Boston Bellamy Club,' was started in

September, 1888, which was formally organized as 'The

Nationalist Club,' in the following December."

N. P. Gilman,

"Nationalism" in the United States

(Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oct., 1889).

The Nationalists "have very generally entered into the

Populist movement, not because they accept that in its present

form as ideal, but because that movement has seemed to give

them the best opportunity for the diffusion of their

principles; and there can be no doubt that they have given a

socialistic bias to this movement. They have also influenced

the labor movement, and, with the Socialistic Labor Party,

they have succeeded in producing a strong sentiment in favor

of independent political action on the part of the

wage-earners. Especially noteworthy was the platform for

independent political action offered at the meeting of the

American Federation of Labor in Chicago in December, 1893."

R. T. Ely,

Socialism,

page 69.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894.

The American Railway Union and the Pullman Strike.

In May, 1894, some 4,000 workmen, employed in the car shops of

the Pullman Company, at the town of Pullman, near Chicago,

stopped work, because of the refusal of the company to restore

their wages to the standard from which they had been cut down

during the previous year and because of its refusal to

arbitrate the question. While this strike was in progress, the

American Railway Union, a comparatively new but extensive

organization of railway employees, formed by and under the

presidency of Eugene V. Debs, met in convention at Chicago,

and was induced to make the cause of the Pullman workmen its

own. The result was a decision on the part of the Union to

"boycott" all Pullman cars, ordering its members to refuse to

handle cars of that company, on the railways which center at

Chicago. This order went into effect on the evening of June

26, and produced the most extensive and alarming paralysis of

traffic and business that has ever been experienced in the

United States. Acts of violence soon accompanied the strike of

the railway employees, but how far committed by the strikers

and how far by responsive mobs, has never been made clear.

{2958}

The interruption of mails brought the proceedings of the

strikers within the jurisdiction of the federal courts and

within reach of the arm of the United States government. The

powers of the national courts and of the national executive

were both promptly exercised, to restore order and to stop a

ruinous interference with the general commerce of the country.

The leaders of the strike were indicted and placed under

arrest; United States troops were sent to the scene; President

Cleveland, by two solemn proclamations, made known the

determination of the Government to suppress a combination

which obstructed the United States mails and the movements of

commerce between the states. Urgent appeals were addressed by

the leaders of the American Railway Union to other labor

organizations, with the hope of bringing about a universal

strike, in all departments of industry throughout the country;

but it failed. The good sense of workingmen in general

condemned so suicidal a measure. By the 15th of July the

Pullman strike was practically ended, and the traffic of the

railways was resumed. President Cleveland appointed a

commission to investigate and report on the occurrence and its

causes, but the report of the commission has not been

published at the time this is printed (November, 1894).

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894.

The Coxey Movement.

"A peculiar outcome of the social and political conditions of

the winter [of 1893-4] was the organization of various 'armies

of the unemployed' for the purpose of marching to Washington

and petitioning Congress for aid. The originator of the idea

seems to have been one Coxey, of Massillon, Ohio, who took up

the proposition that, as good roads and money were both much

needed in the country, the government should in the existing

crisis issue $500,000,000 in greenbacks, and devote it to the

employment of workers in the improvement of the roads. He

announced that he would lead an 'Army of the Commonweal of

Christ' to Washington to proclaim the wants of the people on

the steps of the Capitol on May 1, and he called upon the

unemployed and honest laboring classes to join him. On March

25 he set out from Massillon at the head of about a hundred

men and marched by easy stages and without disorder through

Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, provisions being donated by

the towns and villages on the way, or purchased with funds

which had been subscribed by sympathizing friends. The numbers

of the army increased as it advanced, and groups of volunteers

set out to join it from distant states. On May 1 the

detachment, numbering about 350, marched to the Capitol, but

under an old District law was prevented by the police from

entering the grounds. Coxey and another of the leaders,

attempting to elude the police and address the assembled

crowds, were arrested and were afterwards convicted of a

misdemeanor. … Somewhat earlier than the start from Massillon,

another organization, 'The United States Industrial Army,'

headed by one Frye, had started from Los Angeles, California,

for Washington, with purposes similar to those of the Coxey

force, though not limiting their demands to work on the roads.

This force, numbering from six to eight hundred men, availed

themselves of the assistance, more or less involuntary, of

freight trains on the Southern Pacific Railway as far as St.

Louis, from which place they continued on foot. Though

observing a degree of military discipline, the various

'armies' were unarmed, and the disturbances that arose in

several places in the latter part of April were mostly due to

the efforts of the marchers, or their friends in their behalf,

to press the railroads into service for transportation. Thus a

band under a leader named Kelly, starting from San Francisco,

April 4, secured freight accommodations as far as Omaha by

simply refusing to leave Oakland until the cars were

furnished. The railroads eastward from Omaha refused

absolutely to carry them, and they went into camp near Council

Bluffs, in Iowa. Then sympathizing Knights of Labor seized a

train by force and offered it to Kelly, who refused, however,

to accept it under the circumstances, and ultimately continued

on foot as far as Des Moines, in Iowa. After a long stay at

that place he was finally supplied with flatboats, on which,

at the close of this Record, his band, now swollen to some

1,200 men, was floating southward. A band coming east on a

stolen train on the Northern Pacific, after overpowering a

squad of United States marshals, was captured by a detachment

of regular troops at Forsyth, Montana, April 26. Two days

later the militia were called out to rescue a train from a

band at Mount Sterling, Ohio."

Political Science Quarterly:

Record of Political Events, June, 1894.

There were straggling movements, from different quarters of

the country, in imitation of those described, prolonged

through most of the summer of 1894; but the public feeling

favorable to them was limited, and they commonly came to an

ignominious end.

----------SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: End--------

SOCIAL WAR:

In the Athenian Confederacy.

See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.

SOCIAL WAR:

Of the Achaian and Ætolian Leagues.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

SOCIAL WAR:

Of the Italians.

See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

SOCIALIST PARTIES IN GERMANY.

Some matter first placed under this title, and so referred to,

has been incorporated in the more general article above.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

SOCIETY OF JESUS.

See JESUITS.

SOCII, The.

The Italian subject-allies of Rome were called Socii before

the Roman franchise was extended to them.

See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

SOCMEN.

Mr. Hallam thinks the Socmen, enumerated in Domesday Book, to

have been ceorls who were small landowners.

H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 8, note 3 (volume. 2).

SOCRATES:

As soldier and citizen.

See ATHENS: B. C. 424-406;

and GREECE: B. C. 406.

SOCRATES:

As teacher. See EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREECE.

SODALITATES.

"There were [among the Romans] … unions originally formed for

social purposes, which were named 'sodalitates,' 'sodalitia,'

and these may be compared with our clubs. These associations

finally were made the centres of political parties, and we may

assume that they were sometimes formed solely for political

purposes."

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 3, chapter 11.

See, also, COLLEGIA.

{2959}

SODOR AND MAN, The Bishopric of.

In the 11th century, the peculiar naval empire which the

Norsemen had established in the Hebrides, and on the

neighboring coasts of Ireland and Scotland, under the rulers

known as the Hy Ivar, became divided into two parts, called

Nordureyer or Norderies and Sudureyer or Suderies, the

northern and southern division. The dividing-line was at the

point of Ardnamurchan, the most westerly promontory of the

mainland of Scotland. "Hence the English bishopric of Sod or

and Man—Sodor being the southern division of the Scottish

Hebrides, and not now part of any English diocese.… The Bishop

of Sodor and Man has no seat in the House of Lords, owing, as

it is commonly said, to Man not having become an English

possession when bishops began to sit as Lords by tenure."

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapter 15, foot-note (volume 2).

See, also,

NORMANS.

NORTHMEN: 10-13TH CENTURIES.

SOFT-SHELL DEMOCRATS, The.

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

SOGDIANA.

"North of the Bactrians, beyond the Oxus, on the western slope

of Belurdagh, in the valley of the Polytimetus (Zarefshan, i.

e. strewing gold), which flows towards the Oxus from the east,

but, instead of joining it, ends in Lake Dengis, lay the

Sogdiani of the Greeks, the Suguda of the Old Persian

inscriptions, and Çughdha of the Avesta, in the region of the

modern Sogd. As the Oxus in its upper course separates the

Bactrians from the Sogdiani, the Jaxartes, further to the

north, separates the latter from the Scyths. According to

Strabo, the manners of the Bactrians and Sogdiani were

similar, but the Bactrians were less rude. Maracanda

(Samarcand), the chief city of the Sogdiani, on the

Polytimetus, is said to have had a circuit of 70 stades in the

fourth century B. C."

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5).

See, also, BOKHARA.

SOGDIANA.

Occupied by the Huns.

See HUNS, THE WHITE.

SOHR, Battle of (1745).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

----------SOISSONS: Start--------

SOISSONS:

Origin of the name.

See BELGÆ.

SOISSONS: A. D. 457-486.

Capital of the kingdom of Syagrius.

See GAUL: A. D. 457-486;

also, FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

SOISSONS: A. D. 486.

The capital of Clovis.

See PARIS: THE CAPITAL OF CLOVIS.

SOISSONS: A. D. 511-752.

One of the Merovingian capitals.

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

SOISSONS: A. D. 1414.

Pillage and destruction by the Armagnacs.

In the civil wars of Armagnacs and Burgundians, during the

reign of the insane king Charles VI., the Armagnacs, then

having the king in their hands, and pretendedly acting under

his commands, laid siege to Soissons and took the city by

storm, on the 21st of May, A. D. 1414. "In regard to the

destruction committed by the king's army in Soissons, it

cannot be estimated. … There is not a Christian but would have

shuddered at the atrocious excesses committed by this soldiery

in Soissons: married women violated before their husbands,

young damsels in the presence of their parents and relatives,

holy nuns, gentle women of all ranks, of whom there were many

in the town: all, or the greater part, were violated against

their wills, and known carnally by divers nobles and others,

who, after having satiated their own brutal passions,

delivered them over without mercy to their servants; and there

is no remembrance of such disorder and havoc being done by

Christians. … Thus was this grand and noble city of Soissons,

strong from its situation, walls and towers, full of wealth,

and embellished with fine churches and holy relics, totally

ruined and destroyed by the army of king Charles, and of the

princes who accompanied him. The king, however, before his

departure, gave orders for its rebuilding."

Monstrelet,

Chronicles (translated by Johnes),

book 1, chapter 120 (volume 1).

----------SOISSONS: Start--------

SOISSONS, Battle of (718).

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

SOISSONS, Battle of (923).

The revolt against Charles the Simple, which resulted in the

overthrow of the Carolingian dynasty, had its beginning in

918. In 922, Robert, Duke of France and Count of Paris,

grandfather of Hugh Capet, was chosen and crowned king by the

malcontents. On the 15th of June in the next year the most

desperate and sanguinary battle of the civil war was fought at

Soissons, where more than half of each army perished. The

Capetians won the field, but their newly crowned king was

among the slain.

Sir F. Palgrave,

History of Normandy and England,

volume 2, page 40.

SOISSONS, Peace Congress of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

SOKEMANNI.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND.

SOLEBAY, Naval battle of (1672).

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.

SOLES, Society of.

See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

SOLFERINO, Battle of (1859).

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

SOLIDUS, The.

"The solidus or aureus is computed equivalent in weight of

gold to twenty-one shillings one penny English money."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 32, foot-note.

SOLON, The Constitution of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 594;

also, DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.

SOLWAY-FRITH,

SOLWAY MOSS,

The Battle of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.

SOLYMAN,

Caliph, A. D. 715-717.

Solyman I., Turkish Sultan, 1520-1566.

Solyman II., Turkish Sultan, 1687-1691.

SOLYMI, The.

See LYCIANS.

SOMA.

HAOMA.

"It is well known that both in the Veda and the Avesta a plant

is mentioned, called Soma (Zend, haoma). This plant, when

properly squeezed, yielded a juice, which was allowed to

ferment and, when mixed with milk and honey, produced an

exhilarating and intoxicating beverage. This Soma juice has

the same importance in Vedic and Avestic sacrifices as the

juice of the grape had in the worship of Bacchus. The question

has often been discussed what kind of plant this Soma could

have been. When Soma sacrifices are performed at present, it

is confessed that the real Soma can no longer be procured, and

that some ci-près, such as Pûtikâs, etc., must be used

instead." The Soma of later times seems to have been

identified with a species of Sarcostemma. The ancient Soma is

conjectured by some to have been the grape, and by others to

have been the hop plant.

F. Max Müller,

Biography of Words,

appendix 3.

See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.

{2960}

SOMASCINES, The.

The Somascines, or the Congregation of Somasca, so called from

the town of that name, were an order of regular clergy founded

in 1540 by a Venetian noble, Girolamo Miani. They devoted

themselves to the establishment and maintenance of hospitals,

asylums for orphans, and the education of the poor.

L. Ranke,

History of the Popes,

book 2, section 3 (volume 1).

SOMATOPHYLAX.

"A somatophylax in the Macedonian army was no doubt at first,

as the word means, one of the officers who had to answer for

the king's safety; perhaps in modern language a colonel in the

body-guards or house-hold troops; but as, in unmixed

monarchies, the faithful officer who was nearest the king's

person, to whose watchfulness he trusted in the hour of

danger, often found himself the adviser in matters of state,

so, in the time of Alexander, the title of somatophylax was

given to those generals on whose wisdom the king chiefly

leaned, and by whose advice he was usually guided."

S. Sharpe,

History of Egypt,

chapter 6, section 18 (volume 1).

SOMERS, Lord,

and the shaping of constitutional government in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

SOMERSETT, The case of the negro.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1685-1772.

SOMNAUTH, The gates of.

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1842-1869.

SONCINO, Battle of (1431).

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

SONDERBUND, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

SONOMA: A. D. 1846.

The raising of the Bear Flag.

See CALIFORNIA; A. D. 1846-1847.

SONS OF LIBERTY.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1765 THE RECEPTION OF THE NEWS.

SONS OF LIBERTY, Knights of the Order of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

SOPHENE, Kingdom of.

See ARMENIA.

SOPHERIM.

See SCRIBES.

SOPHI I.,

Shah of Persia, A. D. 1628-1641.

Sophi II., Shah of Persia, 1666-1694.

SOPHI, The.

See MEGISTANES.

SORA, The School of.

See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

SORABIANS, The.

A Sclavonic tribe which occupied, in the eighth century, the

country between the Elbe and the Saale. They were subdued by

Charlemagne in 806.

J. I. Mombert,

History of Charles the Great,

book 2, chapter 11.

SORBIODUNUM.

A strong Roman fortress in Britain which is identified in site

with Old Sarum of the present day.

T. Wright,

Celt, Roman and Saxon,

chapter 5.

SORBONNE, The.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE.

UNIVERSITY OF PARIS.

SORDONES, The.

A people of the same race as the ancient Aquitanians, who

inhabited the eastern Pyrenees and the Aude.

Napoleon III.,

History of Cæsar,

book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).

SOTIATES, The.

See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

SOTO, Hernando de, The expedition of.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

SOUDAN, The.

See SUDAN.

SOUFFRANCE, A.

"The word is translated as a truce, but it means something

very different from a modern truce. … The Souffrance was more

of the nature of a peace at the present day; and the reason

why of old it was treated as distinct from a peace was this:

The wars of the time generally arose from questions of

succession or of feudal superiority. When it became desirable

to cease fighting, while yet neither side was prepared to give

in to the other, there was an agreement to give up fighting in

the mean time, reserving all rights entire for future

discussion. A Souffrance or truce of this kind might last for

centuries."

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapter 21 (volume 2).

SOULT, Marshal, Campaigns of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);

1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);

SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER) to 1812-1814;

GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST);

FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

----------SOUTH AFRICA: Start--------

SOUTH AFRICA:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

South Africa in its widest extent is peopled by two great and

perfectly distinct indigenous races—the Kafirs and the

Hottentots. The affinity of the Kafir tribes, ethnographically

including the Kafirs proper and the people of Congo, is based

upon the various idioms spoken by them, the direct

representatives of a common but now extinct mother tongue. The

aggregate of languages is now conventionally known as the

A-bantu, or, more correctly, the Bantu linguistic system. The

more common term Kafir, from the Arabic Kâfir = infidel,

really represents but a small section of this great family,

and being otherwise a term of reproach imposed upon them by

strangers, is of course unknown to the people themselves. All

the Bantu tribes are distinguished by a dark skin and woolly

hair, which varies much in length and quality, but is never

sleek or straight. … According to its geographical position

the Bantu system is divided into the Eastern group, from its

principal representatives known as the Ama-Zulu and Ama-Khosa

or Kafir proper, the Central, or Be-tchuana group, and the

Western or O-va-Herero, or Damara group. … The northern

division of these Bantus bears the name of Ama-Zulu, and they

are amongst the best representatives of dark-coloured races.

The Zulus are relatively well developed and of large size,

though not surpassing the average height of Europeans, and

with decidedly better features than the Ama-Khosa. … The most

wide-spread and most numerous of all these Kafir tribes are

the Bechuanas [including the Basutos], their present domain

stretching from the upper Orange river northwards to the

Zambesi, and over the west coast highland north of

Namaqualand; of this vast region, however, they occupy the

outskirts only. … The Hottentots, or more correctly Koi-Koin

(men), have no material features in common with the great

Bantu family, except their woolly hair, though even this

presents some considerable points of difference. Their general

type is that of a people with a peculiar pale yellow-brown

complexion, very curly 'elf-lock' or matted hair, narrow

forehead, high cheek-bones projecting side-ways, pointed chin,

body of medium size, rather hardy than strong, with small

hands and feet, and platynocephalous cranium. … The Hottentots

are properly divided into three groups: the Colonial, or

Hottentots properly so called, dwelling in Cape Colony, and

thence eastwards to the borders of Kafirland …; the Korana,

settled mainly on the right bank of the Orange river …;

lastly, the Namaqua, whose domain embraces the western portion

of South Africa, bordering eastwards on the Kalahari desert."

Hellwald-Johnston,

Africa (Stanford's Compendium),

chapter 25.

See, also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

{2961}

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

Portuguese discovery.-

Dutch possession.

English acquisition.

The Cape of Good Hope, "as far as we know, was first doubled

by Bartholomew Diaz in 1486.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498.

He, and some of the mariners with him, called it the Cape of

Torments, or Capo Tormentoso, from the miseries they endured.

The more comfortable name which it now bears was given to it

by King John of Portugal, as being the new way discovered by

his subjects to the glorious Indies. Diaz, it seems, never in

truth saw the Cape, but was carried past it to Algoa Bay. …

Vasco da Gama, another sailor hero, said to have been of royal

Portuguese descent, followed him in 1497. He landed to the

west of the Cape. … Vasco da Gama did not stay long at the

Cape, but proceeding on went up the East Coast as far as our

second South African colony, which bears the name which he

then gave to it. He called the land Tierra de Natal, because

he reached it on the day of our Lord's Nativity. The name has

stuck to it ever since and no doubt will now be preserved.

From thence Da Gama went on to India. … The Portuguese seem to

have made no settlement at the Cape intended even to be

permanent; but they did use the place during the 16th and

first half of the next century as a port at which they could

call for supplies and assistance on their way out to the East

Indies. The East had then become the great goal of commerce to

others besides the Portuguese. In 1600 our own East India

Company was formed, and in 1602 that of the Dutch. Previous to

those dates, in 1591, an English sailor, Captain Lancaster,

visited the Cape, and in 1620 Englishmen landed and took

possession of it in the name of James I. But nothing came of

these visitings and declarations, although an attempt was made

by Great Britain to establish a house of call for her trade

out to the East. For this purpose a small gang of convicts was

deposited on Robben Island, which is just off Capetown, but as

a matter of course the convicts quarrelled with themselves and

the Natives, and came to a speedy end. In 1595 the Dutch came,

but did not then remain. It was not till 1652 that the first

Europeans who were destined to be the pioneer occupants of the

new land were put on shore at the Cape of Good Hope, and thus

made the first Dutch settlement. Previous to that the Cape had

in fact been a place of call for vessels of all nations going

and coming to and from the East. But from this date, 1652, it

was to be used for the Dutch exclusively. … The home Authority

at this time was not the Dutch Government, but the Council of

Seventeen at Amsterdam, who were the Directors of the Dutch

East India Company. … From 1658, when the place was but six

years old, there comes a very sad record indeed. The first

cargo of slaves was landed at the Cape from the Guinea Coast.

In this year, out of an entire population of 360, more than a

half were slaves. The total number of these was 187. To

control them and to defend the place there were but 113

European men capable of bearing arms. This slave element at

once became antagonistic to any system of real colonization,

and from that day to this has done more than any other evil to

retard the progress of the people. It was extinguished, much

to the disgust of the old Dutch inhabitants, under Mr.

Buxton's Emancipation Act in 1834;—but its effects are still

felt." The new land of which the Dutch had taken possession

"was by no means unoccupied or unpossessed. There was a race

of savages in possession, to whom the Dutch soon gave the name

of Hottentots. [The name was probably taken from some sound in

their language which was of frequent occurrence; they seem to

have been called 'Ottentoos,' 'Hotnots," Hottentotes,'

'Hodmodods,' and 'Hadmandods,' promiscuously. —Foot-note.) …

Soon after the settlement was established the burghers were

forbidden to trade with these people at all, and then

hostilities commenced. The Hottentots found that much, in the

way of land, had been taken from them and that nothing was to

be got. They … have not received, as Savages, a bad character.

They are said to have possessed fidelity, attachment, and

intelligence. … But the Hottentot, with all his virtues, was

driven into rebellion. There was some fighting, in which the

natives of course were beaten, and rewards were offered, so

much for a live Hottentot, and so much for a dead one. This

went on till, in 1672, it was found expedient to purchase land

from the natives. A contract was made in that year to prevent

future cavilling, as was then alleged, between the Governor

and one of the native princes, by which the district of the

Cape of Good Hope was ceded to the Dutch for a certain nominal

price. … But after a very early period—1684 —there was no

further buying of land. … The land was then annexed by

Europeans as convenience required. In all this the Dutch of

those days did very much as the English have done since. … The

Hottentot … is said to be nearly gone, and, being a yellow

man, to have lacked strength to endure European seductions.

But as to the Hottentot and his fate there are varied

opinions. I have been told by some that I have never seen a

pure Hottentot. Using my own eyes and my own idea of what a

Hottentot is, I should have said that the bulk of the

population of the Western Province of the Cape Colony is

Hottentot. The truth probably is that they have become so

mingled with other races as to have lost much of their

identity; but that the race has not perished, as have the

Indians of North America and the Maoris. … The last half of

the 17th and the whole of the 18th century saw the gradual

progress of the Dutch depôt,—a colony it could hardly be

called,—going on in the same slow determined way, and always

with the same purpose. It was no colony because those who

managed it at home in Holland, and they who at the Cape served

with admirable fidelity their Dutch masters, never entertained

an idea as to the colonization of the country. … In 1795 came

the English. In that year the French Republican troops had

taken possession of Holland [see FRANCE: A. D. 1795

(JUNE-DECEMBER)], and the Prince of Orange, after the manner

of dethroned potentates, took refuge in England. He_gave an

authority, which was dated from Kew, to the Governor of the

Cape to deliver up all and everything in his hands to the

English forces.

{2962}

On the arrival of the English fleet there was found to be, at

the same time, a colonist rebellion. … In this double

emergency the poor Dutch Governor, who does not seem to have

regarded the Prince's order as an authority, was sorely

puzzled. He fought a little, but only a little, and then the

English were in possession. … In 1797 Lord Macartney came out

as the first British Governor. Great Britain at this time took

possession of the Cape to prevent the French from doing so. No

doubt it was a most desirable possession, as being a half-way

house for us to India as it had been for the Dutch. But we

should not, at any rate then, have touched the place had it

not been that Holland, or rather the Dutch, were manifestly

unable to retain it. … Our rule over the Dutchmen was uneasy

and unprofitable. Something of rebellion seems to have been

going on during the whole time. … When at the peace of Amiens

in 1802 it was arranged that the Cape of Good Hope should be

restored to Holland [see FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802], English

Ministers of State did not probably grieve much at the loss. …

But the peace of Amiens was delusive, and there was soon war

between England and France. Then again Great Britain felt the

necessity of taking the Cape, and proceeded to do so on this

occasion without any semblance of Dutch authority. At that

time whatever belonged to Holland was almost certain to fall

in to the hands of France. In 1805 … Sir David Baird was sent

with half a dozen regiments to expel, not the Dutch, but the

Dutch Governor and the Dutch soldiers from the Cape. This he

did easily, having encountered some slender resistance; and

thus in 1806, on the 19th January, after a century and a half

of Dutch rule, the Cape of Good Hope became a British colony."

A. Trollope,

South Africa,

volume 1, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

W. Greswell,

Our South African Empire,

volume 1, chapters 1-4.

R. Russell,

Natal,

part 2, chapters 1-3.

Sir B. Frere,

Historical Sketch of South Africa

(Royal Historical Society Transactions N. S.,

volumes 2 and 4).

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

The English and the Dutch Boers.

The "Great Trek."

Successive Boer republics of Natal, Orange Free State,

and the Transvaal, absorbed in the British dominions.

The Boer War.

The early history of the Cape Colony, after it became a

dependency of the British Crown, "is a record of the struggles

of the settlers, both English and Dutch, against the despotic

system of government established by Lord Charles Somerset; of

Kaffir wars, in which the colonists were often hard put to it

to hold their own; and of the struggle for the liberty of the

Press, sustained with success by John Fairbairn, and Thomas

Pringle, the poet of South Africa, the Ovid of a self-chosen

exile. For a time the Dutch and English settlers lived in

peace and amity together, but the English efforts to alleviate

the condition of, and finally emancipate the slaves, severed

the two races. The Dutch settlers held the old Biblical

notions about slavery, and they resented fiercely the law of

1833 emancipating all slaves throughout the colony in 1834.

The Boers at once determined to 'trek,' to leave the colony

which was under the jurisdiction of the English law, and find

in the South African wilderness, where no human law prevailed,

food for their flocks, and the pastoral freedom of Jacob and

of Abraham. The Boers would live their own lives in their own

way. They had nothing in common with the Englishman, and they

wished for nothing in common. … They were a primitive people,

farming, hunting, reading the Bible, pious, sturdy, and

independent; and the colonial Government was by no means

willing to see them leaving the fields and farms that they had

colonised, in order to found fresh states outside the

boundaries of the newly acquired territory. But the Government

was powerless, it tried, and tried in vain, to prevent this

emigration. There was no law to prevent it. … So, with their

waggons, their horses, their cattle and sheep, their guns, and

their few household goods, the hardy Boers struck out into the

interior and to the north-east, in true patriarchal fashion

[the migration being known as the Great Trek], seeking their

promised land, and that 'desolate freedom of the wild ass'

which was dear to their hearts. They founded a colony at

Natal, fought and baptized the new colony in their own blood.

The Zulu chief, Dingaan, who sold them the territory, murdered

the Boer leader, Peter Retief, and his 79 followers as soon as

the deed was signed. This was the beginning of the Boer hatred

to the native races. The Boers fought with the Zulus

successfully enough, fought with the English who came upon

them less successfully. The Imperial Government decided that

it would not permit its subjects to establish any independent

Governments in any part of South Africa. In 1843, after no

slight struggle and bloodshed, the Dutch republic of Natal

ceased to be, and Natal became part of the British dominion.

Again the Boers, who were unwilling to remain under British

rule, 'trekked' northward; again a free Dutch state was

founded—the Orange Free State. Once again the English

Government persisted in regarding them as British subjects,

and as rebels if they refused to admit as much. Once again

there was strife and bloodshed, and in 1848 the Orange

settlement was placed under British authority, while the

leading Boers fled for their lives across the Vaal River, and,

obstinately independent, began to found the Transvaal

Republic. After six years, however, of British rule in the

Orange territory the Imperial Government decided to give it

back to the Boers, whose stubborn desire for self-government,

and unchanging dislike for foreign rule, made them practically

unmanageable as subjects. In April 1854 a convention was

entered into with the Boers of the Orange territory, by which

the Imperial Government guaranteed the future independence of

the Orange Free State. Across the Vaal River the Transvaal

Boers grew and flourished after their own fashion, fought the

natives, established their republic and their Volksraad. But

in 1877 the Transvaal republic, had been getting rather the

worst of it in some of these struggles, and certain of the

Transvaal Boers seem to have made suggestions to England that

she should take the Transvaal republic under her protection.

Sir Theophilus Shepstone was sent out to investigate the

situation. He seems to have entirely misunderstood the

condition of things, and to have taken the frightened desires

of a few Boers as the honest sentiments of the whole Boer

nation. In an evil hour he hoisted the English flag in the

Transvaal, and declared the little republic a portion of the

territory of the British Crown.

{2963}

As a matter of fact, the majority of the Boers were a fierce,

independent people, very jealous of their liberty, and without

the least desire to come under the rule, to escape which they

had wandered so far from the earliest settlements of their

race. … The Boers of the Transvaal sent deputation after

deputation to England to appeal, and appeal in vain, against

the annexation. Lord Carnarvon had set his whole heart upon a

scheme of South African confederation; his belief in the ease

with which this confederation might be accomplished was

carefully fostered by judiciously coloured official reports. …

Sir Bartle Frere, 'as a friend,' advised the Boers 'not to

believe one word' of any statements to the effect that the

English people would be willing to give up the Transvaal.

'Never believe,' he said, 'that the English people will do

anything of the kind.' 'When the chief civil and military

command of the eastern part of South Africa was given to Sir

Garnet Wolseley, Sir Garnet Wolseley was not less explicit in

his statements. … In spite of the announcements of Sir Bartle

Frere, Sir Garnet Wolseley, and Sir Owen Lanyon, the

disaffected Boers were not without more or less direct English

encouragement. The Boer deputations had found many friends in

England. … One of those who thus sympathised was Mr.

Gladstone. In his Midlothian speeches he denounced again and

again the Conservative policy which had led to the annexation

of the Transvaal. … While all the winds of the world were

carrying Mr. Gladstone's words to every corner of the earth,

it is not surprising that the Boers of the Transvaal … should

have caught at these encouraging sentences, and been cheered

by them, and animated by them to rise against the despotism

denounced by a former Prime Minister of England. … For some

time there seemed to be no reasonable chance of liberty, but

in the end of 1880 the Boers saw their opportunity. … There

were few troops in the Transvaal. The Boer hour had come. As

in most insurrections, the immediate cause of the rising was

slight enough. A Boer named Bezhuidenot was summoned by the

landdrost of Potchefstrom to pay a claim made by the Treasury

officials at Pretoria. Bezhuidenot resisted the claim, which

certainly appears to have been illegal. … The landdrost

attached a waggon of Bezhuidenot's, and announced that it

would be sold to meet the claim. On November 11 the waggon was

brought into the open square of Potchefstrom, and the sheriff

was about to begin the sale, when a number of armed Boers

pulled him off and carried the waggon away in triumph. They

were unopposed, as there was no force in the town to resist

them. The incident, trifling in itself, of Bezhuidenot's cart,

was the match which fired the long-prepared train. Sir Owen

Lanyon sent some troops to Potchefstrom; a wholly unsuccessful

attempt was made to arrest the ringleaders of the Bezhuidenot

affair; it was obvious that a collision was close at hand. …

On Monday, December 13, 1880, almost exactly a month after the

affair of Bezhuidenot's waggon, a mass meeting of Boers at

Heidelberg proclaimed the Transvaal once again a republic,

established a triumvirate Government, and prepared to defend

their republic in arms. … The news of the insurrections

aroused the Cape Government to a sense of the seriousness of

the situation. Movements of British troops were at once made

to put the insurgents down with all speed. It is still an

unsettled point on which side the first shot was fired. There

were some shots exchanged at Potchefstrom on December 15. …

Previously to this the 94th regiment had marched from

Leydenberg to reinforce Pretoria on December 5, and had

reached Middleburgh about a week later. On the way came

rumours of the Boer rising. … Colonel Anstruther seems to have

felt convinced that the force he had with him was quite strong

enough to render a good account of any rebels who might

attempt to intercept its march. The whole strength of his

force, however, officers included, did not amount to quite 250

men. The troops crossed the Oliphants River, left it two days'

march behind them, and on the morning of the 20th were

marching quietly along with their long line of waggons and

their band playing 'God save the Queen' under the bright glare

of the sun. Suddenly, on the rising ground near the Bronkhorst

Spruit a body of armed Boers appeared. A man galloped out from

among them—Paul de Beer—with a flag of truce. Colonel

Anstruther rode out to meet him, and received a sealed

despatch warning the colonel that the British advance would be

considered as a declaration of war. Colonel Anstruther replied

simply that he was ordered to go to Pretoria, and that he

should do so. Each man galloped back to his own force, and

firing began. In ten minutes the fight, if fight it can be

called, was over. The Boers were unrivalled sharp-shooters,

had marked out every officer; every shot was aimed, and every

shot told. The Boers were well covered by trees on rising

ground; the English were beneath them, had no cover at all,

and were completely at their mercy. In ten minutes all the

officers had fallen, some forty men were killed, and nearly

double the number wounded. Colonel Anstruther, who was himself

badly wounded, saw that he must either surrender or have all

his men shot down, and he surrendered. … Colonel Anstruther,

who afterwards died of his wounds, bore high tribute in his

despatch to the kindness and humanity of the Boers when once

the fight was done. … Sir George Colley struggled bravely for

a while to make head against the Boers. At Lang's Nek and

Ingago he did his best, and the men under him fought

gallantly, but the superior positions and marksmanship of the

Boers gave them the advantage in both fights. Under their

murderous fire the officers and men fell helplessly. Officer

after officer of a regiment would be shot down by the unerring

aim of the Boers while trying to rally his men, while the

British fire did comparatively slight damage, and the troops

seldom came to sufficiently close quarters to use the bayonet.

But the most fatal battle of the campaign was yet to come. Sir

Evelyn Wood had arrived at the Cape with reinforcements, had

met Sir George Colley, and had gone to Pietermaritzburg to

await the coming of further reinforcements. On Saturday night,

February 26, Sir George Colley with a small force moved out of

the camp at Mount Prospect, and occupied the Majuba Hill,

which overlooked the Boer camps on the flat beyond Lang's Nek.

Early next morning the Boers attacked the hill; there was some

desultory firing for a while, under cover of which three Boer

storming parties ascended the hill almost unseen.

{2964}

The British were outflanked and surrounded, a deadly fire was

poured in upon them from all sides. The slaughter was

excessive. As usual the officers were soon shot down. Sir

George Colley, who was directing the movements as coolly as if

at review, was killed just as he was giving orders to cease

firing. The British broke and fled, fired upon as they fled by

the sharpshooters. Some escaped; a large number were taken

prisoners. So disastrous a defeat had seldom fallen upon

British arms. The recent memory of Maiwand was quite

obliterated. That was the last episode of the war. General

Wood agreed to a temporary armistice. There had been

negotiations going on between the Boers and the British before

the Majuba Hill defeat, which need never have occurred if

there had not been a delay in a reply of Kruger's to a letter

of Sir George Colley's. The negotiations were now resumed, and

concluded in the establishment of peace, on what may be called

a Boer basis. The republic of the Transvaal was to be

re-established, with a British protectorate and a British

Resident indeed, but practically granting the Boers the

self-government for which they took up arms."

J. H. McCarthy,

England under Gladstone,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

J. Nixon,

Complete Story of the Transvaal.

T. F. Carter,

Narrative of the Boer War.

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1811-1868.

The Kafir wars.

British absorption of Kafraria.

"In 1811 the first Kafir war was brought on by the

depredations of those warlike natives on the Boers of the

eastern frontier; a war to the knife ensued, the Kafirs were

driven to the other side of the Great Fish River, and military

posts were formed along the border. A second war, however,

broke out in 1818, when the Kafirs invading the colony drove

the farmers completely out of the country west of the Great

Fish River, penetrating as far as Uitenhage. But the Kafirs

could not stand against the guns of the colonists, and the

second war terminated in the advance of an overwhelming force

into Kafirland, and the annexation of a large slice of

territory, east of the Great Fish River, to the colony. … For

a third time, in 1835, a horde of about 10,000 fighting men of

the Kafirs spread fire and slaughter and pillage over the

eastern districts, a war which led, as the previous ones had

done, to a more extended invasion of Kafraria by the British

troops, and the subjugation of the tribes east of the Kei

river. … A fourth great Kafir war in 1846, provoked by the

daring raids of these hostile tribes and their bold invasions

of the colony was also followed up by farther encroachments on

Kafir territory, and in 1847 a proclamation was issued

extending the frontier to the Orange river on the north and to

the Keiskamma river in the east, British sovereignty being

then also declared over the territory extending from the

latter river eastward to the Kei, though this space was at

first reserved for occupation by the Kafirs and named British

Kafraria. But peace was restored only for a brief time; in

1857 a fresh Kafir rebellion had broken out, and for two years

subsequently a sort of guerilla warfare was maintained along

the eastern frontier, involving great losses of life and

destruction of property. In 1863 this last Kafir war was

brought to a conclusion, and British Kafraria was placed under

the rule of European functionaries and incorporated with the

colony. In 1868 the Basutos [or Eastern Bechuanas], who occupy

the territory about the head of the Orange river, between its

tributary the Caledon and the summits of the Drakenberg range,

and who had lived under a semi-protectorate of the British

since 1848, were proclaimed British subjects. … Subsequently

large portions of formerly independent Kafraria between the

Kei river and the southern border of Natal have passed under

the government of the Cape."

Hellwald-Johnston,

Africa

(Stanford's Compendium),

chapter 23.

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1867-1871.

Discovery of Diamonds.

Annexation of Griqualand west to Cape Colony.

See GRIQUAS.

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.

The Zulu War.

"At this time [1877] besides the three English Colonies of

Cape Town, Natal, and the lately formed Griqualand, there were

two independent Dutch Republics,—the Orange Free State, and

the Transvaal. Much of the white population even of the

English Provinces was Dutch, and a still larger proportion

consisted of reclaimed or half-reclaimed natives. Thus … there

lay behind all disputes the question which invariably attends

frontier settlements—the treatment of the native population.

This difficulty had become prominent in the year 1873 and

1874, when the fear of treachery on the part of a chief of the

name of Langalibalele located in Natal had driven the European

inhabitants to unjustifiable violence. The tribe over which

the chief had ruled had been scattered and driven from its

territory, the chief himself brought to trial, and on most

insufficient evidence sentenced to transportation. It was the

persuasion that he was intriguing with external tribes which

had excited the unreasoning fear of the colonists. For beyond

the frontier there lay the Zulus, a remarkable nation,

organised entirely upon a military system, and forming a great

standing army under the despotic rule of their King Cetchwayo.

Along the frontier of Natal the English preserved friendly

relations with this threatening chief. But the Dutch Boers of

the Transvaal, harsh and arbitrary in their treatment of

natives, had already involved themselves in a war with a

neighbouring potentate of the name of Secocoeni, and had got

into disputes with Cetchwayo, which threatened to bring upon

the European Colonies an indiscriminate assault." Lord

Carnarvon thought it practicable to cure the troubles in South

Africa by a confederation of the colonies. "The difficulty of

the situation was so obvious to the Colonial Minister that he

had chosen as High Commissioner a man whose experience and

energy he could thoroughly trust. Unfortunately in Sir Bartle

Frere he had selected a man not only of great ability, but one

who carried self-reliance and imperialist views to an extreme.

… The danger caused by the reckless conduct of the Boers upon

the frontier, and their proved incapacity to resist their

native enemies, had made it a matter of the last importance

that they should join the proposed Confederation, and thus be

at once restrained and assisted by the central power. Sir

Theophilus Shepstone had been charged with the duty of

bringing the Transvaal Republic to consent to an arrangement

of this sort. … Unable to persuade the Boers to accept his

suggestions for an amicable arrangement, he proceeded, in

virtue of powers intrusted to him, to declare the Republic

annexed, and to take over the government. This high-handed act

brought with it, as some of its critics in the House of

Commons had prophesied, disastrous difficulties.

{2965}

Not only were the Boers themselves almost as a matter of

course disaffected, but they handed over to the Imperial

Government all their difficulties and hostilities. They were

involved in disputes with both their barbarous neighbours. …

In 1875 they had made demands upon Cetchwayo, the most

important of which was a rectification of frontier largely in

their own favour. … Commissioners were appointed in 1878 to

inquire into the rights of the case. … The Commissioners

arrived at a unanimous decision against the Dutch claims. …

But before the Treaty could be carried out it required

ratification from the High Commissioner, and it came back from

his hands clogged with formidable conditions. … While … he

accepted the boundary report, he determined to make it an

opportunity for the destruction of Cetchwayo's power. In

December a Special Commission was despatched to meet the Zulu

Envoys to explain the award, but at the same time to demand

corresponding guarantees from the King. When these were

unfolded they appeared to be the abolition of his military

system and the substitution of a system of tribal regiments

approved by the British Government, the acceptance of a

British Resident by whose advice he was to act, the protection

of missionaries, and the payment of certain fines for

irregularities committed by his subjects. These claims were

thrown into the form of an ultimatum, and Cetchwayo was given

thirty days to decide. … It was to be submission or war. It

proved to be war. Sir Bartle Frere had already prepared for

this contingency; he had detained in South Africa the troops

which should have returned to England, and had applied to the

Home Government for more. … Lord Chelmsford was appointed to

the command of the troops upon the frontier, and on the 12th,

the very day on which the time allowed for the acceptance of

the ultimatum expired, the frontier was crossed. The invasion

was directed towards Ulundi, the Zulu capital. … The first

step across the frontier produced a terrible disaster. The

troops under the immediate command of Lord Chelmsford encamped

at Isandlana without any of the ordinary precautions, and in a

bad position. … In this unprotected situation Lord Chelmsford,

while himself advancing to reconnoitre, left two battalions of

the 24th with some native allies under Colonel Pulleine, who

were subsequently joined by a body of 3,000 natives and a few

Europeans under Colonel Durnford. The forces left in the camp

were suddenly assaulted by the Zulus in overwhelming numbers

and entirely destroyed [January 22, 1879]. It was only the

magnificent defence by Chard and Bromhead of the post and

hospital at Rorke's Drift which prevented the victorious

savages from pouring into Natal. Lord Chelmsford on returning

from his advance hurried from the fearful scene of slaughter

back to the frontier. For the moment all was panic; an

immediate irruption of the enemy was expected. But when it was

found that Colonel Wood to the west could hold his own though

only with much rough fighting, and that Colonel Pearson,

towards the mouth of the river, after a successful battle had

occupied and held Ekowe, confidence was re-established. But

the troops in Ekowe were cut off from all communication except

by means of heliographic signals, and the interest of the war

was for a while centred upon the beleaguered garrison. With

extreme caution, in spite of the clamorous criticism levelled

against him, Lord Chelmsford refused to move to its rescue

till fully reinforced. Towards the end of March however it was

known that the provisions were running low, and on the 29th an

army of 6,000 men again crossed the frontier. On this occasion

there was no lack of precaution. … As they approached the

fortress, they were assaulted at Gingilovo, their strong

formation proved efficient against the wild bravery of their

assailants, a complete victory was won, and the garrison at

Ekowe rescued. A day or two earlier an even more reckless

assault upon Colonel Wood's camp at Kambula was encountered

with the same success. But for the re-establishment of the

English prestige it was thought necessary to undertake a fresh

invasion of the country. … Several attempts at peace had been

made on the part of the Zulus. But their ambassadors were

never, in the opinion of the English generals, sufficiently

accredited to allow negotiations to be opened. Yet it would

appear that Cetchwayo was really desirous of peace, according

to his own account even the assault at Isandlana was an

accident, and the two last great battles were the result of

local efforts. At length in July properly authorised envoys

came to the camp. Terms of submission were dictated to them,

but as they were not at once accepted a final battle was

fought resulting completely in favour of the English, who then

occupied and burnt Ulundi, the Zulu capital. … Sir Garnet

Wolseley was … again sent out with full powers to effect a

settlement. His first business was to capture the King. When

this was done he proceeded to divide Zululand into thirteen

districts, each under a separate chief; the military system

was destroyed; the people were disarmed and no importation of

arms allowed; a Resident was to decide disputes in which

British subjects were involved. The reception of missionaries

against the will of the people was not however insisted on."

J. F. Bright,

History of England,

period 4, pages 545-550.

ALSO IN:

F. E. Colenso and E. Durnford,

History of the Zulu War.

A. Wilmot,

History of the Zulu War.

C. J. Norris-Newman,

In Zululand with the British.

C. Vijn,

Cetswayo's Dutchman.

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893.

British acquisition of Matabeleland or Zambesia.

Dominion of the British South Africa Company.

War with King Lobengula.

"The Boers, ever on the lookout for new lands into which to

trek, had long ago fixed their eyes on the country north of

the Limpopo, known generally as Matabeleland, ruled over by

Lobengula, the son of the chief of the Matabeles. … The

reports of Mauch, Baines, and others, of the rich gold mines

contained in this territory, were well known. … Other

travellers and sportsmen, Mohr, Oates, Selous, gave the most

favourable accounts not only of the gold of the country, but

of the suitability of a large portion of the high plateau

known as Mashonaland for European settlement and agricultural

operations. When Sir Charles Warren was in Bechuanaland in

1885, several of his officers made journeys to Matabeleland,

and their reports all tended to show the desirability of

taking possession of that country; indeed Sir Charles was

assured that Lobengula would welcome a British alliance as a

protection against the Boers, of whose designs he was

afraid. …

{2966}

As a result of Sir Charles Warren's mission to Bechuanaland,

and of the reports furnished by the agents he sent into

Matabeleland, the attention of adventurers and prospectors was

more and more drawn towards the latter country. The Portuguese

… had been electrified into activity by the events of the past

two years. That the attention of the British Government was

directed to Matabeleland even in 1887 is evident from a

protest in August of that year, on the part of Lord Salisbury,

against an official Portuguese map claiming a section of that

country as within the Portuguese sphere. Lord Salisbury then

clearly stated that no pretensions of Portugal to Matabeleland

could be recognised, and that the Zambesi should be regarded

as the natural northern limit of British South Africa. The

British Prime Minister reminded the Portuguese Government that

according to the Berlin Act no claim to territory in Central

Africa could be recognised that was not supported by effective

occupation. The Portuguese Government maintained (it must be

admitted with justice) that this applied only to the coast,

but Lord Salisbury stood firmly to his position. … Germans,

Boers, Portuguese, were all ready to lay their hands on the

country claimed by Lobengula. England stepped in and took it

out of their hands; and at the worst she can only be accused

of obeying the law of the universe, 'Might is Right.' By the

end of 1887 the attempts of the Transvaal Boers to obtain a

hold over Matabeleland had reached a crisis. It became evident

that no time was to be lost if England was to secure the

Zambesi as the northern limit of extension of her South

African possessions. Lobengula himself was harassed and

anxious as to the designs of the Boers on the one hand, and

the doings of the Portuguese on the north of his territory on

the other. In the Rev. J. Smith Moffat, Assistant Commissioner

in Bechuanaland, England had a trusty agent who had formerly

been a missionary for many years in Matabeleland, and had

great influence with Lobengula. Under the circumstances, it

does not seem to have been difficult for Mr. Moffat to

persuade the King to put an end to his troubles by placing

himself under the protection of Great Britain. On 21st March

1888, Sir Hercules Robinson, Governor of Cape Colony, and Her

Majesty's High Commissioner for South Africa, was able to

inform the Home Government that on the previous 11th February

Lobengula had appended his mark to a brief document which

secured to England supremacy in Matabeleland over all her

rivals. … The publication of the treaty was, as might be

expected, followed by reclamations both on the part of the

Transvaal and of Portugal. Before the British hold was firmly

established over the country attempts were made by large

parties of Boers to trek into Matabeleland. … Individual Boers

as well, it must be said, as individual Englishmen at the

kraal of Lobengula, attempted to poison the mind of the latter

against the British. But the King remained throughout faithful

to his engagements. Indeed, it was not Lobengula himself who

gave any cause for anxiety during the initial stage of the

English occupation. He is, no doubt, a powerful chief, but

even he is obliged to defer to the wishes of his 'indunas' and

his army. … Lobengula himself kept a firm hand over his

warriors, but even he was at times apprehensive that they

might burst beyond all control. Happily this trying initial

period passed without disaster. … No sooner was the treaty

signed than Lobengula was besieged for concessions of land,

the main object of which was to obtain the gold with which the

country was said to abound, especially in the east, in

Mashonaland." The principal competitors for what was looked

upon as the great prize were two syndicates of capitalists,

which finally became amalgamated, in 1889, under the skilful

diplomacy of Mr. Cecil J. Rhodes, forming the great British

South Africa Company, about which much has been heard in

recent years. "The principal field of the operations of the

British South Africa Company was defined in the charter to 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.' The Company was also empowered to acquire any

further concessions, if approved of by 'Our Secretary of

State.' … The Company was empowered to act as the

representative of the Imperial Government, without, however,

obtaining any assistance from the Government to bear the

expense of the administration. … The capital of the Company

was a million sterling. It is not easy to define the relations

of the Chartered Company to the various other companies which

had mining interests in the country. In itself it was not a

consolidation of the interests of those companies. Its

functions were to administer the country and to work the

concessions on behalf of the Concessionaires, in return for

which it was to retain fifty per cent. of the profits. … When

the British South African Company was prepared to enter into

active occupation of the territories which they were

authorised to exploit, they had on the one hand the impis of

Lobengula eager to wash their spears in white blood; on the

south the Boers of the Transvaal, embittered at being

prevented from trekking to the north of the Limpopo, and on

the east and on the north-east the Portuguese trying to raise

a wall of claims and historical pretensions against the tide

of English energy. … An agreement was concluded between

England and Portugal in August 1890, by which the eastern

limits of the South Africa Company's claims were fixed, and

the course of the unknown Sabi River, from north to south, was

taken as a boundary. But this did not satisfy either Portugal

or the Company, and the treaty was never ratified. … A new

agreement [was] signed on the 11th June 1891, under which

Portugal can hardly be said to have fared so well as she would

have done under the one repudiated by the Cortes in the

previous year. The boundary between the British Company's

territories was drawn farther east than in the previous

treaty. The line starting from the Zambesi near Zumbo runs in

a general south-east direction to a point where the Mazoe

River is cut by the 33rd degree of east longitude. The

boundary then runs in a generally south direction to the

junction of the Lunde and the Sabi, where it strikes

south-west to the north-east corner of the South African

Republic, on the Limpopo. In tracing the frontier along the

slope of the plateau, the Portuguese sphere was not allowed to

come farther west than 32° 30' East of Greenwich, nor the

British sphere east of 33° East. A slight deflection westwards

was made so as to include Massi Kessi in the Portuguese

sphere. … According to the terms of the arrangement, the

navigation of the Zambesi and the Shiré was declared free to

all nations."

J S. Keltie,

The Partition of Africa,

chapter 18.

{2967}

By the spring of 1893 the British South Africa Company had

fairly laid hands upon its great dominion of Zambesia.

Matabele was swarming with searchers for gold; a railroad from

the port of Beira, through Portuguese territory, was in

progress: a town at Fort Salisbury was rising. Lobengula, the

Matabele king, repented speedily of his treaty and repudiated

the construction put on it by the English. Quarrels arose over

the Mashonas, whom the Matabeles held in slavery and whom the

new lords of the country protected. Both parties showed

impatience for war, and it was not long in breaking out. The

first shots were exchanged early in October; before the end of

the year the British were complete masters of the country, and

Lobengula had fled from his lost kingdom, to die, it is said,

during the flight. There were two pitched battles, in which

the natives suffered terribly. They obtained revenge in one

instance, only, by cutting off a party of thirty men, not one

of whom survived.

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

SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY, The British.

See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891,

and SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

----------SOUTH CAROLINA: Start--------

SOUTH CAROLINA: The aboriginal in:habitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,

CHEROKEES, MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY,

SHAWANESE, TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1520.

The coast explored by Vasquez de Ayllon and called Chicora.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1562-1563.

The short-lived Huguenot colony on Broad River.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1629.

Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

The grant to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury, and others.

The first settlement.

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

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

Locke's Constitution and its failure.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1670-1696.

The founding of Charleston.

The growth of the Colony.

The expedition of Captain Sayle in 1670 (see NORTH CAROLINA:

A. D. 1663-1670) resulted in a settlement, made in 1671, which

is historically referred to as that of "Old Charleston." This

continued to be for some years the capital of the southern

colony: "but, as the commerce of the colony increased, the

disadvantages of the position were discovered. It could not be

approached by large vessels at low water. In 1680, by a formal

command of the proprietors, a second removal took place, the

government literally following the people, who had in numbers

anticipated the legislative action: and the seat of government

was transferred to a neck of land called Oyster Point,

admirably conceived for the purposes of commerce, at the

confluence of two spacious and deep rivers, the Kiawah and

Etiwan, which, in compliment to Lord Shaftesbury, had already

been called after him, Ashley and Cooper. Here the foundation

was laid of the present city of Charleston. In that year 30

houses were built, though this number could have met the wants

of but a small portion of the colony. The heads of families at

the Port Royal settlement alone, whose names are preserved to

us, are 48 in number: those brought from Clarendon by Yeamans

could not have been less numerous: and the additions which

they must have had from the mother-country, during the seven

or eight years of their stay at the Ashley river settlement,

were likely to have been very considerable. Roundheads and

cavaliers alike sought refuge in Carolina, which, for a long

time, remained a pet province of the proprietors. Liberty of

conscience, which the charter professed to guaranty,

encouraged emigration. The hopes of avarice, the rigor of

creditors, the fear of punishment and persecution, were equal

incentives to the settlement of this favored but foreign

region. … In 1674, when Nova Belgia, now New York, was

conquered by the English, a number of the Dutch from that

place sought refuge in Carolina. … Two vessels filled with

foreign, perhaps French, Protestants, were transported to

Carolina, at the expense of Charles II., in 1679; and the

revocation of the edict of Nantz, a few years afterwards, …

contributed still more largely to the infant settlement, and

provided Carolina with some of the best portions of her

growing population. … In 1696, a colony of Congregationalists,

from Dorchester in Massachusetts, ascended the Ashley river

nearly to its head, and there founded a town, to which they

gave the name of that which they had left. Dorchester became a

town of some importance. … It is now deserted; the habitations

and inhabitants have alike vanished; but the reverend spire,

rising through the forest trees which surround it, still

attests (1840) the place of their worship, and where so many

of them yet repose. Various other countries and causes

contributed to the growth and population of the new

settlement."

W. G. Simms,

History of South Carolina,

book 2, chapter 1.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.

Spanish attack from Florida.

Indian and Negro Slavery.

"About 1680 a few leading Scotch Presbyterians planned the

establishment of a refuge for their persecuted brethren within

the bounds of Carolina. The plan shrunk to smaller dimensions

than those originally contemplated. Finally Lord Cardross,

with a colony of ten Scotch families, settled on the vacant

territory of Port Royal. The fate of the settlement

foreshadowed the miseries of Darien. It suffered alike from

the climate and from the jealousy of the English settlers. …

For nearly ten years the dread of a Spanish attack had hung

over South Carolina. … In 1680 the threatened storm broke upon

the colony. Three galleys landed an invading force at Edisto,

where the Governor and secretary had private houses, plundered

them of money, plate, and slaves, and killed the Governor's

brother-in-law. They then fell upon the Scotch settlement,

which had now shrunk to 25 men, and swept it clean out of

existence. The colonists did not sit down tamely under their

injuries. They raised a force of 400 men and were on the point

of making a retaliatory attack when they were checked by an

order from the Proprietors. …

{2968}

The Proprietors may have felt … that, although the immediate

attack was unprovoked, the colonists were not wholly blameless

in the matter. The Spaniards had suffered from the ravages of

pirates who were believed to be befriended by the inhabitants

of Charlestown. In another way too the settlers had placed a

weapon in the hands of their enemies. The Spaniards were but

little to be dreaded, unless strengthened by an Indian

alliance. … But from the first settlement of Carolina the

colony was tainted with a vice which imperilled its relations

with the Indians. Barbadoes … had a large share in the

original settlement of Carolina. In that colony negro slavery

was already firmly established as the one system of industry.

At the time when Yeamans and his followers set sail for the

shores of Carolina, Barbadoes had probably two negroes for

everyone white inhabitant. The soil and climate of the new

territory did everything to confirm the practice of slavery,

and South Carolina was from the outset what she ever after

remained, the peculiar home of that evil usage. To the West

India planter every man of dark colour seemed a natural and

proper object of traffic. The settler in Carolina soon learnt

the same view. In Virginia and Maryland there are but few

traces of any attempt to enslave the Indians. In Carolina …

the Indian was kidnapped and sold, sometimes to work on what

had once been his own soil, sometimes to end his days as an

exile and bondsman in the West Indies. As late as 1708 the

native population furnished a quarter of the whole body of

slaves. It would be unfair to attribute all the hostilities

between the Indians and the colonists to this one source, but

it is clear that it was an import:mt factor. From their very

earliest days the settlers were involved in troubles with

their savage neighbours."

J. A. Doyle,

The English in America: Virginia, Maryland,

and the Carolinas,

chapter 12.

"Of the original thirteen states, South Carolina alone was

from its origin essentially a planting state with slave labor.

… The proprietaries tempted emigrants by the offer of land at

an easy quit-rent, and 150 acres were granted for every able

man-servant. 'In that they meant negroes as well as

Christians.' … It became the great object of the emigrant 'to

buy negro slaves, without which,' adds Wilson, 'a planter can

never do any great matter'; and the negro race was multiplied

so rapidly by importations that, in a few years, we are told,

the blacks in the low country were to the whites in the

proportion of 22 to 12."

G. Bancroft,

History of the United States

(Author's last revision),

part 2, chapter 8 (volume 1).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1696.

Beginning of distinctions between the two Carolinas,

North and South.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706.

Prosperity of the colony.

Attack on St. Augustine.

French attack on Charleston.

"At the opening of the new century, we must cease to look upon

South Carolina as the home of indigent emigrants, struggling

for subsistence. While numerous slaves cultivated the

extensive plantations, their owners, educated gentlemen, and

here and there of noble families in England, had abundant

leisure for social intercourse, living as they did in

proximity to each other, and in easy access to Charles Town,

where the Governor resided, the courts and legislature

convened, and the public offices were kept. … Hospitality,

refinement, and literary culture distinguished the higher

class of gentlemen." But party strife at this period raged

bitterly, growing mainly out of an attempt to establish the

Church of England in the colony. Governor Moore, who had

gained power on this issue, sought to strengthen his position

by an attack on St. Augustine. "The assembly joined in the

scheme. They requested him to go as commander, instead of

Colonel Daniel, whom he nominated. They voted £2,000; and

thought ten vessels and 350 men, with Indian allies, would be

a sufficient force. … Moore with about 400 men sets sail, and

Daniel with 100 Carolina troops and about 500 Yemassee Indians

march by land. But the inhabitants of St. Augustine had heard

of their coming, and had sent to Havana for reinforcements.

Retreating to their castle, they abandoned their town to

Colonel Daniel, who pillaged it before Moore's fleet arrived.

Governor Moore and Colonel Daniel united their forces and laid

siege to the castle; but they lacked the necessary artillery

for its reduction, and were compelled to send to Jamaica for

it." Before the artillery arrived, "two Spanish ships appeared

off St. Augustine. Moore instantly burned the town and all his

own ships and hastened back by land. … The expense entailed on

the colony was £6,000. When this attack on St. Augustine was

planned, it must have been anticipated in the colony that war

would be declared against Spain and France." Four years later,

the War of the Spanish Succession being then in progress, a

French fleet appeared (August, 1706) in the harbor of

Charleston and demanded the surrender of the town. Although

yellow fever was raging at the time, the governor, Sir

Nathaniel Johnson, organized so effective a resistance that

the invaders were driven off with considerable loss.

W. J. Rivers,

The Carolinas (Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 5, chapter 5).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1740.

War with the Spaniards of Florida.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

The Cherokee War.

"The Cherokees, who had accompanied Forbes in his expedition

against Fort Du Quesne [see CANADA: A. D. 1758], returning

home along the mountains, had involved themselves in quarrels

with the back settlers of Virginia and the Carolinas, in which

several, both Indians and white men, had been killed. Some

chiefs, who had proceeded to Charleston to arrange this

dispute, were received by Governor Littleton in very haughty

style, and he presently marched into the Cherokee country at

the head of 1,500 men, contributed by Virginia and the

Carolinas, demanding the surrender of the murderers of the

English. He was soon glad, however, of any apology for

retiring. His troops proved very insubordinate; the small-pox

broke out among them; and, having accepted 22 Indian hostages

as security for peace and the future delivery of the

murderers, he broke up his camp, and fell back in haste and

confusion. … No sooner was Littleton's army gone, than the

Cherokees attempted to entrap into their power the commander

of [Fort Prince George, at the head of the Savannah], and,

apprehensive of some plan for the rescue of the hostages, he

gave orders to put them in irons. They resisted; and a soldier

having been wounded in the struggle, his infuriated companions

fell upon the prisoners and put them all to death.

{2969}

Indignant at this outrage, the Cherokees beleaguered the fort,

and sent out war parties in every direction to attack the

frontiers. The Assembly of South Carolina, in great alarm,

voted 1,000 men, and offered a premium of £25 for every Indian

scalp. North Carolina offered a similar premium, and

authorized, in addition, the holding of Indian captives as

slaves. An express, asking assistance, was sent to General

Amherst, who detached 1,200 men, under Colonel Montgomery,

chiefly Scotch Highlanders, lately stationed on the western

frontier, with orders to make a dash at the Cherokees, but to

return in season for the next campaign against Canada. …

Joining his forces with the provincial levies, Montgomery

entered the Cherokee country, raised the blockade of Fort

Prince George, and ravaged the neighboring district. Marching

then upon Etchoe, the chief village of the Middle Cherokees,

within five miles of that place he encountered [June, 1760] a

large body of Indians, strongly posted in a difficult defile,

from which they were only driven after a very severe struggle;

or, according to other accounts, "Montgomery was himself

repulsed. At all events, he retired to Charleston, and, in

obedience to his orders, prepared to embark for service at the

north. When this determination became known, the province was

thrown into the utmost consternation. The Assembly declared

themselves unable to raise men to protect the frontiers; and a

detachment of 400 regulars was presently conceded" to the

solicitations of lieutenant governor Bull, to whom the

administration of South Carolina had lately been resigned.

Before the year closed, the conquest of the French dominions

in America east of the Mississippi had been practically

finished and the French and Indian War at the north was

closed. But, "while the northern colonies exulted in safety,

the Cherokee war still kept the frontiers of Carolina in

alarm. Left to themselves by the withdrawal of Montgomery, the

Upper Cherokees had beleaguered Fort Loudon. After living for

some time on horse-flesh, the garrison, under a promise of

safe-conduct to the settlements, had been induced to

surrender. But this promise was broken; attacked on the way, a

part were killed, and the rest detained as prisoners; after

which, the Indians directed all their fury against the

frontiers. On a new application presently made to Amherst for

assistance, the Highland regiment, now commanded by Grant, was

ordered back to Carolina. New levies were also made in the

province, and Grant presently marched into the Cherokee

country [June, 1761] with 2,600 men. In a second battle, near

the same spot with the fight of the previous year, the Indians

were driven back with loss. … The Indians took refuge in the

defiles of the mountains, and, subdued and humbled, sued for

peace. As the condition on which alone it would be granted,

they were required to deliver up four warriors to be shot at

the head of the army, or to furnish four green Indian scalps

within twenty days. A personal application to Governor Bull,

by an old chief long known for his attachment to the English,

procured a relinquishment of this brutal demand, and peace was

presently made."

R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

chapter 27 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

D. Ramsay,

History of South Carolina,

volume 1, chapter 5, section 2.

S. G. Drake,

Aboriginal Races of North America,

book 4, chapter 4.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1760-1766.

The question of taxation by Parliament.

The Stamp Act.

The first Continental Congress.

The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1774.

Opening events of the Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1766-1767, to 1774;

and BOSTON: 1768, to 1773.

SOUTH CAROLINA: 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.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.

Rapid progress of Revolution.

Flight of the Royal Governor.

In January, 1775, a provincial convention for South Carolina

was called together at Charleston, under the presidency of

Charles Pinckney. It appointed delegates to the second

Continental Congress, and took measures to enforce the

non-importation agreements in which the colony had joined. At

a second session, in June, this convention or Provincial

Congress of South Carolina "appointed a Committee of Safety,

issued $600,000, of paper money, and voted to raise two

regiments, of which Gadsden and Moultrie were chosen colonels.

Lieutenant-governor Bull was utterly powerless to prevent or

interrupt these proceedings. While the Convention was still in

session, Lord William Campbell, who had acquired by marriage

large possessions in the province, arrived at Charleston with

a commission as governor. Received with courtesy, he presently

summoned an Assembly; but that body declined to proceed to

business, and soon adjourned on its own authority. The

Committee of Safety pursued with energy measures for putting

the province in a state of defense. A good deal of resistance

was made to the Association [for commercial non-intercourse],

especially in the back counties. Persuasion failing, force was

used. … A vessel was fitted out by the Committee of Safety,

which seized an English powder ship off St. Augustine and

brought her into Charleston. Moultrie was presently sent to

take possession of the fort in Charleston harbor. No

resistance was made. The small garrison, in expectation of the

visit, had already [September] retired on board the ships of

war in the harbor. Lord Campbell, the governor, accused of

secret negotiations with the Cherokees and the disaffected in

the back counties, was soon obliged to seek the same shelter.

A regiment of artillery was voted; and measures were taken for

fortifying the harbor, from which the British ships were soon

expelled."

R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

chapters 30-31 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

D. Ramsay,

History of South Carolina,

volume 1, chapter 7, section 1.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (February-April).

Allegiance to King George renounced, independence

assumed, and a state constitution adopted.

"On the 8th of February 1776, the convention of South

Carolina, by Drayton their president, presented their thanks

to John Rutledge and Henry Middleton for their services in the

American congress, which had made its appeal to the King of

kings, established a navy, treasury, and general post-office,

exercised control over commerce, and granted to colonies

permission to create civil institutions, independent of the

regal authority.

{2970}

The next day arrived Gadsden, the highest officer in the army

of the province, and he in like manner received the welcome of

public gratitude. … When, on the 10th, the report on reforming

the provincial government was considered and many hesitated,

Gadsden spoke out for the absolute independence of America.

The majority had thus far refused to contemplate the end

toward which they were irresistibly impelled. … But the

criminal laws could not be enforced for want of officers;

public and private affairs were running into confusion; the

imminent danger of invasion was proved by intercepted letters,

so that necessity compelled the adoption of some adequate

system of rule. While a committee of eleven was preparing the

organic law, Gadsden, on the 13th, began to act as senior

officer of the army. Companies of militia were called down to

Charleston, and the military forces augmented by two regiments

of riflemen. In the early part of the year Sullivan's Island

was a wilderness, thickly covered with myrtle, live-oak, and

palmettos; there, on the 2d of March, William Moultrie was

ordered to complete a fort large enough to hold 1,000 men.

Within five days after the convention received the act of

parliament of the preceding December which authorized the

capture of American vessels and property, they gave up the

hope of reconciliation; and, on the 26th of March 1776,

asserting 'the good of the people to be the origin and end of

all government,' and enumerating the unwarrantable acts of the

British parliament, the implacability of the king, and the

violence of his officers, they established a constitution for

South Carolina. … On the 27th, John Rutledge was chosen

president, Henry Laurens vice-president, and William Henry

Drayton chief justice. … On the 23d of April the court was

opened at Charleston, and the chief justice after an elaborate

exposition charged the grand jury in these words: 'The law of

the land authorizes me to declare, and it is my duty to

declare the law, that George III., king of Great Britain, has

abdicated the government, that he has no authority over us,

and we owe no obedience to him.'"

G. Bancroft,

History of the United States (Author's last revision),

epoch 3, chapter 25 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

W. G. Simms,

History of South Carolina,

book 4, chapter 5.

See, also,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (June).

Sir Henry Clinton's repulse from Charleston.

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

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776-1778.

The war in the North.

The Articles of Confederation.

The alliance with France.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1778.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1778.

State Constitution framed and adopted.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1778-1779.

The war carried into the south.

Savannah taken and Georgia subdued.

Unsuccessful attempt to recover Savannah.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1778-1779 THE WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH;

and 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780.

Siege and surrender of Charleston.

Defeat of Gates at Camden.

British subjugation of the state.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780.

Partisan warfare of Marion and his Men.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780-1781.

Greene's campaign.

King's Mountain.

The Cowpens.

Guilford Court House.

Hobkirk's Hill.

Eutaw springs.

The British shut up in Charleston.

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

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1781-1783.

The campaign in Virginia.

Siege of Yorktown and surrender of Cornwallis.

Peace with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:A. D. 1781 to 1783.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787.

Cession of Western land claims to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787-1788.

Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1828-1833.

The Nullification movement and threatened Secession.

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

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1831.

The first railroad.

See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.

The plotting of the Rebellion.

Passage of the Ordinance of Secession.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860 (December).

Major Anderson at Fort Sumter.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER) MAJOR ANDERSON.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April).

Beginning the War of Rebellion.

The bombardment of Fort Sumter.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (October-December).

Capture of Hilton Head and occupation of the coast

islands by Union forces.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER:

SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (May).

The arming of the Freedmen at Hilton Head.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (April).

The repulse of the Monitor-fleet at Charleston.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (July).

Lodgment of Union forces on Morris Island,

and assault on Fort Wagner.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (August-December).-

Siege of Fort Wagner.

Bombardment of Fort Sumter and Charleston.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February).

Evacuation of Charleston by the Confederates.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).-

Sherman's march through the state.

The burning of Columbia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (June).

Provisional Government set up under

President Johnson's Plan of Reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

{2971}

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1876.

Reconstruction.

"After the close of the war, two distinct and opposing plans

were applied for the reconstruction, or restoration to the

Union, of the State. The first, known as the Presidential plan

[see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY)], was

quickly superseded by the second, known as the Congressional

plan; but it had worked vast mischief by fostering delusive

hopes, the reaction of which was manifest in long enduring

bitterness. Under the latter plan, embodied in the Act of

Congress of March 2, 1867 [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.

1867 (MARCH)], a convention was assembled in Charleston,

January 14, 1868, 'to frame a Constitution and Civil

Government.' The previous registration of voters made in

October, 1867, showed a total of 125,328, of whom 46,346 were

whites, and 78,982 blacks. … On the question of holding a

constitutional convention the vote cast in November, 1867, was

71,087; 130 whites and 68,876 blacks voting for it, and 2,801

whites against it. Of the delegates chosen to the convention

34 were whites and 63 blacks. The new Constitution was adopted

at an election held on the 14th, 15th, and 16th of April,

1868, all State officers to initiate its operation being

elected at the same time. At this election the registration

was 133,597; the vote for the Constitution 70,758; against it,

27,288; total vote. 98,046; not voting, 35,551. Against the

approval by Congress of this Constitution the Democratic State

Central Committee forwarded a protest," which declared: "The

Constitution was the work of Northern adventurers, Southern

renegades, and Ignorant negroes. Not one per cent. of the

white population of the State approves it, and not two per

cent. of the negroes who voted for its adoption understood

what this act of voting implied." "The new State officers took

office July 9, 1868. In the first Legislature, which assembled

on the same day, the Senate consisted of 33 members, of whom 9

were negroes and but 7 were Democrats. The House of

Representatives consisted of 124 members, of whom 48 were

white men, 14 only of these being Democrats. The whole

Legislature thus consisted of 72 white and 85 colored members.

At this date the entire funded debt of South Carolina amounted

to $5,407,306.27. At the close of the four years (two terms)

of Governor R. K. Scott's administration, December, 1872, the

funded debt of the State amounted to $18,515,033.91, including

past-due and unpaid interest for three years."

W. Allen,

Governor Chamberlain's Administration in South Carolina,

chapter 1.

"Mr. James S. Pike, late Minister of the United States at the

Hague, a Republican and an original abolitionist, who visited

the state in 1873, after five years' supremacy by Scott and

his successor Moses, and their allies, has published a pungent

and instructive account of public affairs during that trying

time, under the title of 'The Prostrate State.' The most

significant of the striking features of this book is that he

undertakes to write a correct history of the state by dividing

the principal frauds, already committed or then in process of

completion, into eight distinct classes, which he enumerates

as follows:

1. Those which relate to the increase of the state debt.

2. The frauds practiced in the purchase of lands for the

freedmen.

3. The railroad frauds.

4. The election frauds.

5. The frauds practiced in the redemption of the notes of the

Bank of South Carolina.

6. The census fraud.

7. The fraud in furnishing the legislative chamber.

8. General and legislative corruption. …

Mr. Pike in his 'Prostrate State,' speaking of the state

finances in 1873, says; 'But, as the treasury of South

Carolina has been so thoroughly gutted by the thieves who have

hitherto had possession of the state government, there is

nothing left to steal. The note of any negro in the state is

worth as much on the market as a South Carolina bond.'" This

reign of corruption was checked in 1874 by the election to the

governorship of Daniel H. Chamberlain, the regular Republican

nominee, who had been Attorney-General during Scott's

administration. "Governor Chamberlain, quite in contrast with

his predecessors, talked reform after his election as well as

before it," and was "able to accomplish some marked and

wholesome reforms in public expenditures." In 1876 the

Democrats succeeded in overpowering the negro vote and

acquired control of the state, electing General Wade Hampton

governor.

J. J. Hemphill,

Reconstruction in South Carolina

(Why the Solid South? chapter 4).

Generally, for an account of the measures connected with

"Reconstruction,"

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.

----------SOUTH CAROLINA: End--------

SOUTH DAKOTA: A. D. 1889.

Admission to the Union.

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

SOUTH MOUNTAIN, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND)

LEE'S FIRST INVASION.

SOUTH RIVER, The.

The Delaware and the Hudson were called respectively the South

River and the North River by the Dutch, during their

occupation of the territory of New Netherland.

SOUTH SEA:

The name and its application.

See PACIFIC OCEAN.

SOUTH SEA BUBBLE, The.

"The South Sea Company was first formed by Harley [Earl of

Oxford, Lord Treasurer of England] in 1711, his object being

to improve public credit, and to provide for the floating

debts, which at that period amounted to nearly £10,000,000.

The Lord Treasurer, therefore, established a fund for that

sum. He secured the interest by making permanent the duties on

wine, vinegar, tobacco, and several others; he allured the

creditors by promising them the monopoly of trade to the

Spanish coasts in America; and the project was sanctioned both

by Royal Charter and by Act of Parliament. Nor were the

merchants slow in swallowing this gilded bait; and the fancied

Eldorado which shone before them dazzled even their discerning

eyes. … This spirit spread throughout the whole nation, and

many, who scarcely knew whereabouts America lies, felt

nevertheless quite certain of its being strewed with gold and

gems. … The negotiations of Utrecht, however, in this as in

other matters, fell far short of the Ministerial promises and

of the public expectation. Instead of a free trade, or any

approach to a free trade, with the American colonies, the

Court of Madrid granted only, besides the shameful Asiento for

negro slaves, the privilege of settling some factories, and

sending one annual ship. … This shadow of a trade was bestowed

by the British Government on the South Sea Company, but it was

very soon disturbed. Their first annual ship, the Royal

Prince, did not sail till 1717; and next year broke out the

war with Spain. … Still, however, the South Sea Company

continued, from its other resources, a flourishing and wealthy

corporation; its funds were high, its influence considerable,

and it was considered on every occasion the rival and

competitor of the Bank of England."

{2972}

At the close of 1719 the South Sea Company submitted to the

government proposals for buying up the public debt. "The great

object was to buy up and diminish the burthen of the

irredeemable annuities granted in the two last reigns, for the

term mostly of 99 years, and amounting at this time to nearly

£800,000 a year." The Bank of England became at once a

competitor for the same undertaking. "The two bodies now

displayed the utmost eagerness to outbid one another, each

seeming almost ready to ruin itself, so that it could but

disappoint its rival. They both went on enhancing their terms,

until at length the South Sea Company rose to the enormous

offer of seven millions and a half. … The South Sea Bill

finally passed the Commons by a division of 172 against 55. In

the Lords, on the 4th of April [1720], the minority was only

17. … On the passing of the Bill very many of the annuitants

hastened to carry their orders to the South Sea House, before

they even received any offer, or knew what terms would be

allowed them!—ready to yield a fixed and certain income for

even the smallest share in vast but visionary schemes. The

offer which was made to them on the 29th of May (eight years

and a quarter's purchase) was much less favourable than they

had hoped; yet nevertheless, six days afterwards, it is

computed that nearly two-thirds of the whole number of

annuitants had already agreed. In fact, it seems clear that,

during this time, and throughout the summer, the whole nation,

with extremely few exceptions, looked upon the South Sea

Scheme as promising and prosperous. Its funds rapidly rose

from 130 to above 300. … As soon as the South Sea Bill had

received the Royal Assent in April, the Directors proposed a

subscription of one million, which was so eagerly taken that

the sum subscribed exceeded two. A second subscription was

quickly opened, and no less quickly filled. … In August, the

stocks, which had been 130 in the winter, rose to 1,000. Such

general infatuation would have been happy for the Directors,

had they not themselves partaken of it. They opened a third,

and even a fourth subscription, larger than the former; they

passed a resolution, that from Christmas next their yearly

dividend should not be less than fifty per cent.; they assumed

an arrogant and overbearing tone. … But the public delusion

was not continued to the South Sea Scheme; a thousand other

mushroom projects sprung up in that teeming soil. … Change

Alley became a new edition of the Rue Quincampoix.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720.

The crowds were so great within doors, that tables with clerks

were set in the street. … Some of the Companies hawked about

were for the most extravagant projects; we find amongst the

number,

'Wrecks to be fished for on the Irish Coast;

Insurance of Horses, and other Cattle (two millions);

Insurance of losses by servants;

To make Salt-Water Fresh;

For Building of Hospitals for Bastard Children;

For Building of Ships against Pirates;

For making of Oil from Sun-flower Seeds;

For improving of Malt Liquors;

For recovering of Seamen's Wages;

For extracting of Silver from Lead;

For the transmuting of Quicksilver into a malleable

and fine Metal;

For making of Iron with Pit-coal;

For importing a Number of large Jack Asses from Spain;

For trading in Human Hair;

For flitting of Hogs;

For a Wheel for a Perpetual Motion.'

But the most strange of all, perhaps, was 'For an Undertaking

which shall in due time be revealed.' Each subscriber was to

pay down two guineas, and hereafter to receive a share of one

hundred with a disclosure of the object; and so tempting was

the offer that 1,000 of these subscriptions were paid the same

morning, with which the projector went off in the afternoon. …

When the sums intended to be raised had grown altogether, it

is said, to the enormous amount of £300,000,000, the first

check to the public infatuation was given by the same body

whence it had first sprung. The South Sea Directors … obtained

an order from the Lords Justices, and writs of scire facias,

against several of the new bubble Companies. These fell, but

in falling drew down the whole fabric with them. As soon as

distrust was excited, all men became anxious to convert their

bonds into money. … Early in September, the South Sea stock

began to decline: its fall became more rapid from day to day,

and in less than a month it had sunk below 300. … The decline

progressively continued, and the news of the crash in France

[of the contemporary Mississippi Scheme of John Law-see

FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720] completed ours. Thousands of families

were reduced to beggary. … The resentment and rage were

universal."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),

History of England, 1713-1783,

chapter 11 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

A. Anderson,

History and Chronological Deduction

of the Origin of Commerce,

volume 3, page 43, and after.

J. Toland,

Secret History of the South Sea Scheme

(Works, volume 1).

C. Mackay,

Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,

chapter 2.

SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY, The.

The organization of the so called Confederate States of

America, formed among the states which attempted in 1861 to

secede from the American Union, is commonly referred to as the

Southern Confederacy. For an account of the Constitution of

the Confederacy, and the establishing of its government.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).

SOUTHERN CROSS, Order or the.

A Brazilian order of knighthood instituted in 1826 by the

Emperor, Pedro I.

SPA-FIELDS MEETING AND RIOT, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

SPAHIS.

In the Turkish feudal system, organized by Mahomet II. (A. D.

1451-1481), "the general name for the holders of military

fiefs was Spahi, a Cavalier, a title which exactly answers to

those which we find in the feudal countries of Christian

Europe. … The Spahi was the feudal vassal of his Sultan and of

his Sultan alone. … Each Spahi … was not only bound to render

military service himself in person, but, if the value of his

fief exceeded a certain specified amount, he was required to

furnish and maintain an armed horseman for every multiple of

that sum."

Sir E. S. Creasy,

History of the Ottoman Turks,

chapters 6 and 10.

"The Spahis cannot properly be considered as a class of

nobles. In the villages they had neither estates nor dwellings

of their own; they had no right to jurisdiction or to feudal

service. … No real rights of property were ever bestowed on

them; but, for a specific service a certain revenue was

granted them."

L. Ranke,

History of Servia,

chapter 3.

See, also, TIMAR.

{2973}

----------SPAIN: Start--------

SPAIN:

Aboriginal Peoples.

"Spain must either have given birth to an aboriginal people,

or was peopled by way of the Pyrenees and by emigrants

crossing the narrow strait at the columns of Hercules. The

Iberian race actually forms the foundation of the populations

of Spain. The Basks, or Basques, now confined to a few

mountain valleys, formerly occupied the greater portion of the

peninsula, as is proved by its geographical nomenclature.

Celtic tribes subsequently crossed the Pyrenees, and

established themselves in various parts of the country, mixing

in many instances with the Iberians, and forming the so·called

Celtiberians. This mixed race is met with principally in the

two Castiles, whilst Galicia and the larger portion of

Portugal appear to be inhabited by pure Celts. The Iberians

had their original seat of civilisation in the south; they

thence moved northward along the coast of the Mediterranean,

penetrating as far as the Alps and the Apennines. These

original elements of the population were joined by colonists

from the great commercial peoples of the Mediterranean. Cadiz

and Malaga were founded by the Phœnicians, Cartagena by the

Carthaginians, Sagonte by immigrants from Zacynthe, Rosas is a

Rhodian colony, and the ruins of Ampurias recall the Emporium

of the Massilians. But it was the Romans who modified the

character of the Iberian and Celtic inhabitants of the

peninsula."

E. Reclus,

The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe,

volume 1, page 372.

SPAIN: B. C. 237-202.

The rule of Hamilcar, Hasdrubal and Hannibal in the south.-

Beginning of Roman conquest.

See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.

Roman conquest.

"The nations of Spain were subjugated one after another by the

Romans. The contest began with the second Punic war [B. C.

218], and it ended with the defeat of the Cantabri and Astures

by Augustus, B. C. 25. From B. C. 205 the Romans had a

dominion in Spain. It was divided into two provinces, Hispania

Citerior, or Tarraconensis, and Hispania Ulterior, or Baetica.

At first extraordinary proconsuls were sent to Spain, but

afterwards two praetors were sent, generally with proconsular

authority and twelve fasces. During the Macedonian war the two

parts of Spain were placed under one governor, but in B. C.

167 the old division was restored, and so it remained to the

time of Augustus. The boundary between the two provinces was

originally the Iberus (Ebro). … The country south of the Ebro

was the Carthaginian territory, which came into the possession

of the Romans at the end of this [the second Punic] war. The

centre, the west, and north-west parts of the Spanish

peninsula were still independent. At a later time the boundary

of Hispania Citerior extended further south, and it was fixed

at last between Urci and Murgis, now Guardias Viejas, in 36°

41' North latitude."

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 1, chapter 1.

See, also, CELTIBERIANS;

LUSITANIA; and NUMANTIAN WAR.

SPAIN: B. C. 83-72.

Sertorius.

Quintus Sertorius, who was the ablest and the best of the

leaders of the Popular Party, or Italian Party, or Marian

Party, as it is variously designated, which contended against

Sulla and the senate, in the first Roman civil war, left

Italy and withdrew to Spain, or was sent thither (it is

uncertain which) in 83 or 82 B. C. before the triumph of Sulla

had been decided. His first attempts to make a stand in Spain

against the authority of Sulla failed complete]y, and he had

thoughts it is said of seeking a peaceful retreat in the

Madeira Islands, vaguely known at that period as the Fortunate

Isles, or Isles of the Blest. But after some adventures in

Mauritania, Sertorius accepted an invitation from the

Lusitanians to become their leader in a revolt against the

Romans which they meditated. Putting himself at the head of

the Lusitanians, and drawing with them other Iberian tribes,

Sertorius organized a power in Spain which held the Romans at

bay for nearly ten years and which came near to breaking the

peninsula from their dominion. He was joined, too, by a large

number of the fugitives from Rome of the proscribed party, who

formed a senate in Spain and instituted a government there

which aspired to displace, in time, the senate and the

republic on the Tiber, which Sulla had reduced to a shadow and

a mockery. First Metellus and then Pompey, who were sent

against Sertorius (see ROME: B. C. 78-68), suffered repeated

defeats at his hands. In the end, Sertorius was only overcome

by treachery among his own officers, who conspired against him

and assassinated him, B. C. 72.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 2, chapters 31-33.

ALSO IN:

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 7, chapter 62.

SPAIN: B. C. 49.

Cæsar's first campaign against the Pompeians.

See ROME: B. C. 49.

SPAIN: B. C. 45.

Cæsar's last campaign against the Pompeians.

His victory at Munda.

See ROME: B. C. 45.

SPAIN: 3d Century.

Early Christianity.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312 (SPAIN).

SPAIN: A. D. 408.

Under the usurper Constantine.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

Invasion of the Vandals, Sueves, and Alans.

From the end of the year 406 to the autumn of 409, the

barbaric torrent of Alans, Sueves and Vandals which had swept

away the barriers of the Roman empire beyond the Alps, spent

its rage on the unhappy provinces of Gaul. On the 13th of

October, 409, the Pyrenees were passed and the same flood of

tempestuous invasion poured into Spain. "The misfortunes of

Spain may be described in the language of its most eloquent

historian [Mariana], who has concisely expressed the

passionate, and perhaps exaggerated, declamations of

contemporary writers. 'The irruption of these nations was

followed by the most dreadful calamities; as the barbarians

exercised their indiscriminate cruelty on the fortunes of the

Romans and the Spaniards, and ravaged with equal fury the

cities and the open country. The progress of famine reduced

the miserable inhabitants to feed on the flesh of their

fellow-creatures; and even the wild beasts, who multiplied

without control in the desert, were exasperated by the taste

of blood and the impatience of hunger boldly to attack and

devour their human prey. Pestilence soon appeared, the

inseparable companion of famine; a large proportion of the

people was swept away; and the groans of the dying excited

only the envy of their surviving friends. At length the

barbarians, satiated with carnage and rapine, and afflicted by

the contagious evils which they themselves had introduced,

fixed their permanent seats in the depopulated country.

{2974}

The ancient Galicia, whose limits included the kingdom of Old

Castile, was divided between the Suevi and the Vandals; the

Alani were scattered over the provinces of Carthagena and

Lusitania, from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic Ocean; and

the fruitful territory of Bætica was allotted to the Silingi,

another branch of the Vandalic nation. … The lands were again

cultivated; and the towns and villages were again occupied by

a captive people. The greatest part of the Spaniards was even

disposed to prefer this new condition of poverty and barbarism

to the severe oppressions of the Roman government; yet there

were many who still asserted their native freedom, and who

refused, more especially in the mountains of Galicia, to

submit to the barbarian yoke.'"

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 31.

SPAIN: A. D. 414-418.

First conquests of the Visigoths.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.

SPAIN: A. D. 428.

Conquests of the Vandals.

See VANDALS: A. D. 428.

SPAIN: A. D. 477-712.

The Gothic kingdom.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 453-484; and 507-711.

SPAIN: A. D. 573.

The Suevi overcome by the Visigoths.

See SUEVI: A. D. 409-573.

SPAIN: A. D. 616.

First expulsion of the Jews.

See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

Conquest by the Arab-Moors.

The last century of the Gothic kingdom in Spain was, on the

whole, a period of decline. It gained some extension of

boundaries, it is true, by the expulsion of Byzantine

authority from one small southern corner of the Spanish

peninsula, in which it had lingered long; but repeated

usurpations had shaken the throne; the ascendancy of church

and clergy had weakened the Gothic nobility without

strengthening the people; frequent recurrences of political

disorder had interfered with a general prosperity and

demoralized society in many ways. The condition of Spain, in

fact, was such as might plainly invite the flushed armies of

Islam, which now stood on the African side of the narrow

strait of Gibraltar. That another invitation was needed to

bring them in is not probable. The story of the great treason

of Count Illan, or Ilyan, or Julian, and of the betrayed

daughter, Florinda, to whose wrongs he made a sacrifice of his

country, has been woven into the history of the Moorish

conquest of Spain by too many looms of romance and poetry to

be easily torn away,—and it may have some bottom of fact in

its composition; but sober reason requires us to believe that

no possible treason in the case could be more than a chance

incident of the inevitable catastrophe. The final conquest of

North Africa had been completed by the Arab general Musa Ibn

Nosseyr,—except that Ceuta, the one stronghold which the Goths

held on the African side of the straits, withstood them. They

had not only conquered the Berbers or Moors, but had

practically absorbed and affiliated them. Spain, as they

learned, was distracted by a fresh revolution, which had

brought to the throne Roderick —the last Gothic king. The

numerous Jews in the country were embittered by persecution

and looked to the more tolerant Moslems for their deliverance.

Probably their invitation proved more potent than any which

Count Ilyan could address to Musa, or to his master at

Damascus. But Ilyan commanded at Ceuta, and, after defending

the outpost for a time, he gave it up. It seems, too, that

when the movement of Invasion occurred, in the spring of 711,

Count Ilyan was with the invaders. The first expedition to

cross the narrow strait from Ceuta to Gibraltar came under the

command of the valiant one-eyed chieftain, Tarik Ibn Zeyud Ibn

Abdillah. "The landing of Tarik's forces was completed on the

30th of April, 711 (8th Regeb. A. H. 92), and his enthusiastic

followers at once named the promontory upon which he landed,

Dschebel-Tarik [or Gebel-Tarik], the rock of Tarik. The name

has been retained in the modernized form, Gibraltar. It is

also spoken of in the Arabian chronicles as Dschebalu-l-Fata,

the portal or mountain of victory." Tarik entered Spain with

but 7,000 men. He afterwards received reinforcements to the

extent of 5,000 from Musa. It was with this small army of

12,000 men that, after a little more than two months, he

encountered the far greater host which King Roderick had

levied hastily to oppose him. The Gothic king despised the

small numbers of his foe and rashly staked everything upon the

single field. Somewhere not far from Medina Sidonia, —or

nearer to the town of Xeres de la Frontera. —on the banks of

the Guadalete, the decisive battle began on the 19th day of

July, A. D. 711. It lasted obstinately for several days, and

success appeared first on the Gothic side; but treason among

the Christians and discipline among the Moslems turned the

scale. When the battle ended the conquest of Spain was

practically achieved. Its Gothic king had disappeared, whether

slain or fled was never known, and the organization of

resistance disappeared with him. Tarik pursued his success

with audacious vigor, even disobeying the commands of his

superior, Musa. Dividing his small army into detachments, he

pushed them out in all directions to seize the important

cities. Xeres, Moron, Carmona, Cordova, Malaga, and

Gharnatta—Granada—(the latter so extensively peopled with Jews

that it was called "Gharnatta-al-Yahood," or Granada of the

Jews) were speedily taken. Toledo, the Gothic capital,

surrendered and was occupied on Palm Sunday, 712. The same

spring, Musa, burning with envy of his subordinate's

unexpected success, crossed to Spain with an army of 18,00()

and took up the nearly finished task. He took Seville and laid

siege to Merida—the Emerita Augusta of the Romans—a great and

splendid city of unusual strength. Merida resisted with more

valor than other cities had shown, but surrendered in July.

Seville revolted and was punished terribly by the merciless

Moslem sword. Before the end of the second year after Tarik's

first landing at Gibraltar, the Arab, or Arab-Moorish,

invaders had swept the whole southern, central and eastern

parts of the peninsula, clear to the Pyrenees, reducing

Saragossa after a siege and receiving the surrender of

Barcelona, Valencia, and all the important cities. Then, in

the summer of 713, Musa and Tarik went away, under orders from

the Caliph, to settle their jealous dissensions at Damascus,

and to report the facts of the great conquest they made.

H. Coppée,

History of the Conquest of Spain,

books 2-3 (volume 1).

{2975}

ALSO IN:

J. A. Condé,

History of the Arabs in Spain,

chapters 8-17 (volume 1).

For preceding events;

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS);

and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

SPAIN: A. D. 713-910.

The rally of the fugitive Christians.

"The first blow [of the Moslem conquest] had stunned Gothic

Spain; and, before she could recover her consciousness, the

skilful hands of the Moslemah had bound her, hand and foot.

From the first stupor they were not allowed to recover. The

very clemency of the Moslems robbed the Christians of

argument. If their swords were sharp, their conduct after

battle was far better than the inhabitants had any right to

expect, far better than that of the Roman or Gothic conquerors

had been, when they invaded Spain. Their religion, the defence

of which might have been the last rallying-point, was

respected under easy conditions; their lives rendered secure

and comfortable; they were under tribute, but a tribute no

more exacting than Roman taxes or Gothic subsidies. … It was

the Gothic element, and not the Hispano-Romans, that felt the

humiliation most. … The Spanish Goths, at first impelled by

the simple instinct of self-preservation, had fled in all

directions before the fiery march of the Moslemah, after the

first fatal battle in the plains of Sidonia. They had taken

with them in their flight all the movable property they could

carry and the treasures of the churches. Some had passed the

Pyrenees to join their kinsmen in Septimania; and others had

hidden in the mountain valleys of the great chain-barrier;

while a considerable number, variously stated, had collected

in the intricate territory of the Asturias and in Galicia,

where strength of position made amends for the lack of numbers

and organization, and where they could find shelter and time

for consultation as to the best manner of making head against

the enemy. The country is cut up in all directions by

inaccessible, scarped rocks, deep ravines, tangled thickets,

and narrow gorges and defiles." This band of refugees in the

Asturias—the forlorn hope of Christian Spain—are said to have

found a gallant leader in one Pelayo, whose origin and history

are so covered with myth that some historians even question

his reality. But whether by Pelayo or another prince, the

Asturian Spaniards were held together in their mountains and

began a struggle of resistance which ended only, eight

centuries later, in the recovery of the entire peninsula from

the Moors. Their place of retreat was an almost inaccessible

cavern—the Cave of Covadonga—in attacking which the Moslems

suffered a terrible and memorable repulse (A. D. 717). "In

Christian Spain the fame of this single battle will endure as

long as time shall last; and La Cueva de Covadonga, the cradle

of the monarchy, will be one of the proudest spots on the soil

of the Peninsula. … This little rising in the Asturias was the

indication of a new life, new interests, and a healthier

combination. … Pelayo was the usher and the representative of

this new order, and the Christian kingdom of Oviedo was its

first theatre. … The battle of Covadonga, in which it had its

origin, cleared the whole territory of the Asturias of every

Moslem soldier. The fame of its leader, and the glad tidings

that a safe retreat had been secured, attracted the numerous

Christians who were still hiding in the mountain fastnesses,

and infused a new spirit of patriotism throughout the land. …

Pelayo was now king in reality, as well as in name. … With

commendable prudence, he contented himself with securing and

slowly extending his mountain kingdom by descending cautiously

into the plains and valleys. … Adjacent territory, abandoned

by the Moslems, was occupied and annexed; and thus the new

nation was made ready to set forth on its reconquering march."

H. Coppée,

Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,

book 5, chapters 1-2 (volume 1).

"The small province thus preserved by Pelayo [whose death is

supposed to have occurred A. D. 737] grew into the germs of a

kingdom called at different times that of Gallicia, Oviedo,

and Leon. A constant border warfare fluctuated both ways, but

on the whole to the advantage of the Christians. Meanwhile to

the east other small states were growing up which developed

into the kingdom of Navarre and the more important realm of

Aragon. Castile and Portugal, the most famous among the

Spanish kingdoms, are the most recent in date. Portugal as yet

was unheard of, and Castile was known only as a line of

castles on the march between the Saracens and the kingdom of

Leon."

E. A. Freeman,

History and Conquests of the Saracens,

lecture 5.

"The States of Pelagio [Pelayo] continued, during his reign

and that of his son Favila, to be circumscribed to the

Asturian mountains; but … Alfonso I., the son-in-law of

Pelagio, ascended the throne after Favila, and he soon

penetrated into Galicia up to the Douro, and to Leon and Old

Castile. … Canicas, or Cangas, was the capital of the Asturias

since the time of Pelagio. Fruela (brother of Alfonso I.]

founded Oviedo, to the west, and this State became later on

the head of the monarchy." About a century later, in the reign

of the vigorous king Alfonso III. [A. D. 866-9101, the city of

Leon, the ancient Legio of the Romans, was raised from its

ruins, and Garcia, the eldest son of Alfonso, established his

court there. One of Garcia's brothers held the government of

the Asturias, and another one that of Galicia, "if not as

separate kingdoms, at least with a certain degree of

independence. This equivocal situation of the two princes was,

perchance, the reason why the King of Oviedo changed his title

to that of Leon, and which appears in the reign of Garcia as

the first attempt towards dismembering the Spanish Monarchy.

Previous to this, in the reign of King Alfonso III., Navarre,

always rebellious, had shaken off the Asturian yoke."

E. McMurdo,

History of Portugal,

introduction, part 3.

SPAIN: A. D. 756-1031.

The Caliphate of Cordova.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE:

A. D. 756-1031.

SPAIN: A. D. 778.

Charlemagne's conquests.

The invasion of Spain by Charlemagne, in 778, was invited by a

party among the Saracens, disaffected towards the reigning

Caliph, at Cordova, who proposed to place the northern Spanish

frontier under the protection of the Christian monarch and

acknowledge his suzerainty. He passed the Pyrenees with a

great army and advanced with little serious opposition to

Saragossa, apparently occupying the country to the Ebro with

garrisons and adding it to his dominions as the Spanish March.

At Saragossa he encountered resistance and undertook a siege,

the results of which are left uncertain.

{2976}

It would seem that he was called away, by threatening news

from the northern part of his dominions, and left the conquest

incomplete. The return march of the army, through a pass of

the Pyrenees, was made memorable by the perfidious ambuscade

and hopeless battle of Roncesvalles, which became immortalized

in romance and song. It was in the country of the Gascons or

Wascones (Basques) that this tragic event occurred, and the

assailants were not Saracens, as the story of the middle ages

would have it, but the Gascons themselves, who, in league with

their neighbors of Aquitaine, had fought for their

independence so obstinately before, against both Charlemagne

and his father. They suffered the Franks to pass into Spain

without a show of enmity, but laid a trap for the return, in

the narrow gorge called the Roscida Vallis—now Roncesvalles.

The van of the army, led by the king, went through in safety.

The rear-guard, "oppressed with baggage, loitered along the

rocky and narrow pathway, and as it entered the solitary gap

of Ibayeta, from the lofty precipices on either side an

unknown foe rolled suddenly down enormous rocks and trunks of

uprooted trees. Instantly many of the troops were crushed to

death, and the entire passage was blockaded. … The Franks who

escaped the horrible slaughter were at once assailed with

forks and pikes; their heavy armor, which had served them so

well in other fights, only encumbered them amid the bushes and

brambles of the ravine; and yet they fought with obstinate and

ferocious energy. Cheered on by the prowess of Eghihard, the

royal sencschal, of Anselm, Count of the Palace, of Roland,

the warden of the Marches of Brittany, and of many other

renowned chiefs, they did not desist till the last man had

fallen, covered with wounds and blood. … How many perished in

this fatal surprise was never told; but the event smote with

profound effect upon the imagination of Europe; it was kept

alive in a thousand shapes by tales and superstitions; heroic

songs and stories carried the remembrance of it from

generation to generation; Roland and his companions, the

Paladins of Karl, untimely slain, became, in the Middle Ages,

the types of chivalric valor and Christian heroism; and, seven

centuries after their only appearance in history, the genius

of Pulci, Boiardo, and Ariosto still preserved in immortal

verse the traditions of their glory. … Roland is but once

mentioned in authentic history, but the romance and songs,

which make him a nephew of Karl, compensate his memory for

this neglect."

P. Godwin,

History of France: Ancient Gaul,

chapter 16, with foot-note.

ALSO IN:

J. I. Mombert,

History of Charles the Great,

book 2, chapter 5.

G. P. R. James,

History of Charlemagne,

book 5.

J. O'Hagan,

Song of Roland.

T. Bulfinch,

Legends of Charlemagne.

H. Coppée,

Conquest of Spain by the Arab·Moors,

book 7, chapter 3 (volume 2).

SPAIN: A. D. 778-885 (?).

Rise of the kingdom of Navarre.

See NAVARRE: ORIGIN OF THE KINGDOM.

SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.

The rise of the kingdom of Castile.

"Ancient Cantabria, which the writers of the 8th century

usually termed Bardulia, and which, at this period [the 8th

century] stretched from the Biscayan sea to the Duero, towards

the close of the same century began to be called

Castella—doubtless from the numerous forts erected for the

defence of the country by Alfonso I. [the third king of

Oviedo, or Leon]. As the boundaries were gradually removed

towards the south, by the victories of the Christians, the

same denomination was applied to the new as well as to the

former conquests, and the whole continued subject to the same

governor, who had subordinate governors dependent on him. Of

the first governors or counts, from the period of its conquest

by that prince in 760, to the reign of Ordoño I. (a full

century), not even the names are mentioned in the old

chroniclers; the first we meet with is that of Count Rodrigo,

who is known to have possessed the dignity at least six

years,—viz. from 860 to 866." The last count of Castile,

Garcia Sanchez, who was the eighth of the line from Rodrigo,

perished in his youth by assassination (A. D. 1026), just as

he was at the point of receiving the title of king from the

sovereign of Leon, together with the hand of the latter's

daughter. Castile was then seized by Sancho el Mayor, king of

Navarre, in right of his queen, who was the elder sister of

Garcia. He assumed it to be a kingdom and associated the crown

with his own. On his death, in 1035, he bequeathed this new

kingdom of Castile to one of his sons, Fernando, while leaving

Navarre to another, and Aragon, then a lordship, to a third.

Fernando of Castile, being involved soon afterwards in war

with the young king of Leon, won the kingdom of the latter in

a single battle, where the last of the older royal dynasty of

Spain fell fighting like a valiant knight. The two kingdoms of

Castile and Leon were united under this prosperous king (see,

also, PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY) until his death, A. D. 1065,

when Castile passed to Sancho, the eldest of his sons, and

Leon to Alfonso, the second. But Sancho soon ousted Alfonso,

and Alfonso, biding his time, acquired both crowns in 1072,

when Sancho was assassinated. It was this Alfonso who

recovered the ancient capital city, Toledo, from the Moslems,

and it was in his reign that the famous Cid Campeador, Rodrigo

de Bivar, performed his fabulous exploits. The two kingdoms

were kept in union until 1157, when they fell apart again and

continued asunder until 1230. At that time a lasting union of

Castile and Leon took place, under Fernando III., whom the

church of Rome has canonized.

S. A. Dunham,

History of Spain and Portugal,

book 3, section 2, chapter 1.

{2976a}

{2976b}

SPAIN AT ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF THE NINTH CENTURY

EMPIRE OF CHARLEMAGNE.

KINGDOM OF ASTURIA.

EMIRATE OF CORDOVA.

DURING THIS PERIOD THE BASIN OF THE DOURA

RIVER WAS UNDER LITTLE ORGANIZED RULE. THE RIVER

FORMS MERELY A NOMINAL BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE

KINGDOM OF ASTURIA AND THE EMIRATE OF CORDOVA

SPAIN IN 1035,

SHOWING THE DIVISIONS OF THE KINGDOM OF NAVARRE AFTER THE DEATH

OF SANCHO THE GREAT (1035) AND OF THE MOHAMEDAN TERRITORIES ON

THE EXTINCTION OF THE CORDOVAN CALIPHATE (1031).

DIVISIONS OF SANCHO'S KINGDOM

NAVARRE

CASTILE

ARAGON AND RIBAGORCA

FRANCE

THE DATES UNDER A NUMBER OF THE MOHAMMEDAN CITIES INDICATE THE

ENCROACHMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN STATES UP TO ABOUT THE MIDDLE

OF THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

SPAIN AT ABOUT THE YEAR 1150.

NAVARRE.

LEON.

CASTILE.

ARAGON.

PORTUGAL.

EMPIRE OF THE ALMOHADES.

SPAIN AT THE CLOSE OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.

CASTILE AND LEON.

ARAGON.

PORTUGAL.

GRANADA.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP REMAINED

PRACTICALLY UNCHANGED UP TO THE LATTER PART OF THE FIFTEENTH

CENTURY.

SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

Petty and short-lived Moorish kingdoms.

"The decline and dissolution of the Mohammedan monarchy, or

western caliphate, afforded the ambitious local governors

throughout the Peninsula the opportunity for which they had

long sighed—that of openly asserting their independence of

Cordova, and of assuming the title of kings. The wali of

Seville, Mohammed ben Ismail ben Abid, … appears to have been

the first to assume the powers of royalty; … he declared war

against the self-elected king of Carmona, Mohammed ben

Abdalla, on whose cities, Carmona and Ecija, he had cast a

covetous eye. The brother of Yahia, Edris ben Ali, the son of

Hamud, governed Malaga with equal independence. Algeziras had

also its sovereigns. Elvira and Granada obeyed Habus ben

Maksan: Valencia had for its king Abdelasis Abul Hassan,

Almeria had Zohair, and Denia had Mugehid; but these two petty

states were soon absorbed in the rising sphere of Valencia.

Huesca and Saragossa were also subject to rulers, who though

slow to assume the title of kings were not the less

independent, since their sway extended over most of Aragon.

{2977}

The sovereign of Badajos, Abdalla Muslema ben Alaftas, was the

acknowledged head of all the confederated governors of Algarve

and Lusitania; and Toledo was subject to the powerful Ismail

ben Dyluun, who, like the king of Seville, secretly aspired to

the government of all Mohammedan Spain."

S. A. Dunham,

History of Spain and Portugal,

book 3, section 1, chapter 1 (volume 2).

"These petty kings were sometimes fighting against each other,

and sometimes joining hands to oppose the down-coming of

Christians, until they were startled by a new incursion from

Africa … which, in consolidating Islam, threatened destruction

to the existing kingdoms by the absorption of everyone of them

in this African vortex. I refer to the coming of the

Almoravides."

H. Coppée,

Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,

book 8, chapter 2 (volume 2).

SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

The Rise of the Kingdom of Aragon.

The province of Aragon, with Navarre to the west of it and

Catalonia to the east, was included in the Spanish March of

Charlemagne. Navarre took the lead among these provinces in

acquiring independence, and Aragon became for a time a

lordship dependent on the Navarrese monarchy. "The Navarre of

Sancho the Great [the same who gathered Castile among his

possessions, making it a kingdom, and who reigned from 970 to

1035] stretched some way beyond the Ebro; to the west it took

in the ocean lands of Biscay and Guipuzcoa, with the original

Castile; to the east it took in Aragon, Ripacurcia and

Sobrarbe. … At the death of Sancho the Great [A. D. 1035] his

momentary dominion broke up. … Out of the break-up of the

dominion of Sancho came the separate kingdom of Navarre, and

the new kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, and Sobrarbe. Of these

the two last were presently united, thus beginning the advance

of Aragon. … The power of Aragon grew, partly by conquests

from the Mussulmans, partly by union with the French fiefs to

the east. The first union between the crown of Aragon and the

county of Barcelona [by marriage, 1131] led to the great

growth of the power of Aragon on both sides of the Pyrenees

and even beyond the Rhone. This power was broken by the

overthrow of King Pedro at Muret—[Pedro II. of Aragon, who

allied himself with the Albigenses—see ALBIGENSES: A. D.

1210-1213—and was defeated and slain by Simon de Montfort, at

Muret, near Toulouse. September 12, 1213]. But by the final

arrangement which freed Barcelona, Roussillon, and Cerdagne,

from all homage to France [A. D. 1258], all trace of foreign

superiority passed away from Christian Spain. The independent

kingdom of Aragon stretched on both sides of the Pyrenees, a

faint reminder of the days of the West-Gothic kings."

E. A. Freeman,

History Geography of Europe,

chapter 12, section 1.

ALSO IN:

S. A. Dunham,

History of Spain and Portugal,

book 3, section 2, chapter 4.

See, also, PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

SPAIN: A. D. 1086-1147.

Domination of the Almoravides.

See ALMORAVIDES.

SPAIN: A. D. 1140.

Separation of Portugal from Castile.

Its erection into an independent kingdom.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.

Invasion and dominion of the Almohades and the

decisive battle of Tolosa.

The invasion of Spain by the Moorish Almohades (see

ALMOHADES), and their struggle for dominion with the

Almoravides, produced, at the outset, great alarm in

Christendom, but was productive in the end of many

opportunities for the advancement of the Christian cause. In

the year 1212 Pope Innocent III. was moved by an appeal from

Alfonso VIII. of Castile to call on all Christian people to

give aid to their brethren in Spain, proclaiming a plenary

indulgence to those who would take up arms in the holy cause.

Thousands joined the crusade thus preached, and flocked to the

Castilian standards at Toledo. The chief of the Almohades

retorted on his side by proclaiming the Algihed or Holy War,

which summoned every Moslem in his dominions to the field.

Thus the utmost frenzy of zeal was animated on both sides, and

the shock of conflict could hardly fail to be decisive, under

the circumstances. Substantially it proved to be so, and the

fate of Mahometanism in Spain is thought to have been sealed

on Las Navas de Tolosa—the Plains of Tolosa—where the two

great hosts came to their encounter in July, 1212. The rout of

the Moors was complete; "the pursuit lasted till nightfall,

and was only impeded by the Moslem corpses."

H. Coppée,

Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,

book 8, chapter 4 (volume 2).

SPAIN: 12-15th Centuries.

The old monarchical constitution.

The Castilian and Aragonese Cortes.

See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

SPAIN: A. D. 12-16th Centuries.

Commercial importance and municipal freedom of Barcelona.

See BARCELONA: 12-16TH CENTURIES.

SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

Progress of the arms of Castile, Leon, and Aragon.

Succession of the count of Champagne to the throne of Navarre.

Permanent union of the crowns of Leon and Castile.

The founding of the Moorish kingdom of Granada.

Castilian conquest of Cordova.

Alfonso of Castile died two years after his great victory [of

'las navas de Tolosa']. He left his crown to his only son

Henry, a boy of eleven, and the regency to his daughter

Berenguela, queen of Leon, who was separated, upon the almost

always available plea of too near consanguinity, from her

husband Alfonso. Berenguela administered her delegated power

ably, but held it only three years: at the end of that time

the young king was accidentally killed by a tile falling upon

his head. Berenguela was her brother's natural heiress; but

idolizing her only son, Ferdinand, whom she had nursed and

educated herself, she immediately renounced her claim to the

throne in his favour, … and caused Ferdinand III. to be

acknowledged king: Alfonso IX., however, long continued to

disturb his wife and son's government. The king of Aragon

[Pedro II.] was recalled immediately after the great battle to

the concerns of his French dominions," where he joined his

kinsman, the count of Toulouse, as stated above, in resisting

the Albigensian crusade, and fell (1213) at Muret. "Whilst

Pedro's uncles and brothers were struggling for his

succession, the queen·dowager obtained from the Pope an order

to Simon de Montfort, the leader of the crusade, to deliver

her son [whom the father had given up as hostage before he

resolved to commit himself to war with the crusaders] into her

hands. Having thus got possession of the rightful heir, she

procured the assembling of the Cortes of Aragon, to whom she

presented the young king, when nobles, clergy, and town

deputies voluntarily swore allegiance to him.

{2978}

This was the first time such an oath was taken in Aragon, the

most limited of monarchies. It had been usual for the

Aragonese kings at their coronation to swear observance of the

laws, but not to receive in return an oath of fidelity from

the people. Henceforward this corresponding oath of fidelity

was regularly taken under the following form, celebrated for

its singularly bold liberty. 'We, who are as good as you, make

you our king to preserve our rights; if not, not.' The

Catalans followed the example of their Aragonese brethren in

proclaiming James king; but many years elapsed ere he could

sufficiently allay the disorders excited by his ambitious

uncles to prosecute the war against the Moors. At length the

several kings of Castile, Leon, Aragon, and Portugal, were

ready, unconnectedly, to invade Mussulman Spain, where

Almohade princes and Mohammed aben Hud, a descendant of the

kings of Saragossa, were contending for the sovereignty, and

many 'walis' were struggling for independent royalty; all far

more intent upon gratifying their mutual jealousies and

enmities than upon resisting the common foe, with whom, on the

contrary, all were willing to enter into alliance in

furtherance of their separate views. Under these

circumstances, James of Aragon made himself master of the

greater part of Valencia, and of the island of Majorca [and

subsequently of Minorca]; Ferdinand of Castile extended his

conquests in Andalusia; Alfonso of Leon his in Estremadura:

and Sancho II. of Portugal, who had lately succeeded to his

father Alfonso II., acquired the city of Elvas, … Sancho of

Navarre took no part in these wars. After … the battle of 'las

navas de Tolosa' he quitted the career of arms, devoting

himself wholly to the internal administration of his kingdom.

He had no children, neither had his eldest sister, the queen

of England [Berengaria, wife of Richard Cœur de Lion], any.

Thence his youngest sister's son, Thibalt, count of Champagne,

became his natural heir. But Sancho, judging that the distance

between Navarre and Champagne unfitted the two states for

being governed by one prince, adopted his kinsman, James of

Aragon, and to him, as heir, the Navarese clergy and nobility,

and the count of Champagne himself, prospectively swore

fealty. Upon Sancho's death, in 1234, however, the Navarrese,

preferring independence under the lineal heir to an union with

Aragon, entreated king James to release them from their oaths.

He was then engaged in the conquest of Valencia; and

unwilling, it may be hoped, to turn his arms from Mahometan

enemies against his fellow-Christians, he complied with the

request, and Thibalt was proclaimed king of Navarre. Thibalt

neglected the wars carried on by his Spanish brother kings

against the Mahometans, to accept the command of a crusade for

the recovery of Jerusalem. The expedition was unsuccessful,

but the reputation of the leader did not, suffer. Upon his

return, Thibalt followed the example of his uncle in studying

only to promote the internal welfare of the country. He

introduced the cultivation of the grape and the manufacture of

wine into Navarre, with other agricultural improvements.

Thibalt is more known as one of the most celebrated

troubadours or poets of his day. Prior to Thibalt's accession,

the conquering progress of Leon and Castile had been

temporarily interrupted. Alfonso of Leon died in 1230, and by

his will divided Leon and Galicia between two daughters of his

first marriage, wholly overlooking his son Ferdinand. … By

negociation, however, and the influence which the acknowledged

wisdom and virtues of queen Berenguela appear to have given

her over everyone but her husband, the superior claims of

Ferdinand were admitted. The two infantas were amply endowed,

and the crowns of Leon and Castile were thenceforward

permanently united, With power thus augmented, Ferdinand III.

renewed his invasion of the Mussulman states, about the time

that Yahie, the last of the Almohade candidates for

sovereignty, died, bequeathing his pretensions to Mohammed abu

Abdallah aben Alhamar, an enterprising leader, who, in the

general confusion, had established himself as king of Jaen,

and was the sworn enemy of Yahie's chief rival, Abdallah aben

Hud. Ferdinand invaded the dominions of Abdallah, and Mohammed

took that opportunity of materially enlarging his own. After a

few years of general war, Abdallah aben Hud was assassinated

by the partisans of the king of Jaen, and his brother Aly, who

succeeded to his pretensions, met a similar fate. Mohammed ben

Alhamar was immediately received into the city of Granada,

which he made his capital; and thus, in 1238, founded the

kingdom of Granada, the last bright relic of Moorish

domination in Spain, and the favourite scene of Spanish

romance. Had Mohammed succeeded to the Almohade sovereignty in

Spain, and his authority been acknowledged by all his

Mussulman countrymen, so able and active a monarch might

probably have offered effective resistance to Christian

conquest. But his dominions consisted only of what is still

called the kingdom of Granada, and a small part of Andalusia.

The remaining Mahometan portions of Andalusia, Valencia, and

Estremadura, as well as Murcia and Algarve, swarmed with

independent 'walis' or kings. James of Aragon completed the

subjugation of Valencia the following year. Cordova, so long

the Moorish capital, was taken by Ferdinand [1235], with other

places of inferior note. The Murcian princes avoided invasion

by freely offering to become Castilian vassals; and now the

conquering troops of Castile and Leon poured into the

territories of Mohammed. The king of Granada, unsupported by

his natural allies, found himself unequal to the contest, and

submitted to become, like his Murcian neighbours, the vassal

of Ferdinand. In that capacity he was compelled to assist his

Christian liege lord in conquering Mussulman Seville."

M. M. Busk,

History of Spain and Portugal,

chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

Chronicle of James I., King of Aragon,

Surnamed the Conqueror;

translated by J. Forster.

SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

The Moorish kingdom of Granada.

The building of the Alhambra.

"A new era had begun in the fortunes of the Moors. Reft of

their two magnificent capitals at Cordova and Seville, they

had gathered into the extreme south, under the able and

beneficent rule of Aben-al-Hamar, who, though a tributary to

Castille, termed himself Sultan and Emir of the Faithful, and

is usually called King of Granada. Karnattah, as the Arabs had

named it, meant the Cream of the West. The Spaniards in later

times, deceived by the likeness of the word to Granada, a

pomegranate, fancied it to have been thence named, and took

the fruit as its emblem.

{2979}

The kingdom was a mere fragment, and did not even reach to the

Straits; for Algesira, the green island, and its great

fortresses, belonged to the Africans; and it had in it

elements of no small danger, containing as it did the remnants

of no less than thirty-two Arab and Moorish tribes, many of

them at deadly feud with one another, and divided by their

never-ending national enmities. The two great tribes of

Abencerrages, or sons of Zeragh, and the Zegris, or refugees

from Aragon, were destined to become the most famous of these.

The king himself, Mohammed-Abou-Said, was of the old Arabian

tribe of Al Hamar, by whose name he is usually called. He was

of the best old Arabic type-prudent, just, moderate,

temperate, and active, and so upright as to be worthy to

belong to this age of great kings, and his plans for his

little kingdom were favoured by the peace in which his

Christian neighbours left him; while Alfonso X. of Castille

was vainly endeavouring to become, not Emperor of Spain alone,

but Roman Emperor. The Almohides of Algarve obeyed neither

Alfonso nor Al Hamar, and they united to subdue them. Ten

cities were surrendered by the governor on condition that he

should enjoy the estates of the King's Garden at Seville, and

the tenth of the oil of an oliveyard. There was still a

mar·gin of petty walis who preferred a brief independence to a

secure tenure of existence as tributaries, and these one by

one fell a prey to the Castilians, the inhabitants of their

cities being expelled, and adding to the Granadine population.

AI Hamar received them kindly, but made them work vigorously

for their maintenance. Every nook of soil was in full

cultivation; the mountain-sides terraced with vineyards; new

modes of irrigation invented; the breeds of horses and cattle

carefully attended to; rewards instituted for the best

farmers, shepherds, and artisans. The manufacture of silk and

wool was actively carried on, also leather-work and

sword-cutlery. Hospitals and homes for the sick and infirm

were everywhere; and in the schools of Granada the remnants of

the scholarship of Cordova and Seville were collected. Granada

itself stood in the midst of the Vega, around two hills, each

crowned by a fortress: Albayzin, so called by the fugitives

from Baeza; and the Al Hâmra [or Alhambra], or Red Fortress.

The wall was extended so as to take in its constantly

increasing population, and the king began to render the Al

Hâmra one of the strongest and most beautiful places in

existence. Though begun by Al Hamar it was not completed for

several generations, each adding to the unrivalled beauty of

the interior, for, as usual in Arabian architecture, the

outside has no beauty, being a strong fortification of heavy

red walls. … Mohammed Aben-Al-Hamar died 1273, and his son

Mohammed II. followed in his steps."

C. M. Yonge,

The Story of the Christians and Moors of Spain,

chapter 20.

ALSO IN:

W. Irving,

The Alhambra.

J. C. Murphy,

Arabian Antiquities of Spain.

SPAIN: A. D. 1248-1350.

The conquest of Seville.

The reigns of St. Ferdinand, Alfonso the Learned,

and their three successors in Castile.

Seville, which had become the second city of Moslem Spain, its

schools and universities rivalling those of Cordova, shared

the fate of the latter and surrendered to the Christians on

the 22d of December, 1248. "This was the achievement of King

Ferdinand III., under whom the crowns of Castile and Leon had

become united. His territory extended from the Bay of Biscay

to the Guadalquiver, and from the borders of Portugal as far

as Arragon and Valencia. His glory was great in the estimation

of his countrymen for his conquests over the Moors, and four

centuries afterwards he was canonized by the Pope, and is now

known as Saint Ferdinand. … Ferdinand lived at the same time

with another king who was also canonized—Louis IX. of France,

who became Saint Louis. … The two kings, in fact, were

cousins, and the grandmother of both of them was Eleanor,

daughter of Henry II. of England. … The son of Saint Ferdinand

was Alfonso X., called 'El Sabio,' the learned, and not, as it

is sometimes translated, 'the wise.' He certainly was not very

wise, for he did an immense number of foolish things; but he

was such a strange man that it would be interesting to know

more about him than it is easy to do. It was a period when not

only commerce and industry but literature and art were taking

a new start in Europe—the time of Roger Bacon and Dante.

Alfonso loved his books, and dabbled in science, and was

really one of the learned men of his time. … His mind was very

naturally disturbed by a glimpse he had of being emperor of

Germany [or, to speak accurately, of the Holy Roman Empire]. …

The dignity was elective," and Alfonso became the candidate of

one party among the German electors; but he did not obtain the

dignity.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

"Ferdinand de la Cerda, the son and heir of Alfonso, died

during the lifetime of his father, and a difficulty arose

about the succession which extended over a long time. A Cortes

was assembled to decide the question, and it was agreed that

Sancho, brother to Ferdinand de la Cerda, should be heir to

the crown, to the exclusion of the children of Ferdinand,

grandchildren of Alfonso. This decision displeased the king of

France," who was the uncle of the children set aside. Alfonso

"declared in favor of his son Sancho, and came near having a

war with France in consequence." Yet Sancho, soon afterwards,

was persuaded to rebel against his father, and the latter was

reduced to sore straits, having no allies among his neighbors

except the king of Morocco. "At last the goaded king assembled

his few remaining adherents in Seville, and, in a solemn act,

not only disinherited his rebel son Sancho, but called down

maledictions on his head. In the same act he instituted his

grandsons, the infantes de la Cerda, as his heirs, and after

them, in default of issue, the kings of France." But Sancho

fell ill after this, and the fondness of his old father

revived with such intensity that he sickened of anxiety and

grief. "Sancho recovered and was soon as well as ever; but the

king grew worse, and soon died [1284], full of grief and

affection for his son. He had not, however, revoked his will.

Nobody minded the will, and Sancho was proclaimed king. He

reigned, and his son and grandson reigned after him." The son

was Ferdinand IV., who came to the throne in 1295; the

grandson was Alfonso XI., who followed him in 1312. The latter

was succeeded in 1350 by his son Pedro, or Peter, surnamed the

Cruel, and quite eminent under that sinister designation,

especially through the unfortunate connection of the English

Black Prince with his later evil fortunes.

E. E. and S. Hale,

The Story of Spain,

chapter 18.

{2980}

SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

The slow crumbling of the Moorish kingdom of Granada.

The founder of the kingdom of Granada, Aben-Al-Hamar, or

Ibnu-l-ahmar, died in 1273. He was "succeeded by his son, Abú

Abdillah, known as Mohammed II. Obeying his father's

injunctions, he called upon Yahúb, the Sultan of the Beni

Merines at Fez, to come to his aid, and captured Algeçiras, to

serve as a receptacle and magazine for these African allies.

He also presented Tarifa to Yahúb. The two allied forces then

went out to meet Nuño de Lam with the Christian frontier

troops, and routed him. But Mohammed was soon prevailed upon

by his fears to renew the Christian alliance; and the

Christian troops, thus freed from one enemy, soon wrested

Algeçiras, Tarifa [1291], Ronda, and other towns, from the

Beni Merines, who were, all but a small remnant, driven back

into Africa. … Mohammed II. died in 1302, and was succeeded by

a greater king,—Mohammed III., another Abú Abdillah, …

dethroned by a revolt of his brother, Nasr; but when, in 1312,

Nasr in turn was forced to abdicate, he was succeeded by

Isma'il Abú-l-Waled, after whom came Mohammed IV., in 1315.

Meantime the Christian monarchs were always pressing the

Moorish frontier. In 1309, Ferdinand IV. of Castile succeeded

in taking Gibraltar, while the troops of Aragon besieged

Almeria, and thus the circle was ever narrowing, but not

without bloody dispute. When Don Pedro, Infante of Castile,

made his great effort against Granada in 1319, he was wofully

defeated in the battle of Elvira, and his rich camp despoiled

by the Moors. Mohammed IV. succeeded in retaking Gibraltar

from the Christians [or, rather, according to Condé, it was

taken in 1331 by Mohammed's ally, the king of Fez, to whom

Mohammed was forced to cede it]. … He was assassinated by his

African allies, and succeeded by his brother Yúsuf in 1333.

Prompted purely by self-interest, Abu-l-has, another leader,

with 60,000 men, beside the contingent from Granada,

encountered the Christians near Tarifa in the year 1340, and

was defeated with immense loss [in the battle of the

Guadacelito or the Salado]. Yúsuf was assassinated by a madman

in 1354, and was succeeded by Mohammed V. … Driven from his

throne by a revolt of his half-brother Isma'il, he first fled

for his life to Guadix, and then to Africa, in the year 1359.

And all these intestine quarrels were playing into the

Christians' hands. Isma'il, the usurper, held the nominal

power less than a year, when he was dethroned and put to

death. His successor, Mohammed VI., surrounded by

difficulties, came to the strange determination to place

himself and his kingdom under the protection of that King

Pedro of Castile whom history has named 'el cruel,' but whom

his adherents called 'el justiciero,' the doer of justice. The

Castilian king vindicated his claim to the historic title by

putting Mohammed to death, and seizing 'the countless

treasures which he and the chiefs who composed his suite

brought with them.' To the throne, thus once more vacant by

assassination, Mohammed V. returned, and ruled a second time,

from 1362 to 1391. … Then came the reigns of Yúsuf II. and

Mohammed VII., uneventful, except that, in the words of the

Arabian chronicler, 'the Mohammedan empire still went on

decaying, until it became an easy prey to the infidels, who

surrounded it on every side, like a pack of hungry wolves.'

Many portents of ruin were displayed, and the public mind was

already contemplating the entire success of the Christians." A

century of confused struggles ensued, in the course of which

Gibraltar was several times besieged by the Christians, and

was finally taken by the Duke of Medina Sidonia in 1460. Other

strongholds of the Moors fell, one by one, and they "were

being more and more restricted to their little kingdom of

Granada, and the Christians were strengthening to dislodge and

expel them."

H. Coppée,

History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,

book 8, chapter 5 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

J. A. Condé,

History of the Dominion of the Arabs in Spain,

part 4, chapters 9-33.

SPAIN: (Aragon): A. D. 1282-1300.

Acquisition of Sicily by King Peter.

It passes as a separate kingdom to his younger son.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

SPAIN: A. D. 1366-1369.

Pedro the Cruel of Castile and

the invasion of the English Black Prince.

"Pedro the Cruel, King of Castile at this time (1350-1369),

had earned his title by a series of murders, which dated from

the time he was sixteen years old, and comprised his wife, his

step-mother, two of his half-brothers, and a great number of

the chief nobles of his kingdom. He was on bad terms with the

pope, for he was the friend of Moors and Jews, and had

plundered bishops and monasteries; he was hated in the court

of France, for his murdered queen was the king's cousin,

Blanche de Bourbon; he was at war with the King of Arragon.

Instigated by this monarch and by the King of Navarre, the

eldest of Pedro's half-brothers, Don Henry of Trastamere, who

had been serving for some time with the Free Companions in

Languedoc, conceived the idea of uniting them in a grand

enterprise against the kingdom of Castile. Charles V. [of

France] approved the project, and lent money and his best

captain, Du Guesclin; Pope Urban V. contributed his blessing

and money; and the Free Lances eagerly embraced a scheme which

promised them the plunder of a new country." The expedition

"succeeded without bloodshed. The people rose to welcome it,

and Don Pedro was forced to escape through Portugal, and take

ship hastily at Corunna. Don Henry was crowned in his palace

at Burgos (April 1366). In his distress Don Pedro applied to

the Prince of Wales [the Black Prince, then holding the

government of Aquitaine] for support. There was no reason why

England or Aquitaine should be mixed up in Spanish politics.

Both countries required rest after an exhausting war. … But

Pedro was a skilful diplomatist. He bribed the Prince of Wales

by a promise to cede the province of Biscay." With the consent

of his father, King Edward III. of England, the Prince took up

the cause of the odious Don Pedro, and led an army of 24,000

horse, besides great numbers of archers, into Spain (A. D.

1367). At the decisive battle of Navarette the Spaniards and

their allies were overwhelmingly defeated, Du Guesclin was

taken prisoner, Don Henry fled, and Pedro was reinstated on

the Castilian throne. "Then came disappointment. The prince

demanded performance of the promises Don Pedro had made, and

proposed to stay in Spain till they were acquitted. … For some

months Edward vainly awaited the performance of his ally's

promises.

{2981}

Then, as his troops were wasting away with dysentery and other

diseases caused by the strange climate, till it was said

scarcely a fifth remained alive, Edward resolved to remove

into Aquitaine, which Don Henry was attacking, and was glad to

find that the passes of the Pyrenees were left open to him by

the Kings of Arragon and Navarre (August 1367). … The results

of Edward's mischievous policy soon became evident. All he had

achieved in Spain was almost instantly undone by Don Henry,

who crossed the Pyrenees a few weeks only after Edward had

left Spain (September 1367) recovered his kingdom in the

course of the next year, and captured and killed Don Pedro a

little later (March 1369). The whole power of Castile, which

was far from being contemptible at sea, was then thrown into

the scale against England."

C. H. Pearson,

English History in the Fourteenth Century,

chapter 8.

ALSO IN:

J. Froissart,

Chronicles

(translated by Johnes),

book 1, chapters 230-245.

P. Merimée,

History of Peter the Cruel,

volume 2, chapters 7-11.

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.

SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

Castile under the House of Trastamere.

Discord and civil war.

Triumph of Queen Isabella.

The Castilian dynasty in Aragon.

Marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand.

"A more fortunate period began [in Castile] with the accession

of Henry [of Trastamare, or Henry II.]. His own reign was

hardly disturbed by any rebellion; and though his successors,

John I. [1379] and Henry III. [1390], were not altogether so

unmolested, especially the latter, who ascended the throne in

his minority, yet the troubles of their time were slight, in

comparison with those formerly excited by the houses of Lara

and Haro, both of which were now happily extinct. Though Henry

II. 's illegitimacy left him no title but popular choice, his

queen was sole representative of the Cerdas, the offspring …

of Sancho IV. 's elder brother. … No kingdom could be worse

prepared to meet the disorders of a minority than Castile, and

in none did the circumstances so frequently recur. John II.

was but fourteen months old at his accession [1406]; and but

for the disinterestedness of his uncle Ferdinand, the nobility

would have been inclined to avert the danger by placing that

prince upon the throne. In this instance, however, Castile

suffered less from faction during the infancy of her sovereign

than in his maturity. The queen dowager, at first jointly with

Ferdinand, and solely after his accession to the crown of

Aragon, administered the government with credit. … In external

affairs their reigns were not what is considered as glorious.

They were generally at peace with Aragon and Granada, but one

memorable defeat by the Portuguese at Aljubarrota [August 14,

1385] disgraces the annals of John I., whose cause [attempting

the conquest of Portugal] was as unjust as his arms were

unsuccessful. This comparatively golden period ceases at the

majority of John II. His reign was filled up by a series of

conspiracies and civil wars, headed by his cousins John and

Henry, the infants of Aragon, who enjoyed very extensive

territories in Castile, by the testament of their father

Ferdinand. Their brother the king of Aragon frequently lent

the assistance of his arms. … These conspiracies were all

ostensibly directed against the favourite of John II., Alvaro

de Luna, who retained for 35 years an absolute control over

his feeble master. … His fate is among the memorable lessons

of history. After a life of troubles endured for the sake of

this favourite, sometimes a fugitive, sometimes a prisoner,

his son heading rebellions against him, John II. suddenly

yielded to an intrigue of the palace, and adopted sentiments

of dislike towards the man he had so long loved. … Alvaro de

Luna was brought to a summary trial and beheaded; his estates

were confiscated. He met his death with the intrepidity of

Strafford, to whom he seems to have borne some resemblance in

character. John II. did not long survive his minister, dying

in 1454, after a reign that may be considered as inglorious,

compared with any except that of his successor. If the father

was not respected, the son fell completely into contempt. He

had been governed by Pacheco, marquis of Villena, as

implicitly as John by Alvaro de Luna. This influence lasted

for some time afterwards. But the king inclining to transfer

his confidence to the queen, Joanna of Portugal, and to one

Bertrand de Cueva, upon whom common fame had fixed as her

paramour, a powerful confederacy of disaffected nobles was

formed against the royal authority. … They deposed Henry in an

assembly of their faction at Avila with a sort of theatrical

pageantry which has often been described. … The confederates

set up Alfonso, the king's brother, and a civil war of some

duration ensued, in which they had the support of Aragon. The

queen of Castile had at this time borne a daughter, whom the

enemies of Henry IV., and indeed no small part of his

adherents, were determined to treat as spurious. Accordingly,

after the death of Alfonso, his sister Isabel was considered

as heiress of the kingdom. … Avoiding the odium of a contest

with her brother, Isabel agreed to a treaty by which the

succession was absolutely settled upon her [1469]. This

arrangement was not long afterwards followed by the union of

that princess with Ferdinand, son of the king of Aragon. This

marriage was by no means acceptable to a part of the Castilian

oligarchy, who had preferred a connexion with Portugal. And as

Henry had never lost sight of the interests of one whom he

considered, or pretended to consider, as his daughter, he took

the first opportunity of revoking his forced disposition of

the crown and restoring the direct line of succession in

favour of the princess Joanna. Upon his death, in 1474, the

right was to be decided by arms. Joanna had on her side the

common presumptions of law, the testamentary disposition of

the late king, the support of Alfonso king of Portugal, to

whom she was betrothed, and of several considerable leaders

among the nobility. … For Isabella were the general belief of

Joanna's illegitimacy, the assistance of Aragon, the adherence

of a majority both among the nobles and people, and, more than

all, the reputation of ability which both she and her husband

had deservedly acquired. The scale was, however, pretty

equally balanced, till the king of Portugal having been

defeated at Toro in 1476, Joanna's party discovered their

inability to prosecute the war by themselves, and successively

made their submission to Ferdinand and Isabella." Ferdinand of

Aragon, by whose marriage with Isabella of Castile the two

kingdoms became practically united, was himself of Castilian

descent, being the grandson of that magnanimous Ferdinand who

has been mentioned above, as the uncle and joint guardian of

John II. of Castile.

{2982}

In 1410, on the death of King Martin, the right of succession

to the throne of Aragon had been in dispute, and Ferdinand was

one of several claimants. Instead of resorting to arms, the

contending parties were wisely persuaded to submit the

question to a special tribunal, composed of three Aragonese,

three Catalans, and three Valencians. "A month was passed in

hearing arguments; a second was allotted to considering them;

and at the expiration of the prescribed time it was announced

to the people … that Ferdinand of Castile had ascended the

throne. In this decision it is impossible not to suspect that

the judges were swayed rather by politic considerations than a

strict sense of hereditary right. It was therefore by no

means universally popular, especially in Catalonia. …

Ferdinand however was well received in Aragon. … Ferdinand's

successor was his son Alfonso V., more distinguished in the

history of Italy than of Spain. For all the latter years of

his life he never quitted the kingdom that he had acquired by

his arms.

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447;

Enchanted by the delicious air of Naples, intrusted the

government of his patrimonial territories to the care of a

brother and an heir. John II., upon whom they devolved by the

death of Alfonso without legitimate progeny, had been engaged

during his youth in the turbulent revolutions of Castile, as

the head of a strong party that opposed the domination of

Alvaro de Luna. By marriage with the heiress of Navarre he was

entitled, according to the usage of those times, to assume the

title of king, and administration of government, during her

life. But his ambitious retention of power still longer

produced events which are the chief stain on his memory.

Charles, prince of Viana, was, by the constitution of Navarre,

entitled to succeed his mother [1442]. She had requested him

in her testament not to assume the government without his

father's consent. That consent was always withheld. The prince

raised what we ought not to call a rebellion; but was made

prisoner. … After a life of perpetual oppression, chiefly

passed in exile or captivity, the prince of Viana died in

Catalonia [1461], at a moment when that province was in open

insurrection upon his account. Though it hardly seems that the

Catalans had any more general provocations, they persevered

for more than ten years [until the capitulation of Barcelona,

after a long siege, in 1472] with inveterate obstinacy in

their rebellion, offering the sovereignty first to a prince of

Portugal, and afterwards to Regnier duke of Anjou, who was

destined to pass his life in unsuccessful competition for

kingdoms." Ferdinand, who married Isabella of Castile, was a

younger half-brother of prince Charles of Viana, and succeeded

his father, John II., on the throne of Aragon, in 1479.

H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 4 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

W. H. Prescott,

History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,

part 1, chapters 1-5.

See, also, NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

SPAIN: A. D. 1458.

Separation of the crown of Naples

from those of Aragon and Sicily.

See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

The last struggle of the Moors.

Fall of the city and kingdom of Granada.

"The days of the Moorish kingdom were already numbered when,

in 1466, Aboul Hacem succeeded Ismael; but the disturbances in

Castille emboldened him, and when, in 1476, the regular demand

for tribute was made, he answered: 'Those who coined gold for

you are dead. Nothing is made at Granada for the Christians

but sword-blades and lance-points.' Such was the last

proclamation of war from the Moors. Even the Imaums

disapproved, and preached in the mosques of Granada. 'Woe to

the Moslems in Andalusia!' 'The end is come,' they said; 'the

ruins will fall on our heads!' Nevertheless, Aboul Hacem

surprised the Aragonese city of Zahara with 60,000

inhabitants, and put them all to the sword or sold them into

slavery; but he was not welcomed, evil was predicted, and he

became more and more hated when he put four of the

Abencerrages to death. The king and queen [Ferdinand, or

Fernando, and Isabella] now began to prepare the whole

strength of their kingdom for a final effort, not to be

relaxed till Spain should be wholly a Christian land. … Don

Rodrigo Ponce de Leon, who had become Marquis of Cadiz, made a

sudden night attack upon Alhama, only eight leagues from

Granada, and though the inhabitants fought from street to

street he mastered it. … Alhama was a terrible loss to the

Moors, and was bewailed in the ballad, 'Ay de me Al Hama,'

which so moved the hearts of the people that it was forbidden

to be sung in the streets of Granada. It has been translated

by Byron, who has in fact united two ballads. … Alhama had

once before been taken by St. Fernando, but could not then be

kept, and a council was held by the 'Reyes Catolicos'

[Ferdinand and Isabella], in which it was declared that it

would take 5,000 mules' burthen of provisions sent several

times a year, to support a garrison thus in the heart of the

enemy's country. The high spirit of the queen, however,

carried the day. She declared that the right thing to do was

to take Loja to support Alhama, and, after causing the three

chief mosques to be purified as Christian churches, she

strained every effort [1482] to equip an army with which

Fernando was to besiege Loja. On the day before he set out

Isabel gave birth to twins—one dead, the other a daughter: and

this was viewed as an ill omen. … Ali Atar, one of the bravest

of the Moors, defeated Fernando and forced him to retreat with

the loss of his baggage. Aboul Hacem was prevented from

following up his success by the struggles of the women in his

harem. His favourite wife was a Christian by birth, named

Isabel de Solis, the daughter of the Alcayde of Bedmar; but

she had become a renegade, and was commonly called Zoraya, or

the Morning Star. Childless herself, she was vehemently set on

the promotion of Abou-Abd-Allah, son of another wife, Ayescha,

who is generally known by the Spanish contraction of his name,

Boabdil; also in Arabic as Al Zaquir, the little, and in

Spanish as 'el Rey Chico.' Such disaffection was raised that

Aboul Hacem was forced to return home, where he imprisoned

Ayescha and her son; but they let themselves down from the

window with a rope twisted of the veils of the Sultana's

women, and, escaping to the palace or Albaycin, there held out

against him, supported by the Abencerrages. The Zegris held by

Aboul Hacem, and the streets of Granada ran red with the blood

shed by the two factions till, in 1482, while the elder king

was gone to relieve Loja, the younger one seized the Alhamra;

and Aboul Hacem, finding the gates closed against him, was

obliged to betake himself to Malaga, where his brother Abd

Allah, called Al Zagal, or the young, was the Alcayde."

C. M. Yonge,

The Story of the Christians and Moors in Spain,

chapter 24.

{2983}

"The illegal power of Boabdil was contested by his uncle,

Az-Zagal (El Zagal), who held a precarious sway for four

years, until 1487, when Boabdil again came to the throne. This

was rendered more easy by the fact that, in a battle between

the Moors and Christians in the territory of Lucena, not long

after his accession, Boabdil was taken prisoner by the

Christian forces. By a stroke of policy, the Christian king

released his royal prisoner, in the hope that through him he

might make a treaty. Boabdil went to Loja, which was at once

besieged by Ferdinand, and this time captured, and with it the

Moorish king again fell into the Christian hands. Again

released, after many difficulties he came into power. The

Christian conquests were not stayed by these circumstances. In

1487, they captured Velez Malaga, on the coast a short

distance east of Malaga, and received the submission of many

neighboring towns. In the same year Malaga was besieged and

taken. In 1489, Baeza followed; then the important city of

Almeria, and at last the city of Granada stood alone to

represent the Mohammedan dominion in the Peninsula. The strife

between Boabdil and El Zagal now came to an end; and the

latter, perhaps foreseeing the fatal issue, embarked for

Africa, leaving the nominal rule and the inevitable surrender

to his rival. … The army of Ferdinand and Isabella was in

splendid condition, and reinforcements were arriving from day

to day. System and order prevailed, and the troops, elated

with victory, acknowledged no possibility of failure. Very

different was the condition of things and very depressed the

spirit of the people in Granada. Besides its own disordered

population, it was crowded with disheartened fugitives,

anxious for peace on any terms. The more warlike and ambitious

representatives of the tribes were still quarrelling in the

face of the common ruin, but all parties joined in bitter

denunciations of their king. When he had been released by

Ferdinand after the capture of Loja, he had promised that when

Guadix should be taken and the power of El Zagal destroyed, he

would surrender Granada to the Christian king, and retire to

some seignory, as duke or marquis. But now that the 'casus'

had arrived, he found … that the people would not permit him

to keep his promise. … The only way in which Boabdil could

appease the people was by an immediate declaration of war

against the Christians. This was in the year 1490. When this

was made known, Ferdinand and Isabella were at Seville,

celebrating the marriage of the Infanta Isabel with Alfonso,

crown prince of Portugal. The omen was a happy one. The armies

of Spain and Portugal were immediately joined to put an end to

the crusade. With 5,000 cavalry and 20,000 foot, the Spanish

king advanced to the Sierra Elvira, overlooking the original

site of the Granadine capital. The epic and romantic details

of the conquest may be read elsewhere. … There were sorties on

the part of the Moors, and chivalrous duels between

individuals, until the coming of winter, when, leaving proper

guards and garrisons, the principal Christian force retired to

Cordova, to make ready for the spring. El Zagal had returned

from Africa, and was now fighting in the Christian ranks. It

was an imposing army which was reviewed by Ferdinand on the

26th of April, 1491, in the beautiful Vega, about six miles

from the city of Granada; the force consisted of 10,000 horse

and 40,000 foot, ready to take position in the final siege. …

It was no part of the Spanish king's purpose to assault the

place. … He laid his siege in the Vega, but used his troops in

devastating the surrounding country, taking prisoners and

capturing cattle. … Meantime the Christian camp grew like a

city, and when Queen Isabella came with her train of beauty

and grace, it was also a court city in miniature." In July, an

accidental fire destroyed the whole encampment, and roused

great hopes among the Moors. But a city of wood (which the

pious queen called Santa Fé—the Holy Faith) soon took the

place of the tents, and "the momentary elation of the Moors

gave way to profound depression; and this induced them to

capitulate. The last hour had indeed struck on the great

horologe of history; and on the 25th of November the armistice

was announced for making a treaty of peace and occupancy."

H. Coppée,

History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,

book 8, chapter 5 (volume 2).

"After large discussion on both sides, the terms of

capitulation were definitively settled. … The inhabitants of

Granada were to retain possession of their mosques, with the

free exercise of their religion, with all its peculiar rights

and ceremonies; they were to be judged by their own laws,

under their own cadis or magistrates, subject to the general

control of the Castilian governor; they were to be unmolested

in their ancient usages, manners, language, and dress; to be

protected in the full enjoyment of their property, with the

right of disposing of it on their own account, and of

migrating when and where they would; and to be furnished with

vessels for the conveyance of such as chose within three years

to pass into Africa. No heavier taxes were to be imposed than

those customarily paid to their Arabian sovereigns, and none

whatever before the expiration of three years. King Abdallah

[Boabdil] was to reign over a specified territory in the

Alpuxarras, for which he was to do homage to the Castilian

crown. … The city was to be surrendered in 60 days from the

date of the capitulation;" but owing to popular disturbances

in Granada, the surrender was actually made on the 2d of

January, 1492. Boabdil soon tired of the petty sovereignty

assigned to him, sold it to Ferdinand and Isabella, passed

over to Fez, and perished in one of the battles of his

kinsmen.

W. H. Prescott,

History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,

chapter 15.

ALSO IN:

W. Irving,

Chronicle of the Conquest of Granada.

SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1498.-

The reorganization of the Hermandad,

or Holy Brotherhood, in Castile.

See HOLY BROTHERHOOD.

SPAIN: A. D. 1481-1525.

Establishment and organization of the "Spanish Inquisition."

Its horrible work.

See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

SPAIN: A. D. 1492.

Expulsion of the Jews.

See JEWS; 8-15TH CENTURIES.

{2984}

SPAIN: A. D. 1492-1533.

Discovery of America.

First voyages, colonizations and conquests.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1492, 1493-1406, and after.

SPAIN: A. D. 1493.

The Papal grant of the New World.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1493.

SPAIN: A. D. 1494.

The Treaty of Tordesillas.

Amended partition of the New World with Portugal.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1494.

SPAIN: A. D. 1495.

Alliance with Naples, Venice, Germany and the Pope

against Charles VIII. of France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.

Marriage of the Infanta Joanna to the

Austro-Burgundian Archduke Philip.

Birth of their son Charles, the heir of many crowns.

Insanity of Joanna.

Death of Queen Isabella.

Regency of Ferdinand.

His second marriage and his death.

Accession of Charles, the first of the

Austro-Spanish dynasty.

Joanna, second daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, was married

in 1496 to "the archduke Philip, son of the emperor

Maximilian, and sovereign, in right of his mother [Mary of

Burgundy], of the Low Countries. The first fruit of this

marriage was the celebrated Charles V., born at Ghent,

February 24th, 1500, whose birth was no sooner announced to

Queen Isabella than she predicted that to this infant would

one day descend the rich inheritance of the Spanish monarchy.

The premature death of the heir apparent, Prince Miguel, not

long after [and also of the queen of Portugal, the elder

daughter of Isabella and Ferdinand], prepared the way for this

event by devolving the succession on Joanna, Charles's mother.

From that moment the sovereigns were pressing in their

entreaties that the archduke and his wife would visit Spain. …

In the latter part of 1501, Philip and Joanna, attended by a

numerous suite of Flemish courtiers, set out on their

journey," passing through France and being royally entertained

on the way. In Spain, they first received the usual oath of

fealty from the Castilian cortes, and then "were solemnly

recognized by the four 'arms' of Aragon as successors to the

crown, in default of male issue of King Ferdinand. The

circumstance is memorable as affording the first example of

the parliamentary recognition of a female heir apparent in

Aragonese history. Amidst all the honors so liberally lavished

on Philip, his bosom secretly swelled with discontent,

fomented still further by his followers, who pressed him to

hasten his return to Flanders, where the free and social

manners of the people were much more congenial to their tastes

than the reserve and stately ceremonial of the Spanish court.

… Ferdinand and Isabella saw with regret the frivolous

disposition of their son-in-law. … They beheld with

mortification his indifference to Joanna, who could boast few

personal attractions, and who cooled the affections of her

husband by alternations of excessive fondness and irritable

jealousy." Against the remonstrances of king, queen and

cortes, as well as in opposition to the wishes of his wife,

Philip set out for Flanders in December, again traveling

through France, and negotiating on the way a treaty with Louis

XII. which arranged for the marriage of the infant Charles

with princess Claude of France—a marriage which never

occurred. The unhappy Joanna, whom he left behind, was plunged

in the deepest dejection, and exhibited ere long decided

symptoms of insanity. On the 10th of March, 1503, she gave

birth to her second son, Ferdinand, and the next spring she

joined her husband in Flanders, but only to be worse treated

by him than before. Queen Isabella, already declining in

health, was deeply affected by the news of her daughter's

unhappiness and increasing disturbance of mind, and on the

26th of November, 1504, she died. By her will, she settled the

crown of Castile on the infanta Joanna as "queen proprietor,"

and the archduke Philip as her husband, and she appointed King

Ferdinand (who was henceforth king in Aragon, but not in

Castile), to be sole regent of Castile, in the event of the

absence or incapacity of Joanna, until the latter's son

Charles should attain his majority. On the day of the queen's

death Ferdinand resigned the crown of Castile, which he had

worn as her consort, only, and caused to be proclaimed the

accession of Joanna and Philip to the Castilian throne. "The

king of Aragon then publicly assumed the title of

administrator or governor of Castile, as provided by the

queen's testament." He next convened a cortes at Toro, in

January, 1505, which approved and ratified the provisions of

the will and "took the oaths of allegiance to Joanna as queen

and lady proprietor, and to Philip as her husband. They then

determined that the exigency contemplated in the testament, of

Joanna's incapacity, actually existed, and proceeded to tender

their homage to King Ferdinand, as the lawful governor of the

realm in her name." These arrangements were unsatisfactory to

many of the Castilian nobles, who opened a correspondence with

Philip, in the Netherlands, and persuaded him "to assert his

pretensions to undivided supremacy in Castile." Opposition to

Ferdinand's regency increased, and it was fomented not only by

Philip and his friends, but by the king of France, Louis XII.

To placate the latter enemy, Ferdinand sought in marriage a

niece of the French king, Germaine, daughter of Jean de Foix,

and negotiated a treaty, signed at Blois, October 12, 1505, in

which he resigned his claims on Naples to his intended bride

and her heirs. Louis was now detached from the interests of

Philip, and refused permission to the archduke to pass through

his kingdom. But Ferdinand, astute as he was, allowed himself

to be deceived by his son-in-law, who agreed to a compromise,

known as the concord of Salamanca, which provided for the

government of Castile in the joint names of Ferdinand, Philip,

and Joanna, while, at the same time, he was secretly preparing

to transfer his wife and himself to Spain by sea. On the first

attempt they were driven to England by a storm; but in April,

1506, Philip and Joanna landed at Coruña, in Spain, and in

June Ferdinand was forced to sign and swear to an agreement

"by which he surrendered the entire sovereignty of Castile to

Philip and Joanna, reserving to himself only the

grand-masterships of the military orders, and the revenues

secured by Isabella's testament." Philip took the government

into his own hands, endeavoring to obtain authority to place

his wife in confinement, as one insane; but this the

Castilians would not brook. Otherwise he carried things with a

high hand, surrounding himself with Flemish favorites, and

revolutionizing the government in every branch and the court

in every feature. His insolence, extravagance and frivolity

excited general disgust, and would probably have provoked

serious revolts, if the country had been called upon to endure

them long.

{2985}

But Philip's reign was brief. He sickened, suddenly, of a

fever, and died on the 25th of September, 1506. His demented

widow would not permit his body to be interred. A provisional

council of regency carried on the government until December.

After that it drifted, with no better authoritative guidance

than that of the poor insane queen, until July 1507, when

Ferdinand, who had been absent, in Naples, during the year

past, returned and was joyfully welcomed. His unfortunate

daughter "henceforth resigned herself to her father's will. "

Although she survived 47 years, she never quitted the walls of

her habitation; and although her name appeared jointly with

that of her son, Charles V., in all public acts, she never

afterwards could be induced to sign a paper, or take part in

any transactions of a public nature. … From this time the

Catholic king exercised an authority nearly as undisputed, and

far less limited and defined, than in the days of Isabella."

He exercised this authority for nine years, dying on the 23d

of January, 1516. By his last will he settled the succession

of Aragon and Naples on his daughter Joanna and her heirs,

thus uniting the sovereignty of those kingdoms with that of

Castile, in the same person. The administration of Castile

during Charles' absence was intrusted to Ximenes, and that of

Aragon to the king's natural son, the archbishop of Saragossa.

In September, 1517, Charles, the heir of many kingdoms,

arrived in Spain from the Netherlands, where his youth had

been spent. Two months later Cardinal Ximenes died, but not

before Charles had rudely and ungratefully dismissed him from

the government. The queen, Joanna, was still living; but her

arbitrary son had already commanded the proclamation of

himself as king.

W. H. Prescott,

History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,

part 2, chapters 12-13, 16-17,19-20, 24-25.

See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526.

SPAIN: A. D. 1501-1504.

Treaty of Ferdinand with Louis XII. for

the partition of Naples.

Their joint conquest.

Their quarrel and war.

The French expelled.

The Spaniards in possession.

See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

SPAIN: A. D. 1505-1510.

Conquests on the Barbary coast.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.

SPAIN: A. D. 1508-1509.

The League of Cambrai against Venice.

See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

SPAIN: A. D. 1511-1513.

Ferdinand of Aragon in the Holy League against France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

SPAIN: A. D. 1512-1515.

Conquest of Navarre.

Its incorporation in the kingdom of Castile.

See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

SPAIN: A. D. 1515-1557.

Discovery of the Rio de la Plata and

colonization of Paraguay.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

SPAIN: A. D. 1516-1519.

The great dominion of Charles.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526;

and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.

SPAIN: A. D. 1517.

The Treaty of Noyon, between Charles and Francis I.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

Popular discontent.

Election of Charles to the German imperial throne.

Rebellion of the Holy Junta, and its failure.

Absolutism of the crown established.

Charles had not been long in Spain before "symptoms of

discontent … were every where visible. Charles spoke the

Spanish language imperfectly: his discourse was consequently

slow, and delivered with hesitation; and from that

circumstance many of the Spaniards were induced to regard him

as a prince of a slow and narrow genius. But the greatest

dissatisfaction arose from his attachment to his Flemish

favourites, who engrossed or exposed to sale every office of

honour or emolument, and whose rapacity was so unbounded that

they are said to have remitted to the Netherlands no less a

sum than 1,100,000 ducats in the space of ten months. … While

Spain, agitated by a general discontent, was ready for

rebellion, a spacious field was opened to the ambition of her

monarch. The death of the Emperor Maximilian [1519] had left

vacant the imperial throne of Germany. The Kings of Spain, of

France, and of England, offered themselves as candidates for

this high dignity," and Charles was chosen, entering now upon

his great career as the renowned Emperor, Charles V.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

"Charles received the news of his election to the imperial

throne with the joy that was natural to a young and aspiring

mind. But his elevation was far from affording the same

satisfaction to his Spanish subjects, who foresaw that their

blood and their treasures would be lavished in the support of

German politics." With great difficulty he obtained from the

Cortes money sufficient to enable him to proceed to Germany in

a suitable style. Having accomplished this, he sailed from

Corunna in May, 1520, leaving his old preceptor, now Cardinal

Adrian, of Utrecht, to be Regent during his absence. "As soon

as it was understood that, although the Cortes had voted him a

free gift, they had not obtained the redress of any grievance,

the indignation of the people became general and

uncontrollable. The citizens of Toledo took arms, attacked the

citadel, and compelled the governor to surrender. Having, in

the next place, established a democratical form of government,

composed of deputies from the several parishes of the city,

they levied troops, and appointed for their commander Don Juan

de Padilla, son of the Commendator of Castile, a young man of

an ambitious and daring spirit, and a great favourite with the

populace. Segovia, Burgos, Zamora, and several other cities,

followed the example of Toledo." Segovia was besieged by

Fonseca, commander-in-chief in Castile, who, previously,

destroyed a great part of the town of Medino del Campo by

fire, because its citizens refused to deliver to him a train

of artillery. Valladolid now rose in revolt, notwithstanding

the presence of the Regent in the city, and forced him to

disavow the proceedings of Fonseca.

J. Bigland,

History of Spain,

volume 1, chapter 12.

"In July [1520], deputies from the principal Castilian cities

met in Avila; and having formed an association called the

Santa Junta, or Holy League, proceeded to deliberate

concerning the proper methods of redressing the grievances of

the nation. The Junta declared the authority of Adrian

illegal, on the ground of his being a foreigner, and required

him to resign it; while Padilla, by a sudden march, seized the

person of Joanna at Tordesillas. The unfortunate queen

displayed an interval of reason, during which she authorised

Padilla to do all that was necessary for the safety of the

kingdom; but she soon relapsed into her former imbecility, and

could not be persuaded to sign any more papers.

{2986}

The Junta nevertheless carried on all their deliberations in

her name; and Padilla, marching with a considerable army to

Valladolid, seized the seals and public archives, and formally

deposed Adrian. Charles now issued from Germany circular

letters addressed to the Castilian cities, making great

concessions, which, however, were not deemed satisfactory by

the Junta; who, conscious of their power, proceeded to draw up

a remonstrance, containing a long list of grievances. …

Charles having refused to receive the remonstrance which was

forwarded to him in Germany, the Junta proceeded to levy open

war against him and the nobles; for the latter, who had at

first sided with the Junta, finding their own privileges

threatened as well as those of the King, began now to support

the royal authority. The army of the Junta, which numbered

about 20,000 men, was chiefly composed of mechanics and

persons unacquainted with the use of arms; Padilla was set

aside, and the command given to Don Pedro de Giron, a rash and

inexperienced young nobleman." From this time the insurrection

failed rapidly. In December, the royalists recovered

Tordesillas and the person of Queen Joanna; and in April,

1521, Padilla was defeated, taken prisoner and executed, near

Villalar. "This defeat proved the ruin of the Junta.

Valladolid and most of the other confederated towns now

submitted, but Toledo, animated by the grief and courage of

Padilla's widow, still held out." Even after the surrender of

the city, "Dona Maria retired to the citadel and held it four

months longer; but on the 10th February 1522, she was

compelled to surrender, and escaped in disguise to Portugal;

after which tranquillity was re-established in Castile."

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

"The insurrection was a failure; and the blow which crushed

the insurgents on the plains of Villalar deprived them [the

Spaniards at large] for ever of the few liberties which they

had been permitted to retain. They were excluded from all

share in the government, and were henceforth summoned to the

cortes only to swear allegiance to the heir apparent, or to

furnish subsidies for their master. … The nobles, who had

stood by their master in the struggle, fared no better. … They

gradually sunk into the unsubstantial though glittering

pageant of a court. Meanwhile the government of Castile,

assuming the powers of both making the laws and enforcing

their execution, became in its essential attributes nearly as

absolute as that of Turkey."

W. H. Prescott,

History of the Reign of Philip II.,

book 6, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

W. Robertson,

History of the Reign of Charles V.,

book 3 (volume 2).

SPAIN: A. D. 1519-1524.

The conquest of Mexico.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1519, to 1524.

SPAIN: A. D. 1523.

The conspiracy of Charles V. with the Constable of

Bourbon against France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

SPAIN: A. D. 1523-1527.

Double-dealings of Pope Clement VII. with Charles.

The imperial revenge.

Capture and sack of Rome.

See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527; and 1527.

SPAIN: A. D. 1524.

Disputes with Portugal in the division of the New World.

The voyage of Magellan and the Congress of Badajos.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

SPAIN: A. D. 1526.

The Treaty of Madrid.

Perfidy of Francis I.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.

SPAIN: A. D. 1526.

Compulsory and nominal Conversion of the Moors,

or Moriscoes, completed.

See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

SPAIN: A. D. 1528-1542.

The expeditions of Narvaez and Hernando de Soto in Florida.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

SPAIN: A. D. 1531-1541.

Pizarro's conquest of Peru.

See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, to 1533-1548.

SPAIN: A. D. 1535.

Conquest and vassalage of Tunis.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.

SPAIN: A. D. 1536-1544.

Renewed war between Charles V. and Francis I.

Treaty of Crespy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

SPAIN: A. D. 1541.

Disastrous expedition of Charles V. against Algiers.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1541.

SPAIN: A. D. 1556.

Abdication of Charles.

Accession of Philip II.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.

SPAIN: A. D. 1556-1559.

War with France and the Pope.

Successes in Italy and northwestern France.

Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

SPAIN: A. D. 1559-1563.

Early measures of Philip II.

His stupid and stifling despotism.

His attempt to shut knowledge out of the kingdom.

His destruction of commerce and industry.

His choice of Madrid for a capital.

His building of the Escorial.

"In the beginning of his reign he [Philip II.] issued a most

extraordinary decree. … That document is a signal revelation

of the policy which Philip adopted as the very soul of his

Government. Determined to stop by all imaginable means the

infiltration into Spain of the doctrines of the religious

reformation which agitated Europe, it seems that he planned to

isolate her intellect from that of the rest of the world. …

For this purpose he ordered that none of his subjects, without

any exception whatever, should leave the Kingdom 'to learn, or

to teach, or to read anything,' or even 'reside' in any of the

universities, colleges or schools established in foreign

parts. To those who were thus engaged he prescribed that they

should return home within four months. Any ecclesiastic

violating this decree was to be denationalized and lose all

his temporalities; any layman was to be punished with the

confiscation of his property and perpetual exile. Thus a sort

of Chinese legislation and policy was adopted for Spain. There

was to be on her frontiers a line of custom-houses through

which the thought of man could not pass without examination.

No Spaniard was to receive or to communicate one idea without

the leave of Philip. … In 1560, the Cortes of Castile had

their second meeting under the reign of Philip. … The Cortes

presented to Philip one hundred and eleven petitions. … To

those petitions which aimed at something practicable and

judicious he gave some of his usual evasive answers, but he

granted very readily those which were absurd. For instance, he

promulgated sumptuary ordinances which were ridiculous, and

which could not possibly have any salutary effects. He also

published decrees which were restrictive of commerce, and

prohibited the exportation of gold, silver, grains, cattle and

other products of the soil, or of the manufacturing industry

of the country. …

{2987}

In the meantime, the financial condition of the Kingdom was

rapidly growing worse, and the deficit resulting from the

inequality of expenditure and revenue was assuming the most

alarming proportions. All the ordinary and extraordinary means

and resources had been exhausted. … Yet, on an average, Philip

received annually from his American Dominions alone more than

1,200,000 ducats—which was at least equivalent to $6,000,000

at the present epoch. The Council of Finances, or Hacienda,

after consulting with Philip, could not devise anything else,

to get out of difficulty, than to resort again to the sale of

titles of nobility, the sale of vassals and other Royal

property, the alienation of certain rights, and the concession

of privileges. … It is difficult to give an idea of the

wretched administration which had been introduced in Spain,

and of those abuses which, like venomous leeches, preyed upon

her vitals. Suffice it to say that in Castile, for instance,

according to a census made in 1541, there was a population of

near 800,000 souls, and that out of every eight men there was

one who was noble and exempt from taxation, thereby increasing

the weight of the burden on the shoulders of the rest; and as

if this evil was not already unbearable, Philip was selling

profusely letters patent of nobility. … In these conjunctures

[1560], Philip, who had shown, on all occasions, that he

preferred residing in Madrid, … determined to make that city

the permanent seat of the Court and of the Supreme Government,

and therefore the capital of the Monarchy. That barren and

insalubrious locality presented but one advantage, if it be

one of much value, that of being a central point. … Reason and

common sense condemned it from the beginning. … Shortly after

having selected Madrid as his capital, Philip had laid [1563]

with his own bands, in the vicinity of that city, the first

stone of the foundations of the Escorial, that eighth marvel

of the world, as it is called by the Spaniards."

C. Gayarré,

Philip II. of Spain,

chapter 4.

"The common tradition that Philip built the Escorial in

pursuance of a vow which he made at the time of the great

battle of St. Quentin, the 10th of August, 1557, has been

rejected by modern critics. … But a recently discovered

document leaves little doubt that such a vow was actually

made. However this may have been, it is certain that the king

designed to commemorate the event by this structure, as is

intimated by its dedication to St. Lawrence, the martyr on

whose day the victory was gained. The name given to the place

was 'El Sitio de San Lorenzo el Real.' But the monastery was

better known from the hamlet near which it stood—El Escurial,

or El Escorial—which latter soon became the orthography

generally adopted by the Castilians. … The erection of a

religious house on a magnificent scale, that would proclaim to

the world his devotion to the Faith, was the predominant idea

in the mind of Philip. It was, moreover, a part of his scheme

to combine in the plan a palace for himself. … The site which,

after careful examination, he selected for the building, was

among the mountains of the Guadarrama, on the borders of New

Castile, about eight leagues northwest of Madrid. … In 1584,

the masonry of the Escorial was completed. Twenty-one years

had elapsed since the first stone of the monastery was laid.

This certainly must be regarded as a short period for the

erection of so stupendous a pile. … Probably no single edifice

ever contained such an amount and variety of inestimable

treasures as the Escorial,—so many paintings and sculptures by

the greatest masters,—so many articles of exquisite

workmanship, composed of the most precious materials." It was

despoiled by the French in 1808, and in 1837 the finest works

of art surviving were removed to Madrid. "The Escorial ceased

to be a royal residence. Tenantless and unprotected, it was

left to the fury of the blasts which swept down the hills of

the Guadarrama."

W. H. Prescott,

History of the Reign of Philip II.,

book 6, chapter 2 (volume 3).

SPAIN: A. D. 1560.

Disastrous expedition against Tripoli.

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

SPAIN: A. D. 1563-1564.

Repulse of the Moors from Oran and Mazarquiver.

Capture of Penon de Velez.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565.

SPAIN: A. D. 1565.

The massacre of French Huguenots in Florida

and occupation of the country.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1565; and 1567-1568.

SPAIN: A. D. 1566-1571.

Edict against the Moriscoes.

Their rebellion and its suppression.

See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

SPAIN: A. D. 1568-1610.

The Revolt o the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572, and after.

SPAIN: A. D. 1570-1571.

The Holy League with Venice and the Pope against the Turks.

Great battle and Victory of Lepanto.

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

SPAIN: . D. 1572.

Rejoicing of Philip at the news of the

Massacre of St. Bartholomew's day.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1572-1573.

Capture of Tunis by Don John of Austria, and its recovery,

with Goletta, by the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1572-1573.

SPAIN: A. D. 1572-1580.

Piratical warfare of England.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

SPAIN: A. D. 1580.

The crown of Portugal claimed by Philip II.

and secured by force.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.

SPAIN: A. D. 1585.

Secret alliance with the Catholic League of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585.

SPAIN: A. D. 1587-1588.

The expedition of the Armada, against England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1587-1588; and 1588.

SPAIN: A. D. 1590.

Aid rendered to the Catholic League in France.

Parma's deliverance of Paris.

Philip's ambition to wear the French crown.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1590.

SPAIN: A. D. 1595-1598.

War with France.

The Peace of Vervins.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

SPAIN: A. D. 1596.

Capture and plundering of Cadiz by the English and Dutch.

"In the beginning of 1596, Philip won an important triumph by

the capture of Calais. But this awoke the alarm of England and

of the Hollanders as much as of the French. A joint expedition

was equipped against Spain in which the English took the lead.

Lord Admiral Howard sailed with a fleet of 150 vessels against

Cadiz, and the Earl of Essex commanded the land forces. On

June 21 the Spanish ships which assembled for the defence of

the town were entirely defeated. Essex was the first to leap

on shore, and the English troops easily took the city.

{2988}

The clemency of the English soldiers contrasted favourably

with the terrible barbarities of the Spaniards in the

Netherlands. 'The mercy and the clemency that had been showed

here,' wrote Lord Howard, 'will be spoken of throughout the

world.' No man or woman was needlessly injured; but Cadiz was

sacked, and the shipping in its harbour destroyed. Essex

wished to follow up this exploit by a further attack upon

Spain; but Howard, who had accomplished the task for which he

had been sent, insisted on returning home."

M. Creighton,

The Age of Elizabeth,

book 7, chapter 3.

"The results of this expedition were considerable, for the

king's navy was crippled, a great city was destroyed, and some

millions of plunder had been obtained. But the permanent

possession of Cadiz, which, in such case, Essex hoped to

exchange for Calais, and the destruction of the fleet at the

Azores—possible achievements both, and unwisely neglected

—would have been far more profitable, at least to England."

J. L. Motley,

History of the United Netherlands,

chapter 32 (volume 3).

SPAIN: A. D. 1598.

Accession of Philip III.

SPAIN: A. D. 1598-1700.

The first century of decline and decay.

"Spain became united and consolidated under the Catholic kings

[Ferdinand and Isabella]; it became a cosmopolitan empire

under Charles; and in Philip, austere, bigoted, and

commanding, its height of glory was reached. Thenceforth the

Austrian supremacy in the peninsula—the star of the House of

Habsburg—declined, until a whiff of diplomacy was sufficient

to extinguish its lights in the person of the childless and

imbecile Charles II. Three reigns—Philip III. (1598-1621),

Philip IV. (1621-1665), and Charles II. (1665-1700)—fill this

century of national decline, full as it is of crowned idiocy,

hypochondria, and madness, the result of incestuous marriages,

or natural weakness. The splendid and prosperous Spanish

empire under the emperor and his son—its vast conquests,

discoveries and foreign wars,—becomes transformed into a

bauble for the caprice of favorites, under their successors. …

Amid its immeasurable wealth, Spain was bankrupt. The gold,

and silver, and precious stones of the West, emptied

themselves into a land the poorest and most debt-laden in

Europe, the most spiritually ignorant despite the countless

churches, the most notorious for its dissolute nobility, its

worthless officials, its ignoble family relations, its

horrible moral aberrations pervading all grades of the

population; and all in vain. The mighty fancy, the

enthusiastic loyalty, the fervid faith of the richly endowed

Spaniard were not counter-balanced by humbler but more

practical virtues, —love of industry, of agriculture, of

manufactures. The Castilians hated the doings of citizens and

peasants; the taint of the Arab and the Jew was on the

profession of money-getting. Thousands left their ploughs and

went to the Indies, found places in the police, or bought

themselves titles of nobility, which forthwith rendered all

work dishonorable. The land grew into a literal infatuation

with miracles, relics, cloisters, fraternities, pious

foundations of every description. The church was omnipotent.

Nobody cultivated the soil. Hundreds of thousands lived in the

convents. Begging soup at the monastery gates,—such is a type

of the famishing Spain of the 17th century. In economic,

political, physical, moral, and intellectual aspects, a decay

pervaded the peninsula under the later Habsburgers, such as no

civilized nation has ever undergone. The population declined

from 10,000,000 under Charles V. (Charles I. of Spain) to

6,000,000 under Charles II. The people had vanished from

hundreds of places in New Castile, Old Castile, Toledo,

Estremadura, and Andalusia. One might travel miles in the

lovely regions of the South, without seeing a solitary

cultivated field or dwelling. Seville was almost depopulated.

Pecuniary distress at the end of the 17th century reached an

unexampled height; the soldiers wandered through the cities

begging; nearly all the great fortresses from Barcelona to

Cadiz were ruinous; the king's servants ran away because they

were neither paid nor fed; more than once there was no money

to supply the royal table; the ministers were besieged by high

officials and officers seeking to extort their pay long due;

couriers charged with communications of the highest importance

lingered on the road for lack of means to continue their

journey. Finance was reduced to tricks of low deceit and

robbery. … The idiocy of the system of taxation was

unparalleled. Even in 1594 the cortes complained that the

merchant, out of every 1,000 ducats capital, had to pay 300

ducats in taxes; that no tenant-farmer could maintain himself,

however low his rent might be; and that the taxes exceeded the

income of numerous estates. Bad as the system was under Philip

II., it became worse under his Austrian successors. The tax

upon the sale of food, for instance, increased from ten to

fourteen per cent, Looms were most productive when they were

absolutely silent. Almost the entire household arrangements of

a Spanish family were the products of foreign industries. In

the beginning of the 17th century, five-sixths of the domestic

and nine-tenths of the foreign trade were in the hands of

aliens. In Castile, alone, there were 160,000 foreigners, who

had gained complete possession of the industrial and

manufacturing interests. 'We cannot clothe ourselves without

them, for we have neither linen nor cloth; we cannot write

without them, for we have no paper,' complains a Spaniard.

Hence, the enormous masses of gold and silver annually

transmitted from the colonies passed through Spain into

French, English, Italian, and Dutch pockets. Not a real, it is

said, of the 35,000,000 of ducats which Spain received from

the colonies in 1595, was found in Castile the following year.

In this indescribable retrogression, but one interest in any

way prospered—the Church. The more agriculture, industry,

trade declined, the more exclusively did the Catholic clergy

monopolize all economic and intellectual life."

J. A. Harrison,

Spain,

chapter 23.

ALSO IN:

R. Watson,

History of the Reign of Philip III.

J. Dunlop,

Memoirs of Spain, during the Reigns

of Philip IV. and Charles II.

SPAIN: A. D. 1609.

Final expulsion of the Moriscoes.

The resulting ruin of the nation, materially and morally.

See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

SPAIN: A. D. 1619.

Alliance with the Emperor Ferdinand

against Frederick of Bohemia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

SPAIN: A. D. 1621.

Accession of Philip IV.

SPAIN: A. D. 1621.

Renewal of war in the Netherlands.

End of the truce.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

{2989}

SPAIN: A. D. 1624-1626.

Hostile policy of Richelieu.

The Valtelline War in Northern Italy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

SPAIN: A. D. 1627-1631.

War with France in Northern Italy over the

succession to the duchy of Mantua.

See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

SPAIN: A. D. 1635.

New hostile alliances of France.

Declaration of war.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

SPAIN: A. D. 1635-1636.

The Cardinal Infant in the Netherlands.

His invasion of France.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

SPAIN: A. D. 1635-1642.

The war with France and Savoy in Northern Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.

The war on the French frontier.

Siege and battle of Fontarabia.

French invasion of Roussillon.

Causes of disaffection in Catalonia.

In 1637, a Spanish army, 12,000 strong, crossed the Pyrenees

under the command of the Duke of Medina del Rio-Seco, Admiral

of Castile. "He took St Jean-de-Luz without difficulty, and

was advancing to the siege of Bayonne, when the old Duke

d'Epernon, governor of Guienne, … threw himself into it. There

was little time for preparations; but the Spanish commander,

on being told he would find Bayonne destitute of defence,

replied that could not be said of any place which contained

the Duke d'Epernon. He accordingly refrained from laying siege

to Bayonne; and all his other enterprises having failed from

the vigilant activity of Epernon, he abandoned St Jean-de-Luz,

with some other posts in its neighbourhood, and the seat of

war was speedily transferred from Guienne to Languedoc:

Olivarez, in forming his plans against that province, had

expected a revolt among its numerous and often rebellious

inhabitants. … The hopes, however, entertained by Olivarez …

proved utterly fallacious." The Spanish army, under

Serbellone, invested Leucate, the first fortress reached on

entering Languedoc from Roussillon, and besieged it for a

month; but was attacked at the end of that time by the Duke de

Halluin, son of the late Mareschal Schomberg, and driven from

its works, with the loss of all its artillery, and 3,000 men.

"In the following season [1638] the French, in their turn,

attempted the invasion of Spain, but with as little success as

the Spaniards had obtained in Guienne or Languedoc. … An army,

amounting to not less than 15,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry,

under the orders of the Prince of Condé, the father of the

great Condé, and a devoted retainer of Richelieu, crossed the

frontier, took Irun, and laid siege to Fontarabia, which is

situated on a peninsula, jutting into the river Bidassoa. A

formidable French fleet was, at the same time, stationed on

the coast of Guipuscoa, to co-operate with this army," and,

after failing in one attack, it succeeded in destroying the

Spanish ships sent to the succor of Fontarabia. "Fontarabia

being considered as the key to Spain, on the entrance to the

kingdom from Bayonne, its natural strength had been greatly

improved by fortifications." Its garrison held out stoutly

until the arrival of a relieving army of 13,000, led by the

Admiral of Castile. Nearly a month elapsed before the latter

ventured to attack the besieging force; but when he did,

"while the Spaniards lost only 200 men, the French were

totally defeated, and precipitately driven forth from their

intrenchments. Many of them were killed in the attack, and a

still greater number were drowned in attempting to pass the

Bidassoa. Those who escaped fled with precipitation to

Bayonne. … But Spain was hardly relieved from the alarm of the

invasion of Navarre when she was threatened with a new danger,

on the side of Roussillon. The Prince of Condé … was again

entrusted with a military expedition against the Spanish

frontiers. … The small county of Roussillon, which had

hitherto belonged to Spain as an appendage of Catalonia, lies

on the French side of the higher Pyrenees; but a lower range

of mountains, called the Courbieres, branching off from them,

and extending within a league of the Mediterranean shore,

divides Roussillon from Languedoc. At the extremity of these

hills, and about a league from the sea, stood the fortress of

Salsas [or Salces], which was considered as the key of Spain

on the dangerous side of Roussillon and Catalonia." Salsas was

invested by the French, 1639, and taken after a siege of forty

days. But Olivarez, the Spanish minister, adopted measures for

the recovery of the important fortress, so energetic, so

peremptory, and so unmeasured in the exactions they made upon

the people of Catalonia, that Salsas was retaken in January,

1640. "The long campaign in the vicinity of Balsas, though it

proved ultimately prosperous to the Spanish arms, fostered in

the bosom of the kingdom the seeds of rebellion. Those

arbitrary measures which Olivarez enjoined to his Generals,

may have gained Salsas, but they lost Catalonia. The frequent

intercourse which took place between the Catalans and French

soldiery, added fuel to those flames nearly ready to burst

forth, and, shortly afterwards, excited the fatal insurrection

at Barcelona."

J. Dunlop,

Memoirs of Spain during the Reigns of

Philip IV. and Charles II.,

volume 1, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

T. Wright,

History of France,

volume 1, chapter 17.

SPAIN: A. D. 1639-1700.

War with the piratical Buccaneers.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

SPAIN: A. D. 1640.

Revolution in Portugal

That country resumes its independence.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

Revolt of Catalonia and Portugal, with the aid of France.

French conquest of Roussillon.

After their defeat of Condé at Salces, Olivarez ordered the

Castilian troops to take up their winter quarters in

Catalonia; and, "commanding the Catalonians to raise and equip

6,000 soldiers for the wars of Italy, he assigned them their

proportion of the expenses of the state, enjoining the states

to raise it, by a decree of the king. Had the Castillian

troops remained tranquil and orderly, overawing the

Catalonians by their presence and their discipline, without

enraging them by their excesses and their insolence, perhaps

Olivarez might have carried through his bold design, and

annihilated, one by one, the destructive privileges of the

various provinces. But, on the contrary, they committed every

sort of violence and injustice. … The Catalonians, stirred up

to vengeance, sought retribution in chance combats, lost their

dread of the Castillian troops by frequent contests with them,

and were excited almost to frenzy by their violence and

rapine. In the mean time, the states of Catalonia refused to

obey the royal decree, and sent two deputies to remonstrate

with the king and his minister.

{2990}

These messengers unfortunately executed their commission in an

insolent and menacing tone; and Olivarez, of a haughty and

inflexible character, caused them instantly to be arrested.

These tidings reached Barcelona at the moment when some fresh

outrage, committed by the Castillian soldiers, had excited

popular indignation to the highest pitch; and a general

insurrection was the immediate consequence. The viceroy was

slain upon the spot, and a negotiation was instantly entered

into with France in order to procure support in rebellion. The

courage of Olivarez did not fail even under this fresh

misfortune: all the disposable troops in Spain were instantly

directed upon Catalonia; and all the other provinces, but more

especially Portugal, were ordered to arm for the suppression

of the revolt. Turbulent subjects and interested allies are

always sure to take advantage of the moment of difficulty. The

Portuguese, hating, with even more bitter animosity than the

Catalonians, the yoke of Castille, oppressed by Vasconcellos,

who ruled them under the vice-queen, duchess of Mantua, and

called upon to aid in suppressing an insurrection to which

they looked with pleasure and hope, now instantly threw off

the rule of Spain. A conspiracy burst forth, which had been

preparing under the knowledge and advice of Richelieu for more

than three years; and the duke of Braganza, a prince of no

great abilities, was proclaimed king. … In the mean time the

marquis de los Velez had taken the command of the army sent

against the Catalonian rebels; and a willing instrument of the

minister's vengeance, he exercised the most barbarous

cruelties as he marched on into the refractory province. The

town of Tortosa was taken and sacked by his soldiers, and the

people subjected to every sort of violence. Fire, massacre,

and desolation marked his progress; but, instead of inspiring

crouching terror, and trembling self-abandonment, his conduct

roused up lion-like revenge. Hurrying on the negotiations with

France, the Catalonians accepted any terms which Richelieu

chose to offer, declared themselves subject to the French

crown, and pronounced the authority of Spain at an end for

ever in Catalonia. A small corps of French troops was

immediately thrown forward from Roussillon, and advanced to

Taragona under the command of D'Espenan, a general who had

shown great skill and courage at Salces. The Catalonians, with

the usual bravado of their nation, had represented their army

as a thousand-fold stronger, both in numbers and discipline,

than it really was; and the French officers were in

consequence lamentably disappointed when they saw the militia

which was to support them, and still more disappointed when

they beheld that militia in face of an enemy. As a last

resource against the large Spanish force under Los Velez,

D'Espenan threw himself into Taragona, in opposition to the

advice of Besançon, who was employed, on the part of France,

in organizing the Catalonians. Here he was almost immediately

besieged; and, being destitute both of provisions and

ammunition, was soon forced to sign a capitulation, whereby he

agreed to evacuate the territory of Spain with all the troops

which had entered Catalonia from France. This convention he

executed, notwithstanding all remonstrances and petitions on

the part of the Catalonians; and, retreating at once from

Taragona to the French frontier, he abandoned the field to the

enemy. Had Olivarez now seized the favourable moment, …. it is

probable—it is more than probable—that Catalonia would at once

have been pacified, and that her dangerous privileges would in

part have been sacrificed to the desire and necessity of

peace. … But the count-duke sought revenge as much as

advantage. … Continued severity only produced a continuance of

resistance: the Catalonians sustained themselves till the

French forces returned in greater numbers, and with more

experienced commanders: the tide of success turned against the

Castillians; and Los Velez was recalled to give place to

Leganez. … In various engagements … the Spanish armies were

defeated by the French: the Catalonians themselves became

better soldiers under the severe discipline of necessity; and

though the Spanish fleet defeated the French off Taragona, and

saved that city from the enterprises of La Mothe, the general

result of the campaign was decidedly unfavourable to Spain. At

the same time, the French were making progress in Roussillon;

and in the year 1642 the king himself prepared to invade that

small territory, with the evident intention of dissevering it

from the Spanish crown. Several minor places having been

taken, siege was laid to Perpignan: the people of the country

were not at all unwilling to pass under the dominion of

France; and another serious misfortune threatened the ministry

of Olivarez. At this time was concerted the conspiracy of Cinq

Mars … and the count-duke eagerly entered into the views of

the French malecontents, and promised them every assistance

they demanded.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.

The failure of the conspiracy, the arrest and execution of

some of the conspirators, and the fall of Perpignan, came

rapidly, one upon the other, showing the fortune of Richelieu

still triumphing over all the best laid schemes of his

adversaries."

G. P. R. James,

Eminent Foreign Statesmen,

volume 2: Olivarez.

SPAIN: A. D. 1643.

Invasion of France from the Netherlands.

Defeat at Rocroi.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

SPAIN: A. D, 1644-1646.

The war in Catalonia.

Sieges of Lerida.

In 1644, Philip IV., "under the prudent and sagacious counsels

of Don Louis de Haro, was directing his principal efforts to

the recovery of Catalonia. … Don Philip de Sylva, an officer

of experience and determination, was put at the head of the

Castilian troops, and immediately advanced to the siege of the

strong town of Lerida, the king himself being nominally in

command of the army. The French troops in Catalonia were at

that time commanded by La Mothe Houdancourt, who no sooner

heard of the advance of the Spanish troops towards Lerida than

he marched with great rapidity to the relief of that place;"

but approached the enemy with so much carelessness that he was

attacked by Sylva and totally defeated, with a loss of 3,000

men and 12 guns. He then, for a diversion, laid siege to

Tarragona, and lost 3,000 more of his men, without

accomplishing the reduction of the place; being forced, in the

end, to retreat to Barcelona, while Lerida was surrendered to

the Spaniards. "La Mothe having been recalled and imprisoned,

… the Count de Harcourt was withdrawn from Savoy, and put at

the head of fresh forces, for the purpose of repairing the

disasters of the former general."

{2991}

Harcourt began operations (April, 1645) by laying siege to the

strong fortress of Rosas, or Roses, which commanded the

principal entrance to Catalonia from Roussillon. The fortress

surrendered the following month, and "the Count de Harcourt, …

after capturing some places of minor import, passed the Segre,

encountered the army of Cantelmo in the neighbourhood of

Llorens, and, gaining a complete victory, made himself master

of Balaguer." After these successes, the Count de Harcourt was

called away from Catalonia for a time, to act against the

insurgents at Barcelona, but returned in 1646 and undertook

the siege of Lerida. He was now opposed by the Marquis de

Leganez, whom he had successfully encountered in Ita]y, and

whom he was foolishly disposed to regard with contempt. While

he pressed his siege in careless security, Leganez surprised

him, in a night attack, and drove him in utter rout from his

lines. "This signal disaster caused the Count de Harcourt to

be recalled; and in order to recover all that had been lost in

Catalonia, the Prince de Condé was appointed to command in

that province, while a considerable part of the army of

Flanders was ordered to proceed towards the frontiers of Spain

to serve once more under his command." But Condé, too, was to

pay the penalty for despising his enemy. He reopened the siege

of Lerida with ostentatious gaiety, marching into the trenches

with music of violins, on the 14th of May. In little more than

a month he marched out again, without music, abandoning the

siege, having lost many men and obtained no sign of success.

G. P. R. James,

Life and Times of Louis XIV.,

volume 1, chapter 3.

SPAIN: A. D. 1645-1646.

French successes in Flanders.

Loss of Dunkirk.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.

SPAIN: A. D. 1647-1648.

Campaign against France in the Netherlands.

The defeat at Lens.

See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

SPAIN: A. D. 1647-1654.

The revolt of Masaniello at Naples and its termination.

Attempts of the Duke of Guise and the French.

See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

SPAIN: A. D. 1648.

Conclusion of Peace with the United Provinces.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.

SPAIN: A. D. 1648-1652.

Subjugation of Catalonia.

"During the four years which [in France] had been filled with

the troubles of the Fronde, Spain endeavored, and with

success, to reconquer the province which had abandoned her. In

1650, Mazarin had recognized the peril of Catalonia, and had

endeavored to send assistance in war and money. It was

possible, however, to do but little. In 1651 the Spanish

besieged Barcelona. After Marchin's desertion they hoped to

capture it at once, but it was defended with the courage and

constancy of the Catalonian people. La Mothe Houdancourt was

again put in command of the province. He had been unsuccessful

there when France was strong, and it could hardly have been

expected that he could rescue it when France was weak. He

succeeded, however, in forcing his way into Barcelona, and

defended the city with as much success as could, perhaps, have

been anticipated from the scanty means at his command. The

inhabitants endured, with constancy, the danger and want

caused by the siege, rather than surrender themselves to

Spain. Some French ships sailed for the rescue of the place,

but they acquitted themselves with little valor. Provisions

were sent into the town, but the commander claimed he was not

in condition for a conflict with the Spanish fleet, and he

retreated. Endeavors were made, both by the French troops and

those of the Catalonians, to raise the siege, but without

success. In October [1652], after a siege of fifteen months,

Barcelona surrendered. Roses was captured soon after. Leucate

was betrayed to Spain by its governor for 40,000 crowns. He

intended to enlist under Orleans, but learning the king had

reentered Paris, he made his peace, by agreeing to betray no

more. The Spanish granted an amnesty to the people of

Catalonia. The whole province fell into their hands, and

became again a part of the kingdom of Spain. The loss of

Catalonia was chiefly due to the turbulence and disloyalty of

Condé. Had it not been for the groundless rebellion which he

excited in the autumn of 1651, and which absorbed the energies

of the French armies during the next year, Catalonia might

have been saved for France and have remained a part of that

kingdom. … It was a national misfortune that Catalonia was

lost. This great and important province would have been a

valuable accession to France. Its brave and hardy population

would have become loyal and industrious Frenchmen, and have

added to the wealth and power of that kingdom. For the

Catalonians it was still more unfortunate that their lot

should thus have been determined. They were not closely

related to the people of Aragon or Castile. They were now left

to share in the slow decay of the Spanish kingdom, instead of

having an opportunity for development in intelligence and

prosperity as members of a great and progressive nation."

J. B. Perkins,

France under Mazarin,

chapter 15 (volume 2).

SPAIN: A. D. 1650-1651.

Alliance with the New Fronde in France.

Defeat at Rethel.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

SPAIN: A. D. 1652.

Campaign on the Flemish frontier.

Invasion of France.

Recovery of Gravelines and Dunkirk.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.

SPAIN: A. D. 1657-1658.

War with England in alliance with France.

Loss of Dunkirk and Gravelines.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658;

and ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658.

SPAIN: A. D. 1659.

The Treaty of the Pyrenees.

Territorial cessions to France.

Marriage of the Infanta to Louis XIV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

SPAIN: A. D. 1665.

Accession of Charles II.

SPAIN: A. D. 1667.

Conquests of Louis XIV. in the Netherlands.

The War of the Queen's Rights.

See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

SPAIN: A. D. 1668.

Towns in Flanders ceded to Louis XIV.

Triple alliance and the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.

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

SPAIN: A. D. 1668.

Peace with Portugal.

Recognition of its independence.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

SPAIN: A. D. 1673-1679.

The War of the Coalition to resist Louis XIV.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;

also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

SPAIN: A. D. 1686.

The League of Augsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

{2992}

SPAIN: A. D. 1690-1696.

The War of the League of Augsburg or the Grand Alliance

against Louis XIV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696.

SPAIN: A. D. 1697.

The Peace of Ryswick.

French conquests restored.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.-

The question of the Succession.

The Treaties of Partition.

The will of Charles ll.

As the 17th century approached its close, the king of Spain,

Charles II., was nearing the grave. "His days had been few and

evil. He had been unfortunate in all his wars, in every part

of his internal administration, and in all his domestic

relations. … He was childless; and his constitution was so

completely shattered that, at little more than thirty years of

age, he had given up all hopes of posterity. His mind was even

more distempered than his body. … His sufferings were

aggravated by the thought that his own dissolution might not

improbably be followed by the dissolution of his empire.

Several princes laid claim to the succession. The King's

eldest sister had married Lewis XIV. The Dauphin would,

therefore, in the common course of inheritance, have succeeded

to the crown. But the Infanta had, at the time of her

espousals, solemnly renounced, in her own name, and in that of

her posterity, all claim to the succession.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

This renunciation had been confirmed in due form by the

Cortes. A younger sister of the King had been the first wife

of Leopold, Emperor of Germany. She too had at her marriage

renounced her claims to the Spanish crown, but the Cortes had

not sanctioned the renunciation, and it was therefore

considered as invalid by the Spanish jurists. The fruit of

this marriage was a daughter, who had espoused the Elector of

Bavaria. The Electoral Prince of Bavaria inherited her claim

to the throne of Spain. The Emperor Leopold was son of a

daughter of Philip III., and was therefore first cousin to

Charles. No renunciation whatever had been exacted from his

mother at the time of her marriage. The question was certainly

very complicated. That claim which, according to the ordinary

rules of inheritance, was the strongest, had been barred by a

contract executed in the most binding form. The claim of the

Electoral Prince of Bavaria was weaker. But so also was the

contract which bound him not to prosecute his claim. The only

party against whom no instrument of renunciation could be

produced was the party who, in respect of blood, had the

weakest claim of all. As it was clear that great alarm would

be excited throughout Europe if either the Emperor or the

Dauphin should become King of Spain, each of those Princes

offered to waive his pretensions in favour of his second son;

the Emperor in favour of the Archduke Charles, the Dauphin in

favour of Philip, Duke of Anjou. Soon after the Peace of

Ryswick, William III. and Lewis XIV. determined to settle the

question of the succession without consulting either Charles

or the Emperor. France, England, and Holland, became parties

to a treaty [called the First Partition Treaty] by which it

was stipulated that the Electoral Prince of Bavaria should

succeed to Spain, the Indies, and the Netherlands. The

Imperial family were to be bought off with the Milanese, and

the Dauphin was to have the Two Sicilies. The great object of

the King of Spain and of all his counsellors was to avert the

dismemberment of the monarchy. In the hope of attaining this

end, Charles determined to name a successor. A will was

accordingly framed by which the crown was bequeathed to the

Bavarian Prince. Unhappily, this will had scarcely been signed

when the Prince died. The question was again unsettled, and

presented greater difficulties than before. A new Treaty of

Partition was concluded between France, England, and Holland.

It was agreed that Spain, the Indies, and the Netherlands,

should descend to the Archduke Charles. In return for this

great concession made by the Bourbons to a rival house, it was

agreed that France should have the Milanese, or an equivalent

in a more commodious situation. The equivalent in view was the

province of Lorraine. Arbuthnot, some years later, ridiculed

the Partition Treaty with exquisite humour and ingenuity.

Everybody must remember his description of the paroxysm of

rage into which poor old Lord Strutt fell, on hearing that his

runaway servant, Nick Frog, his clothier, John Bull, and his

old enemy, Lewis Baboon, had come with quadrants, poles, and

inkhorns, to survey his estate, and to draw his will for him.

… When the intelligence of the second Partition Treaty arrived

at Madrid, it roused to momentary energy the languishing ruler

of a languishing state. The Spanish ambassador at the court of

London was directed to remonstrate with the government of

William; and his remonstrances were so insolent that he was

commanded to leave England. Charles retaliated by dismissing

the English and Dutch ambassadors. The French King, though the

chief author of the Partition Treaty, succeeded in turning the

whole wrath of Charles and of the Spanish people from himself,

and in directing it against the two maritime powers. Those

powers had now no agent at Madrid. Their perfidious ally was

at liberty to carry on his intrigues unchecked; and he fully

availed himself of this advantage." He availed himself of the

advantage so successfully, in fact, that when the Spanish king

died, November 3, 1700, he was found to have left a will,

bequeathing the whole Spanish monarchy to Philip, Duke of

Anjou, second son of the Dauphin of France. "Lewis acted as

the English ministers might have guessed that he would act.

With scarcely the show of hesitation, he broke through all the

obligations of the Partition Treaty, and accepted for his

grandson the splendid legacy of Charles. The new sovereign

hastened to take possession of his dominions."

Lord Macaulay,

Mahon's War of the Succession (Essays).

ALSO IN:

H. Martin,

History of France: Age of Louis XIV,

(translated by M. L. Booth),

volume 2, chapter 4.

J. W. Gerard,

The Peace of Utrecht,

chapters 6-10.

J. Dunlop,

Memoirs of Spain, 1621-1700,

volume 2, chapter 9.

W. Coxe,

Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,

volume 1, introduction, section 3.

SPAIN: A. D. 1700.

Accession of Philip V.

{2993}

SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.

The Bourbon succession, and the European League against it.

"Louis XIV. having … resolved to accede to the will, Philip of

Anjou was proclaimed King by the Spaniards, and made his solemn

entry into Madrid on the 14th of April 1701. Most of the

European powers, such as the States of Italy, Sweden, England,

Holland, and the kingdoms of the North, acknowledged Philip

V.; the King of Portugal and the Duke of Savoy even concluded

treaties of alliance with him. Moreover, the situation of

political affairs in Germany, Hungary, and the North was such

that it would have been easy for Louis XIV., with prudent

management, to preserve the Spanish crown on the head of his

grandson; but he seemed, as if on purpose, to do everything to

raise all Europe against him. It was alleged that he aimed at

the chimerical project of universal monarchy, and the reunion

of France with Spain. Instead of trying to do away this

supposition, he gave it additional force, by issuing

letters-patent in favour of Philip, at the moment when he was

departing for Spain, to the effect of preserving his rights to

the throne of France. The Dutch dreaded nothing so much as to

see the French making encroachments on the Spanish

Netherlands, which they regarded as their natural barrier

against France; the preservation of which appeared to be

equally interesting to England. It would have been prudent in

Louis XIV. to give these maritime powers some security on this

point, who, since the elevation of William, Prince of Orange,

to the crown of Great Britain, held as it were in their hands

the balance of Europe. Without being swayed by this

consideration, he obtained authority from the Council of

Madrid to introduce a French army into the Spanish

Netherlands; and on this occasion the Dutch troops, who were

quartered in various places of the Netherlands, according to a

stipulation with the late King of Spain, were disarmed. This

circumstance became a powerful motive for King William to

rouse the States-General against France. He found some

difficulty, however, in drawing over the British Parliament to

his views, as a great majority in that House were averse to

mingle in the quarrels of the Continent; but the death of

James II. altered the minds and inclinations of the English.

Louis XIV. having formally acknowledged the son of that prince

as King of Great Britain, the English Parliament had no longer

any hesitation in joining the Dutch and the other enemies of

France. A new and powerful league [the Second Grand Alliance]

was formed against Louis. The Emperor, England, the United

Provinces, the Empire, the Kings of Portugal and Prussia, and

the Duke of Savoy, all joined it in succession. The allies

engaged to restore to Austria the Spanish Netherlands, the

duchy of Milan, the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, with the

ports of Tuscany; and never to permit the union of France with

Spain."

C. W. Koch,

The Revolutions of Europe, period 7.

ALSO IN:

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 25 (volume 5).

J. H. Burton,

History of the Reign of Queen Anne,

chapter 5 (volume 1).

W. Coxe,

Memoirs of Marlborough,

chapter 9 (volume 1).

W. Coxe,

Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,

chapters 1-7.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

SPAIN: A. D. 1702.

The War of the Succession: Cadiz defended.

The treasure fleet lost in Vigo Bay.

The first approach to Spain of the War of the

Succession—already raging for months in Northern Italy and the

Spanish Netherlands—was in the form of an expedition against

Cadiz, undertaken in the autumn of 1702 by the English and

Dutch. "King William was the first to plan this expedition

against Cadiz and after his decease the project was resumed.

But had King William lived he would certainly not have

selected as chief the Duke of Ormond, a princely nobleman,

endowed with many amiable qualities, but destitute of the

skill and the energy which a great enterprise requires. Under

him Sir Henry Bellasys commanded the English and General Spaar

a contingent of Dutch troops, amounting together to 14,000

men. Admiral Sir George Rooke had the direction of the fleet.

Their proceedings have been related at full length in another

history [Lord Mahon's (Earl Stanhope's) 'War of the Succession

in Spain']—how the troops were set on shore near Cadiz in the

first days of September—how even before they landed angry

dissensions had sprung up between the Dutch and the English,

the landsmen and the seamen—and how these dissensions which

Ormond wanted the energy to control proved fatal, to the

enterprise. No discipline was kept, no spirit was displayed.

Week after week was lost. … Finally at the close of the month

it was discovered that nothing could be done, and a council of

war decided that the troops should reembark. … On their

return, and off the coast of Portugal, an opportunity arose to

recover in some part their lost fame. The Spanish galleons

from America, laden with treasure and making their yearly

voyage at this time, were bound by their laws of trade to

unload at Cadiz, but in apprehension of the English fleet they

had put into Vigo Bay. There Ormond determined to pursue them.

On the 22nd of October he neared that narrow inlet which winds

amidst the high Gallician mountains. The Spaniards, assisted

by some French frigates, which were the escort of the

galleons, had expected an attack and made the best

preparations in their power. They durst not disembark the

treasure without an express order from Madrid—and what order

from Madrid ever yet came in due time?—but they had called the

neighbouring peasantry to arms; they had manned their forts;

they had anchored their ships in line within the harbour; and

they had drawn a heavy boom across its mouth. None of these

means availed them. The English seamen broke through the boom;

Ormond at the head of 2,000 soldiers scaled the forts; and the

ships were all either taken or destroyed. The greater part of

the treasure was thrown overboard by direction of the French

and Spanish chiefs; but there remained enough to yield a large

amount of booty to the victors."

Earl Stanhope,

History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,

chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

Colonel A. Parnell,

War of the Succession in Spain,

chapters 3-4.

For the campaigns of the War of the Succession in other

quarters.

See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, and after;

GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and after.

SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.

The War of the Succession: Charles III. claims the kingdom.

The English take Gibraltar.

"The Admiral of Castile, alienated from the cause of Philip V.

by having been dismissed from his office of Master of the

Horse, had retired into Portugal; and he succeeded in

persuading King Pedro II. to accede to the Grand Alliance, who

was enticed by the promise of the American provinces between

the Rio de la Plata and Brazil, as well as a part of

Estremadura and Galicia (May 6th). Pedro also entered into a

perpetual defensive league with Great Britain and the

States-General. In the following December, Paul Methuen, the

English minister at Lisbon, concluded the celebrated

commercial treaty between England and Portugal named after

himself.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703.

{2994}

It is the most laconic treaty on record, containing only two

Articles, to the effect that Portugal was to admit British

cloths, and England to admit Portuguese wines, at one-third

less duty than those of France. Don Pedro's accession to the

Grand Alliance entirely changed the plans of the allies.

Instead of confining themselves to the procuring of a

reasonable indemnity for the Emperor, they now resolved to

drive Philip V. from the throne of Spain, and to place an

Austrian Archduke upon it in his stead. The Emperor and his

eldest son Joseph formally renounced their claims to the

throne of Spain in favour of the archduke Charles, Leopold's

second son, September 12th [1703]; and the Archduke was

proclaimed King of Spain, with the title of Charles III. The

new King was to proceed into Portugal, and, with the

assistance of Don Pedro, endeavour to obtain possession of

Spain. Charles accordingly proceeded to Holland, and embarked

for England in January 1704; whence, after paying a visit to

Queen Anne at Windsor, he finally set sail for Lisbon,

February 17th. … In March 1704, the Pretender, Charles III.,

together with an English and Dutch army of 12,000 men, landed

in Portugal, with the intention of entering Spain on that

side; but so far were they from accomplishing this plan that

the Spaniards, on the contrary, under the Duke of Berwick,

penetrated into Portugal, and even threatened Lisbon, but were

driven back by the Marquis das Minas. An English fleet under

Admiral Rooke, with troops under the Prince of Darmstadt, made

an ineffectual attempt on Barcelona; but were compensated for

their failure by the capture of Gibraltar on their return. The

importance of this fortress, the key of the Mediterranean, was

not then sufficiently esteemed, and its garrison had been

neglected by the Spanish Government. A party of English

sailors, taking advantage of a Saint's day, on which the

eastern portion of the fortress had been left unguarded,

scaled the almost inaccessible precipice, whilst at the same

time another party stormed the South Mole Head. The capture of

this important fortress was the work of a few hours (August

4th). Darmstadt would have claimed the place for King Charles

III., but Rooke took possession of it in the name of the Queen

of England. … The Spaniards, sensible of the importance of

Gibraltar, speedily made an effort to recover that fortress,

and as early as October 1704, it was invested by the Marquis

of Villadarias with an army of 8,000 men. The French Court

afterwards sent Marshal Tessé to supersede Villadarias, and

the siege continued till April 1705; but the brave defence of

the Prince of Darmstadt, and the defeat of the French

blockading squadron under Pointis by Admiral Leake, finally

compelled the raising of the siege."

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 5; chapter 6 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

J. H. Burton,

History of the Reign of Queen Anne,

chapter 9 (volume 2).

F. Sayer,

History of Gibraltar,

chapters 6-8.

SPAIN: A. D. 1704.

The War of the Succession: Blenheim.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

SPAIN: A. D. 1705.

The War of the Succession: The capture of Barcelona.

As if to exhibit, upon a different theatre of the same great

warfare, the most remarkable contrast to the patience, the

caution, and the foresight of Marlborough, … Charles Mordaunt,

earl of Peterborough, took the command of an expedition to

Spain. Macaulay calls Peterborough 'the most extraordinary

character of that age, the king of Sweden himself not

excepted, … a polite, learned and amorous Charles XII.' He

sailed from Portsmouth in June, 1705, having the command of

5,000 men; unlimited authority over the land forces, and a

divided command with Sir Cloudesley Shovel at sea. At Lisbon,

Peterborough was reinforced, and he here took on board the

arch-duke Charles, and a numerous suite. At Gibraltar he

received two veteran battalions, in exchange for the same

number of recruits which he had brought from England. The

prince of Darmstadt also here joined Peterborough. The prince

and the arch-duke desired to besiege Barcelona. Peterborough

opposed the scheme of attempting, with 7,000 men, the

reduction of a place which required 30,000 men for a regular

siege. With the squadron under Sir Cloudesley Shovel, the

fleet sailed from Gibraltar. A landing was effected near

Valencia; and here the people were found favourable to the

cause of the Austrian prince, who was proclaimed, upon the

surrender of the castle of Denia, as Charles III., king of

Spain and the Indies. Peterborough, encouraged by this

reception, conceived the enterprise of dashing upon the

capital, whilst all the Spanish forces were on the frontiers

of Portugal, or in Catalonia; and king Philip was at Madrid

with few troops. Such an exploit had every chance of success,

but Peterborough was overruled by a council of war. The troops

were landed before Barcelona on the 27th of August. In three

weeks there was nothing but dissensions amongst the great men

of this expedition. The prince of Darmstadt and the earl of

Peterborough had come to an open rupture. The Dutch officers

said their troops should not join in an enterprise so

manifestly impossible of success for a small force.

Peterborough conceived a plan of attack totally opposed to all

the routine modes of warfare. The citadel of Montjouich, built

on the summit of a ridge of hills skirting the sea, commanded

the town. Peterborough gave notice that he should raise the

siege; sent his heavy artillery on board the ships; and made

every preparation for embarking the troops. With 1,200 foot

soldiers, and 200 horse, he marched out of the camp on the

evening of the 13th of September, accompanied by the prince of

Darmstadt, whom he had invited to join him. They marched all

night by the side of the mountains; and before daybreak were

under the hill of Montjouich, and close to the outer works.

Peterborough told his officers that when they were discovered

at daylight, the enemy would descend into the outer ditch to

repel them, and that then was the time to receive their fire,

leap in upon them, drive them into the outer works, and gain

the fortress by following them close. The scheme succeeded,

and the English were soon masters of the bastion. … The

citadel held out for several days, but was finally reduced by

a bombardment from the hills, the cannon having been relanded

from the ships. The reduction of Montjouich by this

extraordinary act of daring, was very soon followed by the

surrender of Barcelona. … The possession of Barcelona, in

which king Charles III. was proclaimed with great solemnity,

was followed by the adhesion to his cause of the chief towns

of Catalonia. Peterborough was for following up his wonderful

success by other daring operations. The German ministers and

the Dutch officers opposed all his projects." He was able,

notwithstanding, to raise the siege of San Mateo and to save

Valencia from a threatened siege. "It was soon found that king

Charles was incompetent to follow up the successes which

Peterborough had accomplished for him."

C. Knight,

Crown History of England,

chapter 38.

{2995}

The above is substantially, in brief, the account of

Peterborough's campaigns given by Mahon, Macaulay, and most of

the later historians of the War of the Succession, who drew

the narrative largely from a little book published in 1728,

called the "Military Memoirs of Captain George Carleton." The

story has been recently told, however, in a very different way

and to a very different effect, by Colonel Arthur Parnell, who

declines to accept the Carleton Memoirs as authentic history.

Those Memoirs have been judged by some critics, in·deed, to be

a pure work of fiction and attributed to De Foe. They are

included, in fact, in several editions of De Foe's works.

Colonel Parnell, who seems to have investigated the matter

thoroughly, recognizes Captain Carleton as a real personality,

and concludes that he may have furnished some kind of a

note-book or diary that was the substratum of these alleged

Memoirs; but that somebody (he suspects Dean Swift), in the

interest of Peterborough, built up on that groundwork a fabric

of fiction which has most wrongfully become accepted history.

According to Colonel Parnell, it was not Peterborough, but

Prince George of Hesse Darmstadt (killed in the assault on

Montjouich) and De Ruvigny, Earl of Galway, who were entitled

to the credit of the successes for which Peterborough has been

laurelled. "In order to extol a contemptible impostor, the

memory of this great Huguenot general [Ruvigny] has been

aspersed by Lord Macaulay and most English writers of the

present century."

Colonel A. Parnell,

The War of the Succession in Spain,

preface, chapters 12-18; and appendix C.

ALSO IN:

E. Warburton,

Memoir of Peterborough,

chapters 7-11 (volume 1).

F. S. Russell,

The Earl of Peterborough,

volume 1, chapters 7-9.

SPAIN: A. D. 1706.

The War of the Succession:

Rapid changing of kings and courts at Madrid.

"The Courts of Madrid and Versailles, exasperated and alarmed

by the fall of Barcelona, and by the revolt of the surrounding

country, determined to make a great effort. A large army,

nominally commanded by Philip, but really under the orders of

Marshal Tessé, entered Catalonia. A fleet under the Count of

Toulouse, one of the natural children of Lewis XIV., appeared

before the port of Barcelona. The city was attacked at once by

sea and land. The person of the Archduke was in considerable

danger. Peterborough, at the head of about 3,000 men, marched

with great rapidity from Valencia. To give battle, with so

small a force, to a great regular army under the conduct of a

Marshal of France, would have been madness. … His commission

from the British government gave him supreme power, not only

over the army, but, whenever he should be actually on board,

over the navy also. He put out to sea at night in an open

boat, without communicating his design to any person. He was

picked up, several leagues from the shore, by one of the ships

of the English squadron. As soon as he was on board, he

announced himself as first in command, and sent a pinnace with

his orders to the Admiral. Had these orders been given a few

hours earlier, it is probable that the whole French fleet

would have been taken. As it was, the Count of Toulouse put

out to sea. The port was open. The town was relieved. On the

following night the enemy raised the siege and retreated to

Roussillon. Peterborough returned to Valencia, a place which

he preferred to every other in Spain; and Philip, who had been

some weeks absent from his wife, could endure the misery of

separation no longer, and flew to rejoin her at Madrid. At

Madrid, however, it was impossible for him or for her to

remain. The splendid success which Peterborough had obtained

on the eastern coast of the Peninsula had inspired the

sluggish Galway with emulation. He advanced into the heart of

Spain. Berwick retreated. Alcantara, Ciuadad Rodrigo, and

Salamanca fell, and the conquerors marched towards the

capital. Philip was earnestly pressed by his advisers to

remove the seat of government to Burgos. … In the mean time

the invaders had entered Madrid in triumph, and had proclaimed

the Archduke in the streets of the imperial city. Arragon,

ever jealous of the Castilian ascendeney, followed the example

of Catalonia. Saragossa revolted without seeing an enemy. The

governor whom Philip had set over Carthagena betrayed his

trust, and surrendered to the Allies the best arsenal and the

last ships which Spain possessed. … It seemed that the

struggle had terminated in favour of the Archduke, and that

nothing remained for Philip but a prompt flight into the

dominions of his grandfather. So judged those who were

ignorant of the character and habits of the Spanish people.

There is no country in Europe which it is so easy to overrun

as Spain; there is no country in Europe which it is more

difficult to conquer. Nothing can be more contemptible than

the regular military resistance which Spain offers to an

invader; nothing more formidable than the energy which she

puts forth when her regular military resistance has been

beaten down. Her armies have long borne too much resemblance

to mobs; but her mobs have had, in an unusual degree, the

spirit of armies. … Castile, Leon, Andalusia, Estremadura,

rose at once; every peasant procured a firelock or a pike; the

Allies were masters only of the ground on which they trod. No

soldier could wander a hundred yards from the main body of the

invading army without imminent risk of being poinarded; the

country through which the conquerors had passed to Madrid, and

which, as they thought, they had subdued, was all in arms

behind them. Their communications with Portugal were cut off.

In the mean time, money began, for the first time, to flow

rapidly into the treasury of the fugitive king. … While the

Castilians were everywhere arming in the cause of Philip, the

Allies were serving that cause as effectually by their

mismanagement. Galway staid at Madrid, where his soldiers

indulged in such boundless licentiousness that one half of

them were in the hospitals. Charles remained dawdling in

Catalonia. Peterborough had taken Requena, and wished to march

from Valencia towards Madrid, and to effect a junction with

Galway; but the Archduke refused his consent to the plan.

{2996}

The indignant general remained accordingly in his favourite

city, on the beautiful shores of the Mediterranean, reading

Don Quixote, giving balls and suppers, trying in vain to get

some good sport out of the Valencian bulls, and making love,

not in vain, to the Valencian women. At length the Archduke

advanced into Castile, and ordered Peterborough to join him.

But it was too late. Berwick had already compelled Galway to

evacuate Madrid; and, when the whole force of the Allies was

collected at Quadalaxara, it was found to be decidedly

inferior in numbers to that of the enemy. Peterborough formed

a plan for regaining possession of the capital. His plan was

rejected by Charles. The patience of the sensitive and

vain-glorious hero was worn out. He had none of that serenity

of temper which enabled Marlborough to act in perfect harmony

with Eugene, and to endure the vexatious interference of the

Dutch deputies. He demanded permission to leave the army,

Permission was readily granted; and he set out for Italy. …

From that moment to the end of the campaign, the tide of

fortune ran strong against the Austrian cause. Berwick had

placed his army between the Allies and the frontiers of

Portugal. They retreated on Valencia, and arrived in that

province, leaving about 10,000 prisoners in the hands of the

enemy."

Lord Macaulay,

Mahon's War of the Succession (Essays).

In the Netherlands the Allies won the important victory of

Ramillies, and in Italy, Prince Eugene inflicted a sore defeat

on the French and rescued Turin.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D.1706-1707;

and ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.

ALSO IN:

C. T. Wilson,

The Duke of Berwick,

chapters 5-6.

W. Coxe,

Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,

chapter 14 (volume 1).

SPAIN: A. D. 1707.

The War of the Succession:

The fortunes of the Bourbons retrieved at Almanza.

"The enemy [the Allies] began to move again in February. After

some weeks of manœuvring on the confines of the kingdom of

Valencia and of New Castile, April 25, Galway and Las Minas,

wishing to anticipate the arrival of a reinforcement expected

from France, attacked Berwick at Almanza. Singularly enough,

the English were commanded by a French refugee (Ruvigni, Earl

of Galway), and the French by a royal bastard of England [the

Duke of Berwick, natural son of James II.]. The enemy

numbered, it is said, 26,000 foot and 7,000 horse; the

Franco-Castilians were somewhat inferior in infantry, somewhat

superior in cavalry and artillery." The battle, decided by the

cavalry, was disastrous to the Allies. "The English, Dutch and

Portuguese infantry were cut to pieces: the Portuguese foot

showed a courage less fortunate, but not less intrepid, than

the Spanish cavalry. Another corps had fought with still

greater fury, —the French refugees, commanded by Jean

Cavalier, the renowned Camisard chieftain. They had engaged a

French regiment, and the two corps had almost destroyed each

other. Six battalions were surrounded and taken in a body.

Thirteen other battalions, five English, five Dutch, and three

Portuguese, retired, at evening, to a wooded hill; seeing

themselves cut off from the mountains of Valencia, they

surrendered themselves prisoners the next morning. Hochstadt

[Blenheim] was fully avenged. Five thousand dead, nearly

10,000 prisoners, 24 cannon, 120 flags or standards, were

purchased on the part of the conquerors by the loss of only

about 2,000 men. Many Frenchmen, taken at Hochstadt or at

Ramillies, and enrolled by force in the ranks of the enemies,

were delivered by the victory. The Duke of Orleans reached the

army the next day. … He marched with Berwick on Valencia,

which surrendered, May 8, without striking a blow. The

generals of the enemies, both wounded, retired with the wrecks

of their armies towards the mouths of the Ebro. The whole

kingdom of Valencia submitted, with the exception of three or

four places. Berwick followed the enemy towards the mouth of

the Ebro, whilst Orleans returned to meet a French corps that

was coming by the way of Navarre, and with this corps entered

Aragon. Nearly all Aragon yielded without resistance. Berwick

joined Orleans by ascending the Ebro; they moved together on

the Segre and began the blockade of Lerida, the bulwark of

Catalonia." Lerida was taken by storm on the 12th of October,

and "pillaged with immense booty. … The castle of Lerida

surrendered, November 11. A great part of the Catalan

mountaineers laid down their arms. … Fortune had favored the

Franco-Castilians on the Portuguese frontier as in the States

of Aragon; Ciudad-Rodrigo had been taken by assault, October

4, with the loss of more than 3,000 men on the side of the

enemy. The news of Almanza had everywhere reanimated the

hearts of the French armies."

H. Martin,

History of France: Age of Louis XIV.

(translated by M. L. Booth),

volume 2, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

Colonel A. Parnell,

The War of the Succession in Spain,

chapters 23-26.

C. T. Wilson,

The Duke of Berwick,

chapter 7.

SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

The War of the Succession:

Bourbon reverses and final triumph.

"In less than a month after the victory of Almanza, the

Bourbon troops had recovered all Arragon, with Valencia and

Murcia, excepting the ports of Denia and Alicant; but the war

still continued in Catalonia, where General Stanhope now

filled the double office of ambassador to Charles and general

of the English forces, and prince Staremberg was sent by the

emperor Joseph to take the command of the Austrian troops. The

Spanish government was reduced to still greater pecuniary

distress than it had suffered before, by the success of the

English squadron off Carthagena, under the command of Sir

Charles Wager, which took three of the great galleons and

dispersed fourteen, which were expected to furnish an unusual

supply of the precious metals from America. After a short

siege of Port Mahon, General Stanhope took possession of

Minorca and Majorca [A. D. 1708]; the count of Cifuentes

gained Sardinia; and all the efforts, spirit, and talents of

the duke of Orleans were insufficient to make the slightest

impression in Catalonia. He consequently complained, in his

letters to Versailles, that his operations were thwarted or

retarded by the intrigues of the Princess Orsini and the

ambassador Amelot. He was accused in return, and that not

without reason, of forming designs on the crown of Spain, and

corresponding with the enemies of Philip on the subject. The

fortunes of France and Spain still continued to decline, and

Louis felt that peace was the only measure which could stop

the progress of that ruin which menaced the house of Bourbon.

Conferences were accordingly opened at the Hague, and Louis

pretended that he was willing to give up the interest of

Philip; at the same time his grandson himself protested that

he would never quit Spain, or yield his title to its crown. …

{2997}

The disastrous campaign of 1710 rendered Louis more desirous

than ever of obtaining peace, and though his professions of

abandoning his grandson were insincere, he certainly would not

have scrupled to sacrifice the Spanish Netherlands and the

American commerce to Holland, as the price of an advantageous

peace to France. Meantime the Austrians had gained the

victories of Almenara and Zaragoza, and had once more driven

the Spanish court from Madrid. This time it fled to

Valladolid, and the king and queen talked of taking refuge in

America, and re-establishing the empire of Mexico or Peru,

rather than abandon their throne. But the Castilians once more

roused themselves to defend the king; the duke of Vendome's

arrival supplied their greatest want, that of a skilful

general; and the imprudence of the allies facilitated the

recovery of the capital. The disasters of the allies began

with their retreat; Staremburg, after a doubtful though bloody

battle [Villa Viciosa, December 10, 1710], at the end of which

he was victor, was yet obliged to retire with the

disadvantages of defeat; and Stanhope, with a small body of

English, after a desperate resistance [at Brihuega, December

9, 1710], was taken prisoner."

M. Callcott,

Short History of Spain,

chapter 22 (volume 2).

"As the result of the actions at Brihuega and Villa Viciosa

and the subsequent retreat, the Austrians lost 3,600 killed or

wounded, and 3,036 prisoners, or a total of 7,536 men; whilst

the Bourbon casualties were 6,700 placed hors-de-combat, and

100 captured, or in all 6,800 men. These operations

constituted a decisive victory for Vendôme, who thus, in less

than four months after the battle of Saragossa, had

re-established King Philip and the Bourbon cause."

Colonel A. Parnell,

The War of the Succession in Spain,

chapters 27-34.

ALSO IN:

W. Coxe,

Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,

chapters 15-18 (volumes 1-2).

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),

History of the War of Succession in Spain,

chapters 6-8.

SPAIN: A. D. 1711.

The Austrian claimant of the throne becomes Emperor.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.

SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.

The betrayal of the Catalans.

"Alone among the Spaniards the Catalans had real reason to

regret the peace. They had clung to the cause of Charles with

a desperate fidelity, and the Peace of Utrecht rang the

death-knell of provincial liberties to which they were

passionately attached. From the beginning of 1705 they had

been the steady and faithful allies of England; they had again

and again done eminent service in her cause; they had again

and again received from her ministers and generals the most

solemn assurances that they would never be abandoned. When

England first opened a separate negotiation for peace she

might easily have secured the Catalonian liberties by making

their recognition an indispensable preliminary of peace; but,

instead of this, the English ministers began by recognising

the title of Philip, and contented themselves with a simple

prayer that a general amnesty might be granted. When the

convention was signed for the evacuation of Catalonia by the

Imperial troops, the question of the provincial liberties was

referred to the definite peace, the Queen and the French King

promising at that time to interpose their good offices to

secure them. The Emperor, who was bound to the Catalans by the

strongest ties of gratitude and honour, could have easily

obtained a guarantee of their fueros at the price of an

acknowledgment of the title of Philip; but he was too proud

and too selfish for such a sacrifice. The English, it is true,

repeatedly urged the Spanish King to guarantee these

privileges, … but these were mere representations, supported

by no action, and were therefore peremptorily refused. The

English peace with Spain contained a clause granting the

Catalans a general armistice, and also a promise that they

should be placed in the same position as the Castilians, which

gave them the right of holding employments and carrying on a

direct trade with the West Indies, but it made no mention of

their provincial privileges. The Peace of Rastadt was equally

silent, for the dignity of the Emperor would not suffer him to

enter into any negotiations with Philip. The unhappy people,

abandoned by those whom they had so faithfully served, refused

to accept the position offered them by treaty, and, much to

the indignation of the English Government, they still

continued in arms, struggling with a desperate courage against

overwhelming odds. The King of Spam then called upon the

Queen, as a guarantee of the treaty of evacuation, 'to order a

squadron of her ships to reduce his subjects to their

obedience, and thereby complete the tranquillity of Spain and

of the Mediterranean commerce.' A fleet was actually

despatched, which would probably have been employed against

Barcelona, but for an urgent address of the House of Lords,

and the whole moral weight of England was thrown into the

scale against the insurgents. The conduct of the French was

more decided. Though the French King had engaged himself with

the Queen by the treaty of evacuation to use his good offices

in the most effectual manner in favour of the Catalan

liberties, he now sent an army to hasten the capture of

Barcelona. The blockade of that noble city lasted for more

than a year. The insurgents hung up over the high altar the

Queen's solemn declaration to protect them. They continued the

hopeless struggle till 14,000 bombs had been thrown into the

city; till a great part of it had been reduced to ashes; till

seven breaches had been made; till 10,000 of the besieging

army had been killed or wounded; and till famine had been

added to the horrors of war. At last, on September 11, 1714,

Barcelona was taken by storm. A frightful massacre took place

in the streets. Many of the inhabitants were afterwards

imprisoned or transported, and the old privileges of Catalonia

were finally abolished. Such was the last scene of this

disastrous war."

W. E. R. Lecky,

History of England, 18th century,

chapter 1 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),

History of England, 1713-1783,

chapter 3 (volume 1).

C. T. Wilson,

The Duke of Berwick,

chapter 21.

{2998}

SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

Continued war with the Emperor.

The Triple Alliance.

The Quadruple Alliance.

The Peace of Vienna.

The Alliance of Hanover.

"The treaty of Utrecht, although it had tranquilized a great

part of Europe, was nevertheless defective, in as far as it

had not reconciled the Emperor and the King of Spain, the two

principal claimants to the Spanish succession. The Emperor

Charles VI. did not recognize Philip V. in his quality of King

of Spain; and Philip, in his turn [instigated by his queen,

Elizabeth Farnese—see ITALY:' A. D. 1715-1735] refused to

acquiesce in those partitions of the Spanish monarchy which

the treaty of Utrecht had stipulated in favour of the Emperor.

To defeat the projects and secret intrigues of the Spanish

minister [Cardinal Alberoni], the Duke of Orleans [Regent of

France], thought of courting an alliance with England, as

being the power most particularly interested in maintaining

the treaty of Utrecht, the fundamental articles of which had

been dictated by herself. That alliance, into which the United

Provinces also entered, was concluded at the Hague (January

4th, 1717). … Cardinal Alberoni, without being in the least

disconcerted by the Triple Alliance, persisted in his design

of recommencing the war. No sooner had he recruited the

Spanish forces, and equipped an expedition, than he attacked

Sardinia [1717], which he took from the Emperor. This conquest

was followed by that of Sicily, which the Spaniards took from

the Duke of Savoy (1718). France and England, indignant at the

infraction of a treaty which they regarded as their own work,

immediately concluded with the Emperor, at London (August 2nd,

1718) the famous Quadruple Alliance, which contained the plan

of a treaty of peace, to be made between the Emperor, the King

of Spain, and the Duke of Savoy. The allied powers engaged to

obtain the consent of the parties interested in this proposal,

and, in case of refusal, to compel them by force of arms. The

Emperor was to renounce his right to the Spanish crown, and to

acknowledge Philip V. as the legitimate King of Spain, in

consideration of that prince renouncing the provinces of Italy

and the Netherlands, which the treaty of Utrecht and the

quadruple alliance adjudged to the Emperor. The Duke of Savoy

was to cede Sicily to Austria, receiving Sardinia in exchange,

which the King of Spam was to disclaim. The right of reversion

to the crown of Spain was transferred from Sicily to Sardinia.

That treaty likewise granted to Don Carlos, eldest son of

Philip V., by his second marriage, the eventual reversion and

investiture of the duchies of Parma and Placentia, as well as

the grand duchy of Tuscany, on condition of holding them as

fiefs-male of the Emperor and the Empire after the decease of

the last male issue of the families of Farnese and Medici, who

were then in possession. …. The Duke of Savoy did not hesitate

to subscribe the conditions of the quadruple alliance; but it

was otherwise with the King of Spain, who persisted in his

refusal; when France and England declared war against him. The

French invaded the provinces of Guipuscoa and Catalonia [under

Berwick, A. D. 1710], while the English seized Gallicia and

the port of Vigo. These vigorous proceedings shook the

resolutions of the King of Spain. He signed the quadruple

alliance, and banished the Cardinal Alberoni from his court,

the adviser of those measures of which the allies complained.

The Spanish troops then evacuated Sicily and Sardinia, when

the Emperor took possession of the former and Victor Amadeus,

Duke of Savoy, of the latter. The war to all appearance was at

an end." But fresh difficulties arose, one following another.

The reversion of Tuscany, Parma, and Placentia, promised to

the Infant of Spain, was stoutly opposed in Italy. The Emperor

provoked commercial jealousies in England and Holland by

chartering a Company of Ostend (1722) with exclusive

privileges of trading to the East and West Indies and the

coasts of Africa. An attempted congress at Cambrai was long

retarded and finally broken up. Meantime the French court gave

mortal offense to the King of Spain by sending home his

daughter, who had been the intended bride of the young King

Louis XV., and marrying the latter to a Polish princess. The

final result was to draw the Emperor and the King of Spain—

the two original enemies in the embroilment—together, and a

treaty between them was concluded at Vienna, April 30, 1725.

"This treaty renewed the renunciation of Philip V. to the

provinces of Italy and the Netherlands, as well as that of the

Emperor to Spain and the Indies. The eventual investiture of

the duchies of Parma and Placentia, and that of the grand

duchy of Tuscany, were also confirmed. The only new clause

contained in the treaty was that by which the King of Spain

undertook to guarantee the famous Pragmatic Sanction of

Charles VI., which secured to the daughter of that prince the

succession of all his estates. It was chiefly on this account

that Philip V. became reconciled to the court of Vienna. The

peace of Vienna was accompanied by a defensive alliance

between the Emperor and the King of Spain." The terms of the

alliance were such as to alarm England for the security of her

hold on Gibraltar and Minorca, and Holland for her commerce,

besides giving uneasiness to France. By the action of the

latter, a league was set on foot "capable of counteracting

that of Vienna, which was concluded at Herrenhausen, near

Hanover, (September 3, 1725) and is known by the name of the

Alliance of Hanover. All Europe was divided between these two

alliances."

C. W. Koch,

The Revolutions of Europe, period 8.

ALSO IN:

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),

History of England, 1713-1783,

volume 1, chapters 7-10.

G. P. R. James,

Eminent Foreign Statesmen,

volume 4: Alberoni.

W. Coxe,

Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,

chapters 22-30.

E. Armstrong,

Elisabeth Farnese. "The Termagant of Spain."

chapters 2-10.

SPAIN: A. D. 1714.

The Peace of Utrecht.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;

and SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776.

SPAIN: A. D. 1725-1740.

The Austrian Succession.

Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.

SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

Fresh quarrels with England.

Siege of Gibraltar.

Treaty of Seville.

Second Treaty of Vienna.

Acquisition of the Italian Duchies.

"All Europe became divided between the alliances of Vienna and

Hanover; and though both sides pretended that these treaties

were only defensive, yet each made extensive preparations for

war. George I. entered into a treaty with the Landgrave of

Hesse Cassel for the supply of 12,000 men; manifests were

published, ambassadors withdrawn, armies put on foot; the sea

was covered with English fleets; an English squadron under

Admiral Hosier annoyed the trade of Spain; and in February

1727, the Spaniards laid siege to Gibraltar, and seized at

Vera Cruz a richly laden merchant vessel belonging to the

English South Sea Company. But all these vast preparations led

to no results of importance. Of all the European Powers, Spain

alone had any real desire for war. …

{2999}

The preliminaries of a general pacification were signed at

Paris, May 31st 1727, by the ministers of the Emperor, France,

Great Britain, and Holland, and a Congress was appointed to

assemble at Aix-la-Chapelle to arrange a definitive peace. But

Spain still held aloof and sought every opportunity to

temporise. The hopes of Philip being again awakened by the

death of George I. in July 1727, he renewed his intrigues with

the Jacobites, and instigated the Pretender to proceed to a

port in the Low Countries, and to seize an opportunity to pass

over into England. But these unfounded expectations were soon

dispelled by the quiet accession of George II. to the throne

and policy of his father. … The Spanish Queen [Elizabeth

Farnese], however, still held out; till, alarmed by the

dangerous state of Philip's health, whose death might

frustrate her favourite scheme of obtaining the Italian

duchies, and leave her a mere cypher without any political

influence, she induced her husband to accept the preliminaries

by the Act of the Pardo, March 6th 1728. A congress was now

opened at Soissons, to which place it had been transferred for

the convenience of Fleury [French minister], who was bishop of

that diocese. But though little remained to be arranged except

the satisfaction of Spain in the matter of the Italian

duchies, the negociations were tedious and protracted." In the

end they "became a mere farce, and the various

plenipotentiaries gradually withdrew from the Congress.

Meanwhile the birth of a Dauphin (September 4th 1729) having

dissipated the hopes of Philip V. and his Queen as to the

French succession, Elizabeth devoted herself all the more

warmly to the prosecution of her Italian schemes; and finding

all her efforts to separate France and England unavailing, she

at length determined to accept what they offered. … She

persuaded Philip to enter into a separate treaty with France

and England, which was concluded at Seville, November 9th

1729. England and Spain arranged their commercial and other

differences; the succession of Don Carlos to the Italian

duchies was guaranteed; and it was agreed that Leghorn, Porto

Ferrajo, Parma, and Piacenza should be garrisoned by 6,000

Spaniards, who, however, were not to interfere with the civil

government. Nothing more was said about Gibraltar. Philip,

indeed, seemed now to have abandoned all hope of recovering

that fortress; for he soon afterwards caused to be constructed

across the isthmus the strong lines of San Roque, and thus

completely isolated Gibraltar from his Spanish dominions. The

Dutch acceded to the Treaty of Seville shortly after its

execution, on the understanding that they should receive

entire satisfaction respecting the India Company established

by the Emperor at Ostend. Charles VI. was indignant at being

thus treated by Spain. … On the death of Antonio Farnese, Duke

of Parma, January 10th 1731, he took military possession of

that state. … The versatility of the cabinets of that age,

however, enabled the Emperor to attain his favourite object at

a moment when he least expected it. The Queen of Spain,

wearied with the slowness of Cardinal Fleury in carrying out

the provisions of the Treaty of Seville, suddenly declared, in

a fit of passion, that Spain was no longer bound by that

treaty (January 1731). Great Britain and the Dutch States, in

concert with the Spanish Court, without the concurrence of

France, now entered into negociations with the Emperor, which

were skilfully conducted by Lord Waldegrave, to induce him to

accede to the Treaty of Seville; and, on March 16th 1731, was

concluded what has been called the Second Treaty of Vienna.

Great Britain and the States guaranteed the Pragmatic

Sanction; and the Emperor, on his side, acceded to the

provisions of Seville respecting the Italian duchies, and

agreed to annihilate the commerce of the Austrian Netherlands

with the Indies by abolishing the obnoxious Ostend Company. He

also engaged not to bestow his daughter on a Bourbon prince,

or in any other way that might endanger the balance of power

in Europe. … In the following November an English squadron

disembarked at Leghorn 6,000 Spaniards, who took possession of

that place, as well as Porto Ferrajo, Parma, and Piacenza, in

the name of Don Carlos, as Duke of Parma and presumptive heir

of Tuscany."

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 6, chapter 1 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),

History of England, 1713-1783,

chapters 14-15 (volume 2).

W. Coxe,

History of the House of Austria,

chapter 88 (volume 3).

W. Coxe,

Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,

chapters 36-40 (volume 3).

E. Armstrong,

Elisabeth Farnese, "The Termagant of Spain,"

chapters 11-14.

SPAIN: A. D. 1733.

The First Bourbon Family Compact (France and Spain).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733.

SPAIN: A. D. 1734-1735.

Acquisition of Naples and Sicily,

as a kingdom for Don Carlos.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

SPAIN: A. D. 1739.

Outbreak of hostilities with England.

The War of Jenkins' Ear.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

SPAIN: A. D. 1740.

Unsuccessful attack of the English on Florida.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

SPAIN: A. D. 1740-1741.

Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

SPAIN: A. D. 1741-1747.

The War of the Austrian Succession: Operations in Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743, to 1746-1747.

SPAIN: A. D. 1743.

The Second Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.

Arrangements concerning Italy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1746.

Accession of Ferdinand VI.

SPAIN: A. D. 1748.

Termination and results of the

War of the Austrian Succession.

See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

SPAIN: A. D. 1759.

Accession of Charles III.

SPAIN: A. D. 1761-1762.

The Third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.

England declares War.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).

SPAIN: A. D. 1762-1763.

Havana lost and recovered.

See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

SPAIN: A. D. 1763.

End and results of the Seven Years War.

Florida ceded to Great Britain.

Louisiana acquired from France.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

SPAIN: A. D. 1766-1769.

Occupation of Louisiana.

The revolt of New Orleans and its suppression.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768; and 1769.

SPAIN: A. D. 1767.

Suppression of the order of the Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

SPAIN: A. D. 1779-1781.

Reconquest of West Florida.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

SPAIN: A. D. 1779-1782.

The unsuccessful siege of Gibraltar.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

{3000}

SPAIN: A. D. 1782.

Aims and interests in the settlement of peace between

Great Britain and the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1783-1800.

The question of Florida boundaries and of the navigation

of the Mississippi, in dispute with the United States.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787;

and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

SPAIN: A. D. 1788.

Accession of Charles IV.

SPAIN: A. D. 1791-1793.

The Coalition against revolutionary France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;

1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);

and 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1793.

Successes on the French frontier.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER)

PROGRESS OF THE WAR.

SPAIN: A. D. 1794.

French successes in the Pyrenees.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

SPAIN: A. D. 1795.

Peace and alliance with the French Republic.

Cession of Spanish San Domingo.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1797.

Naval defeat by the English off Cape St. Vincent.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

SPAIN: A. D. 1797.

Cession of western part of Hayti, or San Domingo, to France.

See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

SPAIN: A. D. 1801.

Re-cession of Louisiana to France.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

SPAIN: A. D. 1802.

The Peace of Amiens.

Recovery of Minorca and Port Mahon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

SPAIN: A. D. 1805.

The naval defeat at Trafalgar.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.

Napoleon's plots for the theft of the Spanish crown.

The popular rising.

Accession of Ferdinand VII.

"For more than ten years Spain had been drawn in the wake of

revolutionary France. To Napoleon from the beginning of his

reign she had been as subservient as Holland or Switzerland;

she had made war and peace at his bidding, had surrendered

Trinidad to make the treaty of Amiens, had given her fleet to

destruction at Trafalgar. In other states equally subservient,

such as Holland and the Italian Republic, Napoleon had

remodelled the government at his pleasure, and in the end had

put his own family at the head of it. After Tilsit he thought

himself strong enough to make a similar change in Spain, and

the occupation of Portugal seemed to afford the opportunity of

doing this. By two conventions signed at Fontainebleau on

October 27, the partition of Portugal was arranged with Spain.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.

The Prince of the Peace was to become a sovereign prince of

the Algarves, the King of Spain was to have Brazil with the

title of Emperor of the two Americas, &c.; but the main

provision was that a French army was to stand on the threshold

of Spain ready to resist any intervention of England. The

occupation of Portugal took place soon after, Junot arriving

at Lisbon on November 30, just as the royal family with a

following of several thousands set sail for Brazil under

protection of the English fleet. At the same time there

commenced in defiance of all treaties a passage of French

troops into Spain, which continued until 80,000 had arrived,

and had taken quiet possession of a number of Spanish

fortresses. At last Murat was appointed to the command of the

army of Spain. He entered the country on March 1, 1808, and

marched on Madrid, calculating that the king would retire and

take refuge at Seville or Cadiz. This act revealed to the

world, and even to a large party among the French themselves,

the nature of the power which had been created at Tilsit. The

lawless acts of Napoleon's earlier life were palliated by the

name of the French Revolution, and since Brumaire he had

established a character for comparative moderation. But here

was naked violence without the excuse of fanaticism; and on

what a scale! One of the greater states of Europe was in the

hands of a burglar, who would moreover, if successful, become

king not only of Spain but of a boundless empire in the New

World. The sequel was worse even than this commencement,

although the course which events took seems to show that by

means of a little delay he might have attained his end without

such open defiance of law. The administration of Spain had

long been in the contemptible hands of Manuel Godoy, supposed

to be the queen's lover, yet at the same time high in the

favor of King Charles IV. Ferdinand, the heir apparent, headed

an opposition, but in character he was not better than the

trio he opposed, and he had lately been put under arrest on

suspicion of designs upon his father's life. To have fomented

this opposition without taking either side, and to have

rendered both sides equally contemptible to the Spanish

people, was Napoleon's game. The Spanish people, who

profoundly admired him, might then have been induced to ask

him for a king. Napoleon, however, perpetrated his crime

before the scandal of the palace broke out. The march of Murat

now brought it to a head. On March 17 a tumult broke out at

Aranjuez, which led to the fall of the favourite, and then to

the abdication of the king, and the proclamation of Ferdinand

amid universal truly Spanish enthusiasm. It was a fatal

mistake to have forced on this popular explosion, and Napoleon

has characteristically tried to conceal it by a supposititious

letter, dated March 29, in which he tries to throw the blame

upon Murat, to whom the letter professes to be addressed. It

warns Murat against rousing Spanish patriotism and creating an

opposition of the nobles and clergy, which will lead to a

'levée en masse,' and to a war without end. It predicts, in

short, all that took place, but it has every mark of

invention, and was certainly never received by Murat. The

reign of Ferdinand having thus begun, all that the French

could do was to abstain from acknowledging him, and to

encourage Charles to withdraw his abdication as given under

duress. By this means it became doubtful who was king of

Spain, and Napoleon, having carefully refrained from taking a

side, now presented himself as arbiter. Ferdinand was induced

to betake himself to Napoleon's presence at Bayonne, where he

arrived on April 21; his father and mother followed on the

30th. Violent scenes took place between father and son: news

arrived of an insurrection at Madrid and of the stern

suppression of it by Murat. In the end Napoleon succeeded in

extorting the abdication both of Charles and Ferdinand. It was

learned too late that the insurrection of Spain had not really

been suppressed.

{3001}

This crime, as clumsy as it was monstrous, brought on that

great popular insurrection of Europe against the universal

monarchy, which has profoundly modified all subsequent

history, and makes the Anti-Napoleonic Revolution an event of

the same order as the French Revolution. A rising unparalleled

for its suddenness and sublime spontaneousness took place

throughout Spain and speedily found a response in Germany. A

new impulse was given, out of which grew the great nationality

movement of the nineteenth century."

J. R. Seeley,

Short History of Napoleon I.,

chapter 5, lecture 1.

ALSO IN:

Sir A. Alison,

History of Europe, 1800-1815,

chapter 52 (volume 11).

R. Southey,

History of the Peninsular War,

chapters 2-5 (volume 1).

M. de Bourrienne,

Private Memoirs of Napoleon,

volume 3, chapter 32.

P. Lanfrey,

History of Napoleon,

volume 3, chapters 4 and 6-8.

SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (May-September).

The stolen crown conferred on Joseph Bonaparte.

National revolt.

Organization of Juntas and planning of guerilla war.

French reverses.

Quick flight of Joseph Bonaparte from Madrid.

Arrival of English forces to aid the people.

"Murat was disappointed of the crown of Spain, on which he had

fixed his hopes. It had been refused with surprise and

indignation by Napoleon's brother Louis, who wore reluctantly

even that of Holland, but was unwilling to exchange it for a

still deeper royal servitude. Joseph Bonaparte, however,

consented to abandon his more tranquil throne of Naples for

the dangers and discontents which surrounded that of Spain.

Napoleon, who had nominated him to it June 6th, was desirous

of procuring at least the apparent consent of the Spanish

nation. The Council of Castile, the chief political body of

Spain, when informed of the Treaties of Bayonne, was at last

induced to give a cold and reluctant assent to the accession

of Joseph. Its example was followed by the Supreme Junta and

the municipality of Madrid. There was, indeed, no alternative

but war. Ferdinand displayed on the occasion all the baseness

of his soul in its true colours. He not only wrote to Napoleon

to express his satisfaction at the elevation of Joseph, he

even addressed a letter of congratulation to the man who had

usurped his crown! thus testifying under his own hand his

utter unworthiness to wear it. A Junta of 150 Spanish

notables, which had been summoned to Bayonne, accepted a

constitution proposed by Napoleon, July 7th, and a day or two

after Joseph left Bayonne for Madrid. He had signed on the 5th

a treaty with his brother Napoleon, by which he renounced the

crown of Naples, made, as King of Spain, a perpetual offensive

alliance with France, fixed the number of troops and ships to

be provided by each nation, and agreed to the establishment of

a commercial system. By an act called Constitutional Statute,

July 15th, the vacant throne of Naples was bestowed upon

Joachim Murat. Ferdinand had found means to despatch from

Bayonne a proclamation addressed to the Asturians, and dated

May 8th, in which he called upon them to assert their

independence and never to submit to the perfidious enemy who

had deprived him of his rights. This letter naturally made a

great impression on a proud and sensitive people; nor was its

effect diminished by another proclamation which Ferdinand and

his brothers were compelled to sign at Bordeaux, May 12th,

calling upon the Spaniards not to oppose 'the beneficent

views' of Napoleon. At this last address, evidently extorted

from a prisoner, a general cry of indignation arose in Spain;

the people everywhere flew to arms, except where prevented by

the presence of French troops. The city of Valencia renounced

its obedience to the Government of Madrid, May 23rd; Seville

followed its example; and on the 27th, Joseph Palafox

organised at Saragossa the insurrection of Aragon. As these

insurrections were accompanied with frightful massacres,

principally of persons who had held high civil or military

posts under Charles IV., the better classes, to put an end to

these horrible scenes, established central Juntas in the

principal towns. … They proposed not to meet the enemy in

pitched battles in the open field, but to harass, wear out,

and overcome him by 'guerilla,' or the discursive and

incessant attacks of separate small bands. The Supreme Junta

issued instructions for conducting this mode of warfare.

Andalusia was better fitted for organising the revolt, if such

it can be called, than any other province of Spain. Its

population formed one-fifth of the whole nation, it possessed

the sole cannon-foundry in the kingdom, it contained half the

disposable Spanish army, and it could receive assistance from

the English both by means of Gibraltar and of Collingwood's

fleet that was cruising on the coast. One of the first feats

of arms of the Spaniards was to compel the surrender of five

French ships of the line and a frigate, which had remained in

the port of Cadiz ever since the battle of Trafalgar (June

14th). Marshal Moncey was repulsed towards the end of June in

an advance upon Valencia, and compelled to retreat upon Madrid

with a loss of one-third of his men. In the north-west the

Spaniards were less fortunate. Cuesta, with a corps of 25,000

men, was defeated by Marshal Bessières, July 14th, at Medina

del Rio Seco. The consequence of this victory was the

temporary submission of Leon, Palencia, Valladolid, Zamora,

and Salamanca to the French. But this misfortune was more than

counterbalanced by the victory of General Castaños over the

French in Andalusia, a few days after. Generals Dupont and

Vedel had advanced into that province as far as Cordova, but

they were defeated by Castaños with the army of Andalusia at

Baylen, July 20th. On this occasion, the commencement of the

French reverses in Spain, 18,000 French soldiers laid down

their arms. Joseph Bonaparte found it prudent to leave Madrid

August 1st, which he had only entered on the day of the

battle, and fly to Burgos. This important victory not only

inspired the Spaniards with confidence, but also caused them

to be regarded in Europe as a substantive Power. On the day

after the battle Castaños issued a proclamation which does him

great honour. He invoked the Spaniards to show humanity

towards the French prisoners of war, and threatened to shoot

those who should maltreat them. Such, however, was the

exasperation of the people against their invaders, that

numbers of the French were massacred on their route to Cadiz

for embarkation, and the remainder were treated with barbarous

inhumanity. These cruelties had, however, been provoked by the

atrocities of the French at the capture and sack of Cordova.

The campaign in Aragon was still more glorious for the

Spaniards.

{3002}

Palafox, whether or not he was the poltroon described by

Napier, had at all events the merit of organising, out of

almost nothing, the means by which the French were repulsed in

several desperate assaults upon Saragossa, and at length

compelled to retreat after a siege of some weeks (August

14th). The patriot cause was soon after strengthened by the

arrival at Corunna of General La Romana, with 7,000 of his men

from Denmark (September 20th). Keats, the English admiral in

the Baltic, had in·formed him of the rising of his countrymen

and provided him the means to transport his troops from

Nyborg. The English Government, soon after the breaking out of

the insurrection, had proclaimed a peace with the Spanish

nation (July 4th 1808), and had prepared to assist them in

their heroic struggle. The example of Spain had also

encouraged the Portuguese to throw off the insufferable yoke

of the French. A Junta was established at Oporto, June 6th,

and an insurrection was organised in all parts of the kingdom

where the French forces were not predominant. Sir Arthur

Wellesley, with about 10,000 British troops, landed at Mondego

Bay, July 31st."

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 7, chapter 14 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

T. Hamilton,

Annals of the Peninsular Campaigns,

volume 1, chapters 4-10.

Baron Jomini,

Life of Napoleon,

chapter 12 (volume 2).

General Foy,

History of the War in the Peninsula,

volume 2, part 1.

Count Miot de Melito,

Memoirs,

chapters 23-28.

SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (September-December).

Napoleon's overwhelming campaign against the Spanish armies.

Joseph reinstated at Madrid.

The French disasters in the Peninsula shook the belief in

Napoleon's invincibility which had prevailed throughout the

Continent, and the Emperor saw that he must crush the

Spaniards at once, before the English could advance from the

fortified base they had acquired on the flank of the Spanish

plains. To secure his power on the side of Germany, he had a

prolonged interview with the Czar at Erfurt. … On the 14th

October the two Emperors parted; and at the end of the month

Napoleon set out from Paris for Bayonne, and continued his

journey to Vitoria. In September the French had evacuated

Tudela and Burgos, and had been driven from Bilbao by General

Joachim Blake [a Spanish officer of Irish descent]. But such

vast reinforcements had been poured across the Pyrenees, that

the French armies in Spain now numbered 250,000 men, and of

these 180,000 were drawn up behind the Ebro. On the last day

of October Lefevre re-took Bilbao; and Blake, after a defeat

at Tornosa, fell back upon Espinosa, where Napoleon, upon his

arrival, directed Marshal Victor … and Lefevre to assail him

with 40,000 men. The Spaniards, though numbering only 25,000,

held their ground till the morning of the second day's

fighting (11th November). With one part of the fugitives Blake

made a stand at Reynosa on the 13th against Marshal Soult, who

had achieved a victory over Belvedere at Burgos on the 10th;

but they were again broken, and fled to the mountains of the

Cantabrian chain. With the other part of the fugitives, about

10,000, the Marquis of La Romana made his way into Leon.

Castaños and Palafox had a united force of 43,000 men and 40

guns; but they were wrangling over their plans when Marshal

Lannes, the intrepid Duke of Montebello, … appeared with

35,000 men, and broke their centre at Tudela. But on the

Spanish left, the troops who had conquered at Baylen not only

maintained their ground with obstinacy, but drove back the

French. At length they were outnumbered, and Castaños fell

back in admirable order upon Madrid through Calatayud. The

right, under Palafox, retired in disorder to Saragossa; and

now the road to Madrid was blocked only by General San Juan

with 12,000 men, who had entrenched the Somo Sierra Pass. But

this post also was carried on the 30th November by the Polish

lancers of the Imperial Guard, who rode up and speared the

artillerymen at their guns. Aranjuez was at once abandoned by

the central Junta, and on the 2nd December the French vanguard

appeared on the heights north of Madrid. The capital became at

once a scene of tumult and confusion: barricades were erected,

and the bells sounded the alarm, but no discipline was visible

in the assembling bands; and when the heights of the Retiro,

overlooking the city, were carried by the French on the

morning of the 3rd December, the authorities sent out to

arrange a surrender. On the following morning … the French

entered the city, Joseph was again installed in the palace,

where deputations waited upon him to congratulate him and

renew their professions of devoted attachment, and the city

settled down once more to tranquil submission to the

foreigner."

H. R. Clinton,

The War in the Peninsula,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

General Vane (Marquis of Londonderry),

Story of the Peninsular War,

chapter 8.

SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (August-January).

Wellington's first campaign.

Convention of Cintra.

Evacuation of Portugal by the French.

Napoleon in the field.

Sir John Moore's advance into Spain.

His retreat.

His repulse of Soult at Corunna.

His death.

"Sir Arthur Wellesley's division comprised 9,000 men. Another

corps, under Sir John Moore, which had just arrived from the

Baltic, numbered 11,000 men. These two detachments were to

co-operate. But their united efforts were to be directed by

Sir Hew Dalrymple and Sir Harry Burrard, two generals whose

exploits were better known in the private records of the Horse

Guards than in the annals of their country. … Sir Arthur

Wellesley landed his troops at Figuiera, a difficult task on

an iron coast. On the 7th of August, major-general Spencer's

corps joined the army. With 10,000 British and 5,000

Portuguese, Sir Arthur Wellesley then prepared to march

towards Lisbon. On the 17th he defeated at Roliça the French

under Laborde. On the 20th he was at Vimiero, having been

joined by General Anstruther and General Acland with their

corps. He had now an army of 17,000 men. Junot had joined

Laborde and Loison at Torres Vedras, and their united force

was about 14,000 men, of whom 1,600 were cavalry. Early in the

morning of the 21st, the French attacked the British in their

position. Sir Harry Burrard had arrived on the night of the

20th, but did not land. The principal attack on the British

was on the centre and left; the sea being in their rear. The

attack was repulsed. Kellermann then attacked with the French

reserve, and he also was driven back. Junot's left wing and

centre were discomfited. The road of Torres Vedras, the

shortest road to Lisbon, was uncovered. When the action was

nearly over, Sir Harry Burrard had landed. In a private

letter, Sir Arthur Wellesley wrote, 'The French got a terrible

beating on the 21st.

{3003}

They did not lose less, I believe, than 4,000 men, and they

would have been entirely destroyed, if Sir H. Burrard had not

prevented me from pursuing them. Indeed, since the arrival of

the great generals, we appear to have been palsied, and

everything has gone on wrong.' Sir John Moore arrived with his

corps on the 21st, and his troops were nearly all landed when

hostilities were suspended by the Convention of Cintra for the

evacuation of Portugal by the French. Sir Arthur writes to

Lord Castlereagh, 'Although my name is affixed to this

instrument, I beg that you will not believe that I negotiated

it, that I approve of it, or that I had any hand in wording

it.' On the 5th of September, he writes, 'It is quite

impossible for me to continue any longer with this army; and I

wish, therefore, that you would allow me to return home and

resume the duties of my office.' Dalrymple, Burrard, and

Wellesley were all recalled home. Sir John Moore remained at

Lisbon, having been appointed to command the army. A Court of

Inquiry was ordered on the subject of 'the late transactions

in Portugal.' Wellesley had to bear much before the publicity

of those proceedings was to set him right in public opinion.

The Inquiry ended in a formal disapprobation of the armistice

and convention on the part of the king being communicated to

Sir How Dalrymple. Neither of the two 'great generals' was

again employed. One advantage was gained by the Convention.

The Russian fleet in the Tagus was delivered up to the

British. Sir John Moore, late in October, began his march into

Spain, 'to co-operate,' as his instructions set forth, 'with

the Spanish armies in the expulsion of the French.' He was to

lead the British forces in Portugal; and to be joined by Sir

David Baird, with 10,000 men to be landed at Corunna. Instead

of finding Spanish armies to co-operate with, he learned that

the French had routed and dispersed them. Napoleon had himself

come to command his troops; and had arrived at Bayonne on the

3rd of November. Moore was separated from Baird by a wide

tract of country. He had been led by false information to

divide his own army. He remained for some time at Salamanca,

inactive and uncertain. Madrid was soon in the hands of the

French. Moore made a forward movement against the advanced

corps of Soult; and then, learning that the French armies were

gathering all around him, he determined to retreat. Sir David

Baird had previously joined him. Moore had abandoned all hopes

of defending Portugal, and had directed his march towards

Corunna. He commenced his retreat from Sahagun on the evening

of the 24th of December. During this retreat, the retiring

army constantly turned upon the pursuers, always defeating

them, and on one occasion capturing General Lefebvre. The

winter had set in with terrible severity; the sufferings of

the troops were excessive; disorganization, the common

consequence of a retreat, added to their danger. Moore saved

his army from destruction by an overwhelming force when he

carried it across the Esla, effectually destroying the bridge

by which they passed the swollen stream. But Moore could not

save his men from their own excesses, which made enemies of

the inhabitants of every place through which they passed. At

Lugo, on the 7th of January, 1809, the British general halted

his exhausted troops, determined to give battle to Soult, to

whom Napoleon had given up the pursuit of the English army,

having received despatches which indicated that war with

Austria was close at hand. Soult declined the conflict; and on

the British marched to Corunna. On the 11th, when they had

ascended the heights from which Corunna was visible, there

were no transports in the bay. The troops met with a kind

reception in the town; and their general applied himself to

make his position as strong as possible, to resist the enemy

that was approaching. On the evening of the 14th the

transports arrived. The sick and wounded were got on board;

and a great part of the artillery. Fourteen thousand British

remained to fight, if their embarkation were molested. The

battle of Corunna began at two o'clock on the 16th of January.

Soult had 20,000 veterans, with numerous field-guns; and he

had planted a formidable battery on the rocks, commanding the

valley and the lower ridge of hills. Columns of French

infantry descended from the higher ridge; and there was soon a

close trial of strength between the combatants. From the lower

ridge Moore beheld the 42nd and 50th driving the enemy before

them through the village of Elvina. He sent a battalion of the

guards to support them; but through a misconception the 42nd

retired. Moore immediately dashed into the fight; exclaimed

'Forty-second, remember Egypt,' and sent them back to the

village. The British held their ground or drove off their

assailants; and victory was certain under the skilful

direction of the heroic commander, when he was dashed to the

earth by a shot from the rock battery. Sir David Baird, the

second in command, had also fallen. Moore was carried into

Corunna; and endured several hours of extreme torture before

he yielded up his great spirit. The command had devolved upon

General Hope, who thought that his first duty was now to

embark the troops. … When the sufferers in Moore's campaign

came home the hospitals were filled with wounded and sick; and

some of the troops brought back a pestilential fever."

C. Knight,

Crown History of England,

chapter 57

(abridgment of chapter 28, volume 7,

of Popular History of England).

ALSO IN:

General Sir W. F. P. Napier,

History of the War in the Peninsula,

books 2-4 (volume 1).

J. M. Wilson,

Memoirs of the Duke of Wellington,

volume 1, chapters 13-16.

Dispatches of the Duke of Wellington,

volume 4.

G. R. Gleig,

General Sir John Moore

(Eminent British Military Commanders, volume 3).

Baron Jomini,

Life of Napoleon,

chapter 13 (volume 2).

Duke de Rovigo,

Memoirs,

volume 2, part 2, chapters 2-3.

General Foy,

History of the War in the Peninsula,

volume 2, part 2.

SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (December-March).

The siege of Saragossa.

"When Moore was pursued by Napoleon, the Duke of Infantado,

who had rallied 20,000 men in New Castile after the fall of

Madrid, formed the Quixotic design of re-taking the capital.

Marshal Victor, Duke of Belluno, utterly crushed his force at

Ucles on the 13th January, 1809, where 1,500 Spaniards were

slain, and 9,000 men and all the stores and artillery were

taken. The French, in retaliation for the Spaniards having

hanged some soldiers who had been captured, murdered many of

the prisoners in cold blood, and perpetrated infamous

atrocities on the inhabitants of Ucles.

{3004}

The Spaniards, however, showed their extraordinary valour

behind walls in their second defence of Saragossa, the siege

of which [abandoned the previous August, after a fierce

struggle] was renewed by 35,000 French under Marshals Moncey

and Mortier, on the 20th December, 1808. The city was defended

by Palafox, who had retired into it after his defeat at

Tudela. The second siege of this renowned city—though the

defence eventually proved unsuccessful—crowns with everlasting

glory the Spanish War of Independence. … 'The citizens gave up

their goods, their houses, and their bodies to the war, and,

mingling with the peasants and soldiers, formed one mighty

garrison suited to the vast fortress they had formed. For

doors and windows were built up, house-fronts loopholed,

internal communications opened, streets trenched and crossed

by earthen ramparts mounted with cannon, and every strong

building was a separate fortification: there was no weak

point—there could be none in a city which was all fortress,

where the space covered by houses was the measure of the

ramparts' (Napier). All the trees outside the walls were cut

down, the houses destroyed, and the materials carried into the

town. … The public magazines were provisioned for six months,

and all the conventual communities and the inhabitants had

large private stores. Nearly 3,000 artillerymen and sappers,

and 30,000 men of the regular army, had taken refuge in the

city, and at least 20,000 citizens and fugitive peasants were

fit for arms. The popular leaders had recourse to all the aid

which superstition could give them: denunciations of the wrath

of Heaven were hurled on those who were suspected of wavering,

and the clergy readily recounted stories of miracles to

encourage the faithful. Saragossa was 'believed to be

invincible through the protection of Our Lady of the Pillar,

who had chosen it for the seat of her peculiar worship. … An

appearance in the sky, which at other times might have passed

unremembered, and perhaps unnoticed, had given strong

confirmation to the popular faith. About a month before the

commencement of the first siege, a white cloud appeared at

noon, and gradually assumed the form of a palm-tree; the sky

being in all other parts clear, except that a few specks of

fleecy cloud hovered about the larger one. It was first

observed over the church of N. Senora del Portillo, and moving

from thence till it seemed to be immediately above that of the

pillar, continued in the same form about half an hour, and

then dispersed. The inhabitants were in a state of such

excitement that crowds joined in the acclamation of the first

beholder, who cried out, "A miracle!"—and after the defeat of

the besiegers had confirmed the omen, a miracle it was

universally pronounced to have been, the people proclaiming

with exultation that the Virgin had by this token prefigured

the victory she had given them, and promised Zaragoza her

protection as long as the world should endure' (Southey). … At

daybreak on the 21st December, General Suchet carried the

works on the Monte Torrero; but Count Gazan de la Peyrière—a

general highly distinguished in the Swiss and Italian

campaigns—failed in his attack upon the suburbs on the left

bank of the Ebro, and the confidence of the Spaniards in their

leaders was restored. Three days later the town was completely

invested, the siege operations being directed by General La

Coste. On the 30th December, the trenches being completed, the

town was summoned to surrender, and the example of Madrid was

referred to; but Palafox replied proudly, 'If Madrid has

surrendered, Madrid has been sold: Saragossa will neither be

sold nor surrendered.' Marshal Moncey being recalled to

Madrid, Junot took command of his corps. The besieged

attempted several sallies, which were repulsed; and after a

heavy bombardment, the St. Joseph convent was carried by the

French on the 11th January, 1809. The Spanish leaders

maintained the courage of their countrymen by proclaiming a

forged despatch narrating the defeat of Napoleon. The

guerrilla bands began to gather in round the French, and their

condition was becoming perilous. But the command had now been

taken by the invincible Marshal Lannes, Duke of Montebello

(who had been detained by a long illness); the approaches were

steadily pushed on, the breaches in the walls became wider,

and on the 29th the French rushed forward and took possession

of the ramparts. 'Thus the walls of Zaragoza went to the

ground; but Zaragoza remained erect, and as the broken girdle

fell from the heroic city, the besiegers started at her naked

strength. The regular defences had crumbled, but the popular

resistance was instantly called with all its terrors into

action; and as if fortune had resolved to mark the exact

moment when the ordinary calculations of science should cease,

the chief engineers on both sides [La Coste and San Genis]

were simultaneously slain' (Napier). … The Junta was in no

degree cowed: they resolved on resistance to the last

extremity, and a row of gibbets was raised for any who should

dare to propose surrender. Additional barricades were

constructed, and alarm-bells were rung to summon the citizens

to the threatened points. As each house was in itself a fort

which had to be separately attacked, mining now was had

recourse to. In this art the skill of the French was

unquestioned, and room after room and house after house was

carried. But still the constancy of the besieged was unshaken,

and the French soldiers began to murmur at their excessive

toil. From so many of the women and children being huddled

together in the cellars of the city, for safety from the

shells and cannon-balls, a pestilence arose, and slowly spread

from the besieged to the besiegers. 'The strong and the weak,

the daring soldier and the shrinking child, fell before it

alike; and such was the predisposition to disease, that the

slightest wound gangrened and became incurable. In the

beginning of February the daily deaths were from four to five

hundred;—the living were unable to bury the dead; and

thousands of carcases, scattered about the streets and

courtyards, or piled in heaps at the doors of the churches,

were left to dissolve in their own corruption, or be licked up

by the flames of burning houses as the defence became

concentrated' (Napier). On the 18th February a great assault

took place, and so much of the town was carried that further

resistance was hopeless. Terms of capitulation were offered by

the besieged, but were rejected by Lannes, and on the 19th the

heavy guns opened from the batteries on the left bank of the

Ebro, to sweep the houses on the quays. On the 20th, when all

the great leaders were dead or prostrated with fever, and none

but the soldier-priest Ric remained to lead the diminished

and of heroes, Saragossa surrendered,—at discretion, according

to the French: on honourable terms, according to the

Spaniards.

{3005}

Such was the close of one of the most heroic defences in the

history of the world. If any conditions were really accepted,

they were ill observed by the victors: the churches were

plundered, and many of the clergy and monks were put to death.

… The other strongholds in Aragon, one after another,

surrendered to the French before the end of March. In

Catalonia the French, under General Gouvion St. Cyr, had met

with equal success. With 30,000 men St. Cyr had taken Rosas

after a month's siege—which was prolonged by the presence of

that brilliant naval commander, Lord Cochrane (afterwards Earl

of Dundonald), with an English frigate in the harbour—in

December, 1808, had routed Reding at Cardadeu, had relieved

Barcelona (where General Duhesme was shut up with 8,000

Frenchmen), and had again, on the 21st December, routed Reding

at Molinos del Hey, where all the Spanish stores, including

30,000 muskets from England, were taken. In the spring of 1809

Reding made another attempt to achieve the independence of the

north-east, and moved to relieve Saragossa; but on the 17th

February he was met by St. Cyr at Igualada, where Reding

himself was killed and his army was dispersed. The siege of

Gerona alone in the north-east of Spain remained to be

undertaken."

H. R. Clinton,

The War in the Peninsula,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

C. M. Yonge,

Book of Golden Deeds,

page 365.

R. Southey,

History of the Peninsular War,

chapter 18 (volume 3).

Sir W. F. P. Napier,

History of the War in the Peninsula,

book 5, chapters 2-3 (volume 1).

Baron de Marbot,

Memoirs,

volume 1, chapter 40.

SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (February-June).

The war in Aragon.

Siege of Gerona.

"This decisive victory [of Igualada] terminated the regular

war in Catalonia; and St. Cyr, retiring to Vich, commenced

preparations for the siege of Gerona. The undertaking was for

some time delayed by the discord of St. Cyr and Verdier; but

in the beginning of May they appeared before the town, and on

the 1st of June the investment was completed. But the prowess

of the Spaniards nowhere appeared to greater advantage than in

the defence of their walled towns: it was not till 12th

August, after 37 days of open trenches, and two unsuccessful

assaults, that the French possessed themselves of the fort of

Monjuich, which commands the town: yet the gallant governor,

Alvarez, still held out, and the safe arrival of a convoy sent

by Blake reanimated the spirit of the garrison. The grand

assault of the lower town was given (September 17); but the

French were repulsed from the breach with the loss of 1,600

men; and St. Cyr, despairing of carrying the place by force,

converted the siege into a blockade. The capture of three

successive convoys, sent by Blake for their relief, reduced

the besieged at last to extremity; famine and pestilence

devastated the city; but it was not till the inhabitants were

reduced to the necessity of eating hair that the place was

yielded (December 12) to Augereau, who had superseded St. Cyr

in the command. A more memorable resistance is not on record;

but the heroic Alvarez, to the eternal disgrace of Augereau,

was immured in a dungeon at Figueras, where he soon afterwards

died. Junot, in the mean time, had been taken ill, and was

succeeded in the command in Aragon by Suchet, a young general

whose talents and success gave him a brilliant career in the

later years of the empire. His first essay, however, was

unfortunate; for the indefatigable Blake, encouraged by the

retreat of St. Cyr towards the Pyrenees, had again advanced

with 12,000 men; and an action ensued (May 23) at Alcaniz, in

which the French, seized with a panic, fled in confusion from

the field. This unwonted success emboldened Blake to approach

Saragossa; but the discipline and manœuvres of the French

asserted their wonted superiority in the plains; the Spaniards

were routed close to Saragossa (June 16), and more decisively

at Belchite the next day. The army of Blake was entirely

dispersed; and all regular resistance ceased in Aragon, as it

had done in Catalonia, after the fall of Gerona."

Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,

sections 566-567.

SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (February-July).

Wellington again in the English command.

The French advance into Portugal checked.

Passage of the Douro by the English.

Battle of Talavera.

"Napoleon, before Moore's corps had actually left Corunna,

conceived the war at an end, and, in issuing instructions to

his marshals, anticipated, with no unreasonable confidence,

the complete subjugation of the Peninsula. Excepting, indeed,

some isolated districts in the east, the only parts now in

possession of the Spaniards or their allies were Andalusia,

which had been saved by the precipitate recall of Napoleon to

the north; and Portugal, which, still in arms against the

French, was nominally occupied by a British corps of 10,000

men, left there under Sir John Cradock at the time of General

Moore's departure with the bulk of the army for Spain. The

proceedings of the French marshals for the recovery of the

entire Peninsula were speedily arranged. Lannes took the

direction of the siege of Saragossa, where the Spaniards,

fighting as usual with admirable constancy from behind stone

walls, were holding two French corps at bay. Lefebvre drove

one Spanish army into the recesses of the Sierra Morena, and

Victor chased another into the fastnesses of Murcia. Meantime

Soult, after recoiling awhile from the dying blows of Moore,

had promptly occupied Gallicia upon the departure of the

English, and was preparing to cross the Portuguese frontier on

his work of conquest. In aid of this design it was concerted

that while the last-named marshal advanced from the north,

Victor, by way of Elvas, and Lapisse by way of Almeida, should

converge together upon Portugal, and that when the English at

Lisbon had been driven to their ships the several corps should

unite for the final subjugation of the Peninsula by the

occupation of Andalusia. Accordingly, leaving Ney to maintain

the ground already won, Soult descended with 30,000 men upon

the Douro, and by the end of March was in secure possession of

Oporto. Had he continued his advance, it is not impossible

that the campaign might have had the termination he desired;

but at this point he waited for intelligence of the English in

his front and of Victor and Lapisse on his flank. His caution

saved Portugal, for, while he still hesitated on the brink of

the Douro, there again arrived in the Tagus that renowned

commander before whose genius the fortunes not only of the

marshals, but of their imperial master, were finally to fail.

England was now at the commencement of her greatest war.

{3006}

The system of small expeditions and insignificant diversions,

though not yet conclusively abandoned, was soon superseded by

the glories of a visible contest: and in a short time it was

known and felt by a great majority of the nation, that on the

field of the Peninsula England was fairly pitted against

France. … At the commencement of the year 1809, when the

prospects of Spanish independence were at their very gloomiest

point, the British Cabinet had proposed and concluded a

comprehensive treaty of alliance with the Provisional

Administration of Spain; and it was now resolved that the

contest in the Peninsula should be continued on a scale more

effectual than before, and that the principal, instead of the

secondary, part should be borne by England. … England’s

colonial requirements left her little to show against the

myriads of the continent. It was calculated at the time that

60,000 British soldiers might have been made disposable for

the Peninsular service, but at no period of the war was such a

force ever actually collected under the standards of

Wellington, while Napoleon could maintain his 300,000 warriors

in Spain, without materially disabling the arms of the Empire

on the Danube or the Rhine. We had allies, it is true, in the

troops of the country; but these at first were little better

than refractory recruits, requiring all the accessories of

discipline, equipment, and organisation; jealous of all

foreigners, even as friends, and not unreasonably suspicious

of supporters who could always find in their ships a refuge

which was denied to themselves. But above all these

difficulties was that arising from the inexperience of the

Government in continental warfare. … When, however, with these

ambiguous prospects, the Government did at length resolve on

the systematic prosecution of the Peninsular war, the eyes of

the nation were at once instinctively turned on Sir Arthur

Wellesley as the general to conduct it. … He stoutly declared

his opinion that Portugal was tenable against the French, even

if actual possessors of Spain, and that it offered ample

opportunities of influencing the great result of the war. With

these views he recommended that the Portuguese army should be

organised at its full strength; that it should be in part

taken into British pay and under the direction of British

officers, and that a force of not less than 30,000 English

troops should be despatched to keep this army together. … Such

was the prestige already attached to Wellesley’s name that his

arrival in the Tagus changed every feature of the scene. No

longer suspicious of our intentions, the Portuguese Government

gave prompt effect to the suggestions of the English

commander. … The command-in-chief of the native army was

intrusted to an English officer of great distinction, General

Beresford; and no time was lost in once more testing the

efficacy of the British arms. … Of the Spanish armies we need

only say that they had been repeatedly routed with invariable

certainty and more or less disgrace, though Cuesta still held

a nominal force together in the valley of the Tagus. There

were, therefore, two courses open to the British commander:

—either to repel the menaced advance of Soult by marching on

Oporto, or to effect a junction with Cuesta, and try the

result of a demonstration against Madrid. The latter of these

plans was wisely postponed for the moment, and, preference

having been decisively given to the former, the troops, at

once commenced their march upon the Douro. The British force

under Sir Arthur Wellesley’s command amounted at this time to

about 20,000 men, to which about 15,000 Portuguese, in a

respectable state of organisation, were added by the exertions

of Beresford. Of these about 24,000 were now led against

Soult, who, though not inferior in strength, no sooner

ascertained the advance of the English commander, than he

arranged for a retreat by detaching Loison with 6,000 men to

dislodge a Portuguese post from his left rear. Sir Arthur’s

intention was to envelope, if possible, the French corps by

pushing forward a strong force upon its left, and thus

intercepting its retreat toward Ney’s position, while the main

body assaulted Soult in his quarters at Oporto. The former of

these operations he intrusted to Beresford, the latter he

directed in person. On the 12th of May the troops reached the

southern bank of the Douro; the waters of’ which, 800 yards in

width, rolled between them and their adversaries. … Availing

himself of' a point where the river by a bend in its course

was not easily visible from the town, Sir Arthur determined on

transporting, if possible, a few troops to the northern bank,

and occupying an unfinished stone building, which he perceived

was capable of affording temporary cover. The means were soon

supplied by the activity of Colonel Waters—an officer whose

habitual audacity rendered him one of the heroes of this

memorable war. Crossing in a skiff to the opposite bank, he

returned with two or three boats, and in a few minutes a

company of the Buffs was established in the building.

Reinforcements quickly followed, but not without discovery.

The alarm was given, and presently the edifice was enveloped

by the eager battalions of the French. The British, however,

held their ground; a passage was effected at other points

during the struggle; the French, after an ineffectual

resistance, were fain to abandon the city in precipitation,

and Sir Arthur, after his unexampled feat of arms, sat down

that evening to the dinner which had been prepared for Soult.

… This brilliant operation being effected, Sir Arthur was now

at liberty to turn to the main project of the campaign—that to

which, in fact, the attack upon Soult had been subsidiary—the

defeat of Victor in Estremadura. … Cuesta would take no

advice, and insisted on the adoption of his own schemes with

such obstinacy, that Sir Arthur was compelled to frame his

plans accordingly. Instead, therefore, of circumventing Victor

as he had intended, be advanced into Spain at the beginning of

July, to effect a junction with Cuesta and feel his way

towards Madrid. The armies, when united, formed a mass of

78,000 combatants; but of these 56,000 were Spanish, and for

the brunt of war Sir Arthur could only reckon on his 22,000

British troops, Beresford’s Portuguese having been despatched

to the north of Portugal. On the other side, Victor’s force

had been strengthened by the succours which Joseph Bonaparte,

alarmed for the safety of Madrid, had hastily concentrated at

Toledo; and when the two armies at length confronted each

other at Talavera, it was found that 55,000 excellent French

troops were arrayed against Sir Arthur and his ally, while

nearly as many more were descending from the north on the line

of the British communications along the valley of the Tagus.

{3007}

On the 28th of July the British commander, after making the

best dispositions in his power, received the attack of the

French, directed by Joseph Bonaparte in person, with Victor

and Jourdan at his side, and after an engagement of great

severity, in which the Spaniards were virtually inactive, he

remained master of the field against double his numbers,

having repulsed the enemy at all points with heavy loss, and

having captured several hundred prisoners and 17 pieces of

cannon in this the first great pitched battle between the

French and English in the Peninsula. In this well fought field

of Talavera, the French had thrown, for the first time, their

whole disposable force upon the British army without success;

and Sir Arthur Wellesley inferred, with a justifiable

confidence, that the relative superiority of his troops to

those of the Emperor was practically decided. Jomini, the

French military historian, confesses almost as much; and the

opinions of Napoleon himself, as visible in his

correspondence, underwent from that moment a serious change."

Memoir of Wellington,

from "The Times" of September 15-16, 1852.

ALSO IN:

R. Southey,

History of the Peninsular War,

chapters 22-24 (volumes 3-4).

Sir A. Alison,

History of Europe, 1789-1815,

chapter 62 (volume 13).

SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (August-November).

Battles of Almonacid, Puerto de Baños, Ocana,

and Alba de Tormes.

Soon after Wellington's unfruitful victory at Talavera,

"Venegas had advanced as far as Aranjuez, and was besieging

Toledo; but the retreat of the British having set the French

armies at liberty, he was attacked and defeated after a sharp

action at Almonacid (August 11) by Dessoles and Sebastiani;

and Sir Robert Wilson, who had approached Madrid with 6,000

Spaniards and Portuguese, was encountered and driven back by

Ney (August 8) at Puerto de Banos. The British at length,

after lying a month at Deleitosa, were compelled, by the

scandalous failure of the Spanish authorities to furnish them

with supplies or provisions, to cross the mountains and fix

their headquarters at Badajos, after an angry correspondence

between Wellesley and Cuesta, who soon after was removed from

his command. A gleam of success at Tamanes, where Marchand was

routed with loss (October 24) by Romana's army under the Duke

del Parque, encouraged the Spaniards to make another effort

for the recovery of Madrid; and an army of 50,000 men,

including 7,000 horse and 60 pieces of cannon, advanced for

this purpose from the Sierra Morena, under General Areizaga.

The battle was fought (November 12) at Ocana, near Aranjuez;

but though the Spaniards behaved with considerable spirit, the

miserable incapacity of their commander counterbalanced all

their efforts, and an unparalleled rout was the result.

Pursued over the wide plains of Castile by the French cavalry,

20,000 prisoners were taken, with all the guns and stores: the

wreck was complete and irretrievable; and the defeat of the

Duke del Parque (November 25) at Alba de Tormes, dispersed the

last force which could be called a Spanish army. It was

evident from these events that Portugal was the only basis

from which the deliverance of the Peninsula could be

effected."

Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,

section 576 (chapter 62, volume 13 of complete work).

SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (August-December).

Wellington's difficulties.

His retreat into Portugal.

"In the course of the 29th, the army was reinforced by the

arrival of a troop of horse-artillery, and a brigade of light

troops from Lisbon, under General Crawford. Under the

circumstances of his situation, however, it was impossible for

Sir Arthur Wellesley to follow up his victory. The position he

occupied was still one of extreme peril. A powerful enemy was

advancing on his rear; and no reliance could be placed for the

supply of his army, either on the promises of the Spanish

General, or of the Junta. The army of Vanegas, which, in

obedience to the orders of the Supreme Junta, had advanced

from Madrilejos, was engaged, during the 28th and 29th, in

endeavouring to dislodge the French garrison from Toledo. His

advance pushed on during the night to the neighbourhood of

Madrid, and took prisoners some patroles of the enemy.

Vanegas, however no sooner learned from the prisoners that

Joseph and Sebastiani were approaching, than he … desisted

from any further offensive operations. The intelligence that

Vanegas had failed in executing the part allotted to him, was

speedily followed by information that Soult had with facility

driven the Spaniards from the passes leading from Salamanca to

Placentia. It was in consequence arranged between the

Generals, that the British army should immediately march to

attack Soult, and that Cuesta should remain in the position of

Talavera, to protect this movement from any operation of

Victor. The wounded likewise were to be left in charge of

Cuesta. … On the morning of the 3rd of August, the British

accordingly commenced their march on Oropesa. On his arrival

there, Sir Arthur Wellesley received intelligence that Soult

was already at Naval Moral. … Shortly after, a courier arrived

from Cuesta, announcing, that, as the enemy were stated to be

advancing on his flank, and as it was ascertained that the

corps of Ney and Mortier had been united under Soult, he had

determined on quitting his position, and joining the British

army at Oropesa. This movement was executed the same night;

and nearly the whole of the British wounded were left

unprotected in the town of Talavera. The conduct of Cuesta, in

this precipitate retreat, is altogether indefensible. … In

quitting the position of Talavera, Cuesta had abandoned the

only situation in which the advance of Victor on the British

rear could be resisted with any prospect of success. … The

whole calculations of Sir Arthur Wellesley were at once

overthrown. … Sir Arthur determined to throw his army across

the Tagus by the bridge of Arzobisbo. … Cuesta … followed the

British in their retreat to the bridge of Arzobisbo, and

leaving the Duke del Albuquerque with two divisions of

infantry and one of cavalry to defend it, he withdrew the

remainder of his army to Paraleda de Garben. The French,

however, having taken post on the opposite side of the river,

soon succeeded in discovering a ford by which they crossed,

and surprising the Spaniards, drove them at once from the

works, with the loss of 30 pieces of cannon. After this,

Cuesta with his whole force fell back on Deleytosa, while the

British moved to Xaraicejo. … Vanegas … remained with his army

in the neighbourhood of Aranjuez. On the 5th of August, he

succeeded in gaining a decided advantage over an advanced

division of the enemy. …

{3008}

Harassed by inconsistent orders, Vanegas was unfortunately

induced again to advance, and give battle to the corps of

Sebastiani at Almonacid. This engagement, though many of the

Spanish troops behaved with great gallantry, terminated in the

complete defeat of the army of Vanegas. It was driven to the

Sierra Morena, with the loss of all its baggage and artillery.

With this action terminated the campaign which had been

undertaken for the relief of Madrid, and the expulsion of the

enemy from the central provinces of Spain. The British army at

Xaraicejo, still served as a shield to the southern provinces,

and Sir Arthur Wellesley, (whom the gratitude of his country

had now ennobled,) [raising him to the peerage as Baron Duke

of Wellesley and Viscount Wellington of Talavera] considered

it of importance to maintain the position he then occupied.

But the total failure of supplies rendered this impossible,

and about the 20th of August he fell back through Merida on

Badajos, in the neighbourhood of which he established his

army. At this period all operations in concert ceased between

the English and Spanish armies. The Supreme Junta complained

bitterly of the retreat of the former, which left the road to

Seville and Cadiz open to the enemy, while the Marquis

Wellesley, then ambassador in Spain, made strong

representations of the privations to which the British army

had been exposed, by the inattention and neglect of the

authorities. In the correspondence which ensued, it appeared

that the measure of retreat had been forced on Lord

Wellington, by the absolute impossibility of supporting his

army in the ground he occupied. … The year had closed in Spain

triumphantly for the French arms, as it had commenced. The

Spanish armies had sustained a series of unparalleled defeats.

The British had retired into Portugal; and the efforts of Lord

Wellington, were for the present, limited to the defence of

that kingdom."

T. Hamilton,

Annals of the Peninsular Campaigns,

chapters 7 and 9.

ALSO IN:

R. Waite,

Life of the Duke of Wellington,

chapter 6.

Sir W. F. P. Napier,

History of the War in the Peninsula,

book 8, chapters 7-9, book 9 (volume 2).

SPAIN: A. D. 1809-1810 (October-September).

The Lines of Torres Vedras.

"Since Austria had laid down arms by signing the peace of

Vienna, and had thus proved the inefficiency of England's last

allies—since among the sovereigns of the Continent Napoleon

boasted none but courtiers or subjects, Wellington saw that

all the resources and all the efforts of his gigantic power

would be turned against the only country which still struggled

for the liberty of Europe. What could Spain achieve with her

bands of insurgents and her defeated armies, albeit so

persevering? or the small English army effect against so

formidable an adversary, aided by the combined forces of so

many nations? But during the very time when the world looked

upon all as lost, and Napoleon's proudest enemies were growing

weak, Wellington never despaired of the cause he had embraced.

Far from allowing himself to be cast down by the magnitude or

the imminence of the danger, he derived from that very

circumstance, not only the resolution of fighting to the last

extremity, but also the energy to conceive and to execute a

project which will continue to be the admiration of the world,

and an everlasting lesson to nations oppressed by foreign

rule. He had always thought that some day, sooner or later,

the whole of Europe would rise against Napoleon's tyranny,

provided that an opportunity for such a rising were afforded

to it by a prolonged resistance in certain points. The end to

aim at therefore was, in his opinion, not so much to drive the

French out of the Peninsula, as the tacticians of the central

junta wildly fancied, but rather to keep the contest there

alive at any cost, until the moment should arrive for so

inevitable and universal a revolt. In view of the new invasion

pouring into Spain, he could not dream of undertaking any

offensive operations against the French. Even if conducted

with genius, they would have rapidly exhausted his very

limited forces. His small army … could not have lasted a month

amidst the large masses of French troops then in Spain. He

therefore resolved to entrench it in strong positions,

rendered still more formidable by every resource of defensive

warfare, where he might defy superiority in numbers and the

risk of surprise, where he could also obtain supplies by sea,

and whence if necessary he might embark in case of disaster;

where, also, he might take advantage of the distances and the

difficulties of communication which were so rapidly exhausting

our troops, by creating around us a desert in which we should

find it impossible to live. To stand out under these

restricted but vigorously conceived conditions, and to resist

with indomitable obstinacy until Europe, ashamed to let him

succumb, should come to his succour, was the only course which

afforded Wellington some chance of success in view of the

feeble means at his disposal; and such, with equal firmness

and decision, was the one he now adopted. The necessity which

suggested it to him in no wise diminishes the merit or

originality of an operation which was, one may say, without

precedent in military history. The position he was seeking for

he found in the environs of Lisbon, in the peninsula formed by

the Tagus at its entrance to the sea. Protected on almost

every side either by the ocean or the river, which at this

point is nearly as wide as an inland sea, this peninsula was

accessible only on the north where it joined the mainland.

There, however, the prolongation of the Sierra d'Estrella

presented a series of rugged heights, craggy precipices and

deep ravines filled with torrents, forming a true natural

barrier, the strength of which had already struck more than

one military observer. … Wellington was the first who

conceived and executed the project of transforming the whole

peninsula into a colossal fortress, of more than a hundred

miles in circumference. He desired that this fortress should

be composed of three concentric enclosures, defended by

cannon, and large enough to contain not only his army and the

Portuguese allies—comprising the regular troops, the militia

and Ordenanzas—but the whole available population of the

Southern provinces of Portugal, with their harvests, their

cattle and their provisions, so that the country surrounding

Lisbon should offer no resource whatever to the invaders. He

at the same time secured his retreat by means of a spacious

and fortified port, in which, should any untoward accident

occur, the English army and even the Portuguese troops might

embark in safety.

{3009}

This immense citadel extended to the north from Zizembre and

the heights of Torres Vedras, which protected its front, as

far as Alemquer; thence to the east by Sobral and Alvera it

followed the counterforts of the Estrella which overhang the

Tagus, and extended to Lisbon, where it was covered alike by

the mouth of the river and by the ocean. … From the beginning

of the month of October, 1809, with the aid of Colonel

Fletcher of the Engineers, he had employed thousands of

workmen and peasants, without intermission, in throwing up

intrenchments, constructing redoubts, and forming sluices for

inundating the plain."

P. Lanfrey,

Life of Napoleon I.,

volume 4, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

W. H. Maxwell,

Life of Wellington,

volume 2, chapters 9-12.

General Sir W. F. P. Napier,

History of the War in the Peninsula,

book 11, chapter 8 (volume 2).

SPAIN: A D. 1810.

Revolt of the Argentine provinces.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

SPAIN: A D. 1810-1812.

The French advance into Portugal.

Their recoil from the Lines of Torres Vedras.

"By the spring of 1810, the French armies in Spain numbered

fully 350,000 men, and Napoleon had intended to cross the

Pyrenees, at the head of this enormous force. His marriage,

however, or more probably the innumerable toils and cares of

Empire prevented him from carrying out his purpose; and this

was one of the capital mistakes of his life, for his presence

was necessary on the scene of events. He still despised the

insurrection of Spain; he held Wellington cheap as a 'Sepoy

general'; strange as it may appear, he was wholly ignorant of

the existence of the Lines of Torres Vedras, and he persisted

in maintaining that the only real enemy in the Peninsula was

the British army, which he estimated at 25,000 men. He gave

Masséna 70,000, with orders 'to drive the English into the

sea'; and at the same time, he sent a great army to subdue

Andalusia and the South, false to his art in thus dividing his

forces. A contest followed renowned in history, and big with

memorable results for Europe. Massena took the fortresses on

the northeast of Portugal, and by the close of September had

entered Beira; he met a bloody reverse at Busaco [September

27], but he succeeded in turning Wellington's flank, and he

advanced, in high heart, from Coimbra, on Lisbon. To his

amazement, however, the impregnable lines, a gigantic obstacle

utterly unforeseen, rose before him, and brought the invaders

to a stand, and the 'spoiled child of victory,' daring as he

was, after vain efforts to find a vulnerable point, recoiled

from before the invincible rampart, baffled and indignant, but

as yet hopeful. Massena, with admirable skill, now chose a

formidable position near the Tagus, and held the British

commander in check. … But Wellington, with wise, if stern,

forethought, had wasted the adjoining region with fire and

sword; Napoleon, meditating a new war, was unable to despatch

a regiment from France; Soult, ordered to move from Andalusia

to the aid of his colleague, paused and hung back; and

Massena, his army literally starved out, and strengthened by a

small detachment only, was at last reluctantly forced to

retreat. The movement began in March, 1811; it was conducted

with no ordinary skill; but Wellington had attained his object

and the French general re-entered Spain with the wreck only of

a once noble force. Massena, however, would not confess

defeat; having restored and largely increased his army, he

attacked Wellington at Fuentes de Onoro, and possibly only

missed a victory, owing to the jealousies of inferior men.

This, nevertheless, was his last effort; he was superseded in

his command by Napoleon, unjust in this instance to his best

lieutenant, and Wellington's conduct of the war had been

completely justified. Torres Vedras permanently arrested

Napoleon's march of conquest; the French never entered

Portugal again. … Meantime, the never-ceasing insurrection of

Spain continued to waste the Imperial forces, and surrounded

them, as it were, with a circle of fire. It was all in vain

that another great army was struck down in the field at Ocana;

that Suchet invaded and held Valencia; that Soult ravaged

Andalusia; that Victor besieged Cadiz. The resistance of the

nation became more intense than ever; Saguntum, which had

defied Hannibal, Girona, Tortosa, and, above all, Tarragona,

defended their walls to the last; and not a village from

Asturias to Granada acknowledged Joseph at Madrid, as its

lawful king. … After Fuentes de Onoro the contest in Spain had

languished in 1811, though Marmont and Soult missed a great

chance of assailing Wellington, with very superior numbers. In

the following year the British commander pounced on Ciudad

Rodrigo, and Badajoz, the keys of Spain from the Portuguese

frontier, completely deceiving the distant Emperor, who would

direct operations from Paris; and he defeated Marmont in a

great battle, at Salamanca, beside the Tormes, which threw

open to him the gates of Madrid. Yet, in an effort made

against the communications of the French, the object he

steadily kept in view, he was baffled by the resistance of

Burgos, and before long he was in retreat on Portugal, having

just escaped from a great French army, so various were the

fortunes of this most instructive war."

W. O'C. Morris,

Napoleon,

chapters 10-11.

ALSO IN:

G. Hooper,

Wellington,

chapter 7.

J. H. Stocqueler,

Life of Wellington,

volume 1, chapters 4-10.

General Sir W. F. P. Napier,

History of the War in the Peninsula,

volumes 2-3.

R. Southey,

History of the Peninsular War,

volumes 4-5.

A. Thiers,

History of the Consulate and Empire,

book 42 (volume 4).

General Sir J. T. Jones,

Journal of the Sieges in Spain,

volume 1.

SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1821.

Revolt and achievement of independence in

Venezuela and New Granada.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

A. D. 1810-1825.

Revolt and independence of Mexico.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819; and 1820-1826.

SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (June-August).

Wellington's victory at Salamanca.

Abandonment of Madrid by King Joseph.

"In the month of May, 1812, that rupture took place [between

Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia] which was to determine,

by its issue, whether Europe should acknowledge one master;

and Napoleon, too confident in his own fortunes, put himself

at the head of his armies and marched on Moscow. The war in

Spain, which had hitherto occupied the first place in public

attention, became from that hour, as far as France was

concerned, a matter of minor consideration. Whatever effective

battalions were at the disposal of the war-minister, were

forwarded to the Vistula; while to recruit the regiments in

Spain, depôts were formed in the south, out of which, from

time to time, a body of conscripts were equipped and

dispatched to reinforce the French armies.

{3010}

Lord Wellington's army consisted of 60,000 men, Portuguese and

Spaniards included. Of these, 10,000 infantry, with about

1,200 cavalry, were cantoned on the Tagus at Almarez; while

the commander-in-chief, with the remainder, prepared to

operate, on the north of that river, against Marmont. The

capture of the redoubts at Almarez had, in some degree,

isolated the French marshal; and, although he was at the head

of 50,000 veterans, Lord Wellington felt himself in a

condition to cope with him. At the same time Lord Wellington

had to observe Soult, who, commanding the army of the south,

was around Seville and Cordova with 58,000 men—while Suchet

held the eastern provinces with 50,000 excellent troops—Souham

was in the north with 10,000—and the army of the centre,

probably 15,000 more, was disposed around the capital, and

kept open the communications between the detached corps. On

the other hand, there were on foot no Spanish armies deserving

of the name. Bands of guerrillas moved, indeed, hither and

thither, rendering the communications between the French

armies and their depots exceedingly insecure; but throughout

the north, and west, and centre of Spain, there was no single

corps in arms of any military respectability. In the east,

Generals Lacy and Sarsfield were at the head of corps which

did good service, and occupied Suchet pretty well; while

D'Eroles, more bold than prudent, committed himself at Rhonda

with General Rourke, in a combat which ended in his total

defeat and the dispersion of his troops. Yet were the French

far from being masters of the country. Few fortified towns,

Cadiz and Alicante excepted, continued to display the standard

of independence, but every Sierra and mountain range swarmed

with the enemies of oppression, out of whom an army,

formidable from its numbers, if not for its discipline, might

at any moment be formed. But it had never entered into the

counsels of the allies to furnish a nucleus round which such

an army might be gathered. … Meanwhile, the

commander-in-chief, after having given his army a few weeks'

repose, … broke up from his cantonments, and advanced in the

direction of Salamanca. On the 17th of June his divisions

crossed the Tormes, by the fords above and below the town,

and, finding no force in the field competent to resist them,

marched direct upon the capital of the province." Salamanca

was taken on the 27th of June, after a siege of ten days, and

a series of manœuvres—a great game of tactics between the

opposing commanders—ensued, which occupied their armies

without any serious collision, until the 22d of July, when the

decisive battle of Salamanca was fought. "The dispositions of

the French, though masterly against one less self-collected,

had been, throughout the day, in Wellington's opinion, full of

hazard. They aimed at too much—and, manœuvring to throw

themselves in force upon the English right, risked, as the

event proved fatally, the weakening of their own right and

centre. Lord Wellington saw that filing constantly in one

direction disconnected the divisions of Marmont's army, and

left an interval where he might strike to advantage. … It was

the first mistake that Marmont had made, and Wellington never

permitted him to retrieve it. Lord Wellington had dined amid

the ranks of the third division, and Packenham, its frank and

chivalrous leader, was one of those who shared his simple and

soldier-like meal. To him the commander-in-chief gave his

orders, somewhat in the following words: 'Do you see those

fellows on the hill, Packenham? Throw your division into

columns of battalions —at them directly—and drive them to the

devil.' Instantly the division was formed—and the order

executed admirably. … By this magnificent operation, the whole

of the enemy's left was destroyed. Upward of 3,000 prisoners

remained in the hands of the victors, while the rest, broken

and dispirited, fell back in utter confusion upon the

reserves, whom they swept away with them in their flight.

Meanwhile, in the centre, a fiercer contest was going on. …

Marmont, … struck down by the explosion of a shell, was

carried off the field early in the battle, with a broken arm

and two severe wounds in the side. The command then devolved

upon Clausel, who did all that man in his situation could do

to retrieve the fortune of the day. … But Lord Wellington was

not to be arrested in his success, nor could his troops be

restrained in their career of victory. … Seven thousand

prisoners, two eagles, with a number of cannon and other

trophies, remained in the hands of the English: 10,000 men, in

addition, either died on the field or were disabled by wounds;

whereas the loss on the part of the allies amounted to

scarcely 5,000 men. … After this disaster, Clausel continued

his retreat by forced marches. … Meanwhile, Joseph, ignorant

of the result of the late battle, was on his way, with 20,000

men, to join Marmont, and had arrived at the neighbourhood of

Arevolo before the intelligence of that officer's defeat was

communicated to him. He directed his columns instantly toward

Segovia. … On the 7th of August the British army moved; …

while Joseph, retreating with precipitation, left the passes

of the Guadarama open, and returned to Madrid, where the

confusion was now extreme. … Lord Wellington's march was

conducted with all the celerity and good order which

distinguished every movement of his now magnificent army. On

the 7th, he entered Segovia. … On the 12th [he] entered Madrid

in triumph. … The city exhibited the appearance of a carnival,

and the festivities were kept up till the dawn of the 13th

came in. … Immediately the new constitution was proclaimed;

Don Carlos D'Espana was appointed governor of the city, and

the people, still rejoicing, yet restrained from excesses of

every sort, returned to their usual employments."

General Vane (Marquess of Londonderry),

Story of the Peninsular War,

chapter 30.

ALSO IN:

General Sir W. F. P. Napier,

History of the War in the Peninsula,

book 18 (volume 4).

Lieutenant Colonel Williams,

Life, and Times of Wellington,

volume 1, pages 275-290.

{3011}

SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

Final campaigns of the Peninsular War.

Expulsion of the French.

"The south and centre of Spain … seemed clear of enemies, but

the hold of the French was as yet shaken only, not broken; for

in fact though Wellington's march had forced his enemies in two

directions (Clausel, with the remainder of Marmont's army,

having retired north, while the king withdrew south-east),

such were their numbers that each division became the centre

of an army as powerful as his own. … Of the two armies against

which Wellington had to contend by far the largest was the army

of Soult, and the king, on the south-east. On the other hand,

Clausel's forces were beaten and retreating, so that it

appeared to the general better to leave a detachment under

Hill to cover Madrid, while he himself repaired with the bulk

of his army to strike a final blow at Clausel by the capture

of Burgos, intending to return at once and with his whole

combined forces fight a great battle with Soult and the king

before the capital. … The resistance offered by Burgos and the

deficiency of proper artillery proved greater obstacles than

had been expected. The delay thus caused allowed the French to

recover. … As Soult began to draw towards Madrid from

Valencia, thus threatening the safety of Hill, there was no

course left but to summon that general northward, and to make

a combined retreat towards Salamanca and Portugal. … This was

the last of Wellington's retreats. Events in Europe lessened

the power of his enemies; while fighting for his very

existence on the main continent of Europe, Napoleon could not

but regard the war in Spain as a very secondary concern, and a

great many old and valuable soldiers were withdrawn. The

jealousy which existed between Joseph and the generals, and

the dislike of the great generals to take upon themselves the

Spanish war, threw it into inferior hands for some little

while, and there is little more to chronicle than a succession

of hard-won victories. … A vigorous insurrection had arisen

all along the northern provinces; and it was this more than

anything else which decided Wellington's course of action.

While leaving troops to occupy the attention of the French in

the valley of the Tagus, he intended to march northwards, …

connect himself with the northern insurgents, and directly

threaten the communications with France. … As he had expected,

the French had to fall back before him; he compelled them to

evacuate Burgos and attempt to defend the Ebro. Their position

there was turned, and they had again to fall back into the

basin of Vittoria. This is the plain of the river Zadora,

which forms in its course almost a right angle at the

south-west corner of the plain, which it thus surrounds on two

sides. Across the plain and through Vittoria runs the high

road to France, the only one in the neighbourhood sufficiently

large to allow of the retreat of the French army, encumbered

with all its stores and baggage, and the accumulated wealth of

some years of occupation of Spain. While Wellington forced the

passage of the river in front south of the great bend, and

drove the enemy back to the town of Vittoria, Graham beyond

the town closed this road. The beaten enemy had to retreat as

best he could towards Salvatierra, leaving behind all the

artillery, stores, baggage, and equipments [June 21, 1813].

The offensive armies of France had now to assume the defensive

and to guard their own frontier. Before advancing to attack

them in the mountains, Wellington undertook the blockade of

Pampeluna and the siege of St. Sebastian. It was impossible

for the French any longer to regard diplomatic or dynastic

niceties. Joseph was superseded, and the defence of France

intrusted to Soult, with whom the king had hopelessly

quarrelled. He proved himself worthy of the charge. A series

of terrible battles was fought in the Pyrenees, but one by one

his positions were forced. With fearful bloodshed, St.

Sebastian was taken, the Bidasoa was crossed (October 7), the

battle of the Nivelle fought and won (November 10), and at

length, in February, the lower Adour was passed, Bayonne

invested, and Soult obliged to withdraw towards the east. But

by this time events on the other side of France had changed

the appearance of the war. … Napoleon was being constantly

driven backward upon the east. The effect could not but be

felt by the southern army, and Soult deserves great credit for

the skill with which he still held at bay the victorious

English. He was however defeated at Orthes (February 27), lost

Bordeaux (March 8), and was finally driven eastward towards

Toulouse, intending to act in union with Suchet, whose army in

Catalonia was as yet unbeaten. On the heights upon the east of

Toulouse, for Wellington had brought his army across the

Garonne, was fought, with somewhat doubtful result, the great

battle of Toulouse [April 10]. The victory has been claimed by

both parties; the aim of the English general was however won,

the Garonne was passed, the French position taken, Toulouse

evacuated and occupied by the victors. The triumph such as it

was had cost the victors 7,000 or 8,000 men, a loss of life

which might have been spared, for Napoleon had already

abdicated, and the battle was entirely useless."

J. F. Bright,

History of England,

period 3, pages. 1317-1321.

ALSO IN:

Sir A. Alison,

History of Europe, 1789-1815,

chapters 76-77 (volume 16).

Count Miot de Melito,

Memoirs,

chapters 33-34.

General Sir W. F. P. Napier,

History of the War in the! Peninsula,

volumes 4-5.

SPAIN: A. D. 1813.

Possession of West Florida taken by the United States.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

SPAIN: A. D. 1813-1814 (December-May).

Restoration of Ferdinand and despotic government.

Abolition of the Cortes.

Re-establishment of the Inquisition.

Hostility of the people to freedom.

"The troops of the allies in Catalonia were paralyzed, when

just about to take their last measures against Suchet, and, as

they hoped, drive out the last of the French from Spain. An

envoy arrived from the captive Ferdinand, with the news that

Ferdinand and Napoleon had made a treaty, and that the

Spaniards might not fight the French any more, nor permit the

English to do so on their soil. Ferdinand had been a prisoner

at Valençay for five years and a half; and during that time he

had, by his own account, known nothing of what was doing in

Spain, but from the French newspapers. The notion uppermost in

his little mind at this time appears to have been that the

Cortes and the liberal party in Spain were 'Jacobins and

infidels,' and that it was all-important that he should

return, to restore absolutism and the Inquisition. In sending

to Spain the treaty he had made with Napoleon, he took no

notice whatever of the Cortes, but addressed himself solely to

the Regency: and with them, his business was to consult

whether he should adhere to the treaty or break through it;—

which he might easily do on the plea that it was an extorted

act, agreed to under deficient knowledge of the state of

Spain. Thus crooked was the policy, even at the moment of

restoration, of the foolish prince who seems to have had no

ability for any thing but mean and petty intrigue. The terms

of the treaty might easily be anticipated from the

circumstances under which it was made.

{3012}

Napoleon wanted to shake out the British from his southwestern

quarter; he was in great need of the veteran French troops who

were prisoners in Spain: and he had no longer any hope of

restoring his brother Joseph. The treaty of December, 1813,

therefore provided that Ferdinand and his successors should be

recognised as monarchs of Spain and of the Indies: that the

territory of Spain should be what it had been before the

war—the French giving up any hold they had there: that

Ferdinand should maintain the integrity of this territory,

clearing it completely of the British: that France and Spain

should ally themselves to maintain their maritime rights

against England: that all the Spaniards who had adhered to

King Joseph should be reinstated in whatever they had enjoyed

under him: that all prisoners on both sides should immediately

be sent home: and that Joseph and his wife should receive

large annuities from Spain. The General of the Spanish forces

in Catalonia, Copons, was in so much haste to conclude a

separate armistice for himself, with Suchet, without any

regard to his British comrades, that the Cortes had to act

with the utmost rapidity to prevent it. Since the Cortes had

invested themselves with executive, as well as legislative

power, the Regency had become a mere show: and now, when the

Cortes instantly quashed the treaty, the Regency followed the

example. On the 8th of January, the Regency let his Majesty

know how much he was beloved and desired; but also, how

impossible it was to ratify any act done by him while in a

state of captivity. As Napoleon could not get back his troops

from Spain in this way, he tried another. He released some of

Ferdinand's chief officers, and sent them to him, with

advocates of his own, to arrange about an end to the war, and

exchanging prisoners; and General Palafox, one of the late

captives, went to Madrid, where, however, he met with no

better success than his predecessor. By that time (the end of

January) it was settled that the Spanish treaty, whatever it

might be, was to be framed under the sanction of the Allies,

at the Congress of Chatillon. With the hope of paralyzing the

Spanish forces by division, Napoleon sent Ferdinand back to

Spain. He went through Catalonia, and arrived in his own

dominions on the 24th of March. … These intrigues and

negotiations caused extreme vexation to Wellington. They

suddenly stopped every attempt to expel the French from

Catalonia, and threatened to bring into the field against him

all the prisoners he had left behind him in Spain: and there

was no saying how the winding-up of the war might be delayed

or injured by the political quarrels which were sure to break

out whenever Ferdinand and the Cortes came into collision. …

He therefore lost no time: and the war was over before

Ferdinand entered Madrid. It was on the 14th of May that he

entered Madrid, his carriage drawn by the populace. As he went

through the city on foot, to show his confidence, the people

cheered him. They were aware of some suspicious arrests, but

were willing to hope that they were merely precautionary. Then

followed the complete restoration of the religious orders to

the predominance which had been found intolerable before; the

abolition of the Cortes; and the re-establishment of the

Inquisition. The Constitution had been rejected by the King

before his entry into Madrid. In a few weeks, the whole

country was distracted with discontent and fear; and, in a few

months, the prisons of Madrid were so overflowing with state

prisoners—ninety being arrested on one September night—that

convents were made into prisons for the safe-keeping of the

King's enemies. Patriots were driven into the mountains, and

became banditti, while Ferdinand was making arrests right and

left, coercing the press, and ceremoniously conveying to the

great square, to be there burned in ignominy, the registers of

the proceedings of the late Cortes."

H. Martineau,

History of England, 1800-1815,

book 2, chapter 6.

"Ferdinand was a person of narrow mind, and his heart seems to

have been incapable of generous feeling; but he was not a

wicked man, nor would he have been a bad King if he had met

with wise ministers, and had ruled over an enlightened people.

On the two important subjects of civil and religious freedom

he and the great body of the nation were in perfect

sympathy,—both, upon both subjects, imbued with error to the

core; and the popular feeling in both cases outran his. The

word Liberty ('Libertad') appeared in large bronze letters

over the entrance of the Hall of the Cortes in Madrid. The

people of their own impulse hurried thither to remove it. …

The Stone of the Constitution, as it was called, was

everywhere removed. … The people at Seville deposed all the

existing authorities, elected others in their stead to all the

offices which had existed under the old system, and then

required those authorities to re-establish the Inquisition. In

reestablishing that accursed tribunal by a formal act of

government, in suppressing the freedom of the press, which had

been abused to its own destruction, and in continuing to

govern not merely as an absolute monarch, but as a despotic

one, Ferdinand undoubtedly complied with the wishes of the

Spanish nation. … But, in his treatment of the more

conspicuous persons among the 'Liberales,' whom he condemned

to strict and long imprisonment, many of them for life, he

brought upon himself an indelible reproach."

R. Southey,

History of the Peninsular War,

chapter 46 (volume 6).

SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

The Constitution of 1812.

Abrogated by Ferdinand.

Restored by the Revolution of 1820.

Intervention of the Holy Alliance.

Absolutism and bigotry reinstated by the arms of France.

"During the war and the captivity of Ferdinand, the Cortès

had, in March 1812 established a new Constitution, by which

the royal authority was reduced to little more than a name. …

Ferdinand VII., after his return, immediately applied himself

to restore the ancient regime in all its unmitigated bigotry

and exclusiveness. He issued decrees, in May, 1814, by which

all Liberals and Free·masons, and all adherents of the Cortès,

and of the officers appointed by them, were either compelled

to fly, or subjected to imprisonment, or at least deposed. All

national property was wrested from the purchasers of it, not

only without compensation, but fines were even imposed upon

the holders. All dissolved convents were re-established. The

Inquisition was restored, and Mir Capillo, Bishop of Almeria,

appointed Grand Inquisitor, who acted with fanatical severity,

and is said to have incarcerated 50,000 persons for their

opinions, many of whom were subjected to torture. … Ten

thousand persons are computed to have fled into France. The

kingdom was governed by a Camarilla, consisting of the King's

favourites, selected from the lowest and most worthless of the

courtiers. … The French invasion of Spain had occasioned a

revolution in Spanish America.

See

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820;

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819;

MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819, and 1820-1826;

CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818;

PERU: A. D. 1820-18261.

{3013}

The loss of the American colonies, and a bad system of rural

economy, by which agriculture was neglected in favour of

sheep-breeding, had reduced Spain to great poverty. This state

of things naturally affected the finances; the troops were

left unpaid, and broke out into constant mutinies. A

successful insurrection of this kind, led by Colonels Quiroga

and Riego, occurred in 1820. Mina, who had distinguished

himself as a guerilla leader, but, having compromised himself

in a previous mutiny, had been compelled to fly into France,

now recrossed the Pyrenees to aid the movement. The

Constitution of 1812 was proclaimed at Saragossa; and the

cowardly Ferdinand … was also obliged to proclaim it at

Madrid, March 8th 1820. The Cortès was convened in July, when

Ferdinand opened the Assembly with an hypocritical speech;

remarkable for its exaggeration of Liberal sentiments. The

Cortès immediately proceeded again to dissolve the convents,

and even to seize the tithes of the secular clergy, on the

pretext that the money was required for the necessities of the

State. The Inquisition was once more abolished, the freedom of

the press ordained, the right of meeting and forming clubs

restored. … The Spanish revolutionists were divided into three

parties: the Decamisados, answering to the French

'Sans-culottes'; the Communeros, who were for a moderate

constitutional system; and the Anilleros, known by the symbol

of a ring; who, dreading the interference of the Holy

Alliance, endeavoured to conciliate the people with the crown.

On the whole, the insurgents used their victory with

moderation, and, with the exception of some few victims of

revenge, contented themselves with depriving their opponents,

the Serviles, of their places and emoluments. … The

revolution, though originated by the soldiery, was adopted by

the more educated class of citizens. On the other hand, the

clergy and the peasantry were bitterly opposed to it. In the

summer of 1821, guerilla bands were organised in the provinces

in the cause of Church and King, and obtained the name of

'Armies of the Faith.' … In these civil disturbances dreadful

atrocities were committed on both sides. … The French

Government, with the ulterior design of interfering in Spanish

affairs, seized the pretext of this disorder to place a cordon

of troops on the Pyrenees; to which the Spaniards opposed an

army of observation. Ferdinand, relying on the Army of the

Faith, and on his Foreign Minister, Martinez de la Rosa, a

Moderado, thought he might venture on a coup d'etat before the

appearance of the French; but his guards were worsted in a

street fight, July 7th 1822. … Ferdinand was now base enough

to applaud and thank the victors, to dismiss the Moderados

from the Ministry, and to replace them by Exaltados, or

Radicals. This state of things had attracted the attention of

the Holy Alliance. In October 1822, the three northern

monarchs assembled in congress at Verona, to adopt some

resolution respecting Spain. …

See VERONA: THE CONGRESS OF.

They addressed a note to the Spaniards requiring the

restoration of absolutism. … In the spring, the French army of

observation, which had been increased to 100,000 men, was

placed under the command of the Duke of Angoulême." The

Spanish troops "were few and ill disciplined; while in Old

Castile stood guerilla bands, under the priest Merino, ready

to aid the French invasion. An attempt on the part of

Ferdinand to dismiss his Liberal ministry induced the

ministers and the Cortès to remove him to Seville (March, 20th

1823), whither the Cortès were to follow. The Duke of

Angoulême addressed a proclamation to the Spaniards from

Bayonne, April 2nd, in which he told them that he did not

enter Spain as an enemy, but to liberate the captive King,

and, in conjunction with the friends of order, to re-establish

the altar and the throne. The French crossed the Bidassoa,

April 7th. The only serious resistance which they experienced

was from Mina [in Catalonia]. Ballasteros [in Navarre] was not

strong enough to oppose them, while the traitor O'Donnell

[commanding a reserve in New Castile] entered into

negociations with the enemy, and opened to them the road to

the capital. Ballasteros was compelled to retire into

Valencia, and the French entered Madrid, May 23rd. A Regency …

was now instituted till the King should be rescued. … A French

corps was despatched … against Seville, where the Cortès had

reopened their sittings; but on the advance of the French they

retired to Cadiz, June 12th, taking with them the King, whom

they declared of unsound mind, and a provisional Regency was

appointed." The French advanced and laid siege to Cadiz, which

capitulated October 1st, after a bombardment, the Cortès

escaping by sea. Mina, in Catalonia, gave up resistance in

November. "The Duke of Angoulême returned to Paris before the

end of the year, but Spain continued to be occupied by an army

of 40,000 French. The first act of Ferdinand after his release

was to publish a proclamation, October 1st, revoking all that

had been done since March 7th 1820. The Inquisition, indeed,

was not restored; but the vengeance exercised by the secular

tribunals was so atrocious that the Duke of Angoulême issued

an order prohibiting arrests not sanctioned by the French

commander: an act, however, which on the principle of

non-interference was disavowed by the French Government. … It

is computed that 40,000 Constitutionalists, chiefly of the

educated classes, were thrown into prison. The French remained

in Spain till 1827. M. Zea Bermudez, the new Minister,

endeavoured to rule with moderation. But he was opposed on all

sides. … His most dangerous enemy was the Apostolic Junta,

erected in 1824 for the purpose of carrying out to its full

extent, and independently of the Ministry, the victory of

bigotry and absolutism." In 1825, Bermudez was driven to

resign. "The Junta … in the spring of 1827 excited in

Catalonia an insurrection of the Serviles. The insurgents

styled themselves Aggraviados (aggrieved persons), because the

King did not restore the Inquisition, and because he sometimes

listened to his half Liberal ministers, or to the French and

English ambassadors, instead of suffering the Junta to rule

uncontrolled. The history of the revolt is obscure. … The

object seems to have been to dethrone Ferdinand in favour of

his brother Carlos." The insurrection was suppressed, "the

province disarmed, and many persons executed."

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 8 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

E. Blaquiere,

Historical Review of the Spanish Revolution.

F. A. de Châteaubriand,

Memoirs: Congress of Verona,

volume 1.

S. Walpole,

History of England,

chapter 9 (volume 2).

Sir A. Alison,

History of Europe, 1815-1852,

chapters 7, and 11-12.

{3014}

SPAIN: A. D. 1815.

The Allies in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1815.

Accession to the Holy Alliance.

See HOLY ALLIANCE.

SPAIN: A. D. 1818.

Chile lost to the Spanish crown.

See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

SPAIN: A. D. 1821.

Mexican independence practically gained.

Iturbide's empire.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

SPAIN: A. D. 1822-1823.

The Congress of Verona.

French intervention approved.

See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

SPAIN: A. D. 1824.

Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.

See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

SPAIN: A. D. 1833.

Accession of Isabella II.

SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

The civil war of Carlists and Christinos.

Abdication of Christina.

Regency of Espartero.

Revolution of 1843.

Accession of Queen Isabella.

Louis Philippe and his Spanish marriages.

"The eyes of King Ferdinand VII. were scarcely closed,

September 29th, 1833, when the Apostolic party—whose strength

lay in the north of Spain, and especially in Navarre and the

Basque provinces —proclaimed his brother, Don Carlos, king

under the title of Charles V. In order to offer a successful

resistance to the Carlists, who were fighting for absolutism

and priestcraft, there was no other course for the regent,

Maria Christina, than to throw herself into the arms of the

liberal party. So the seven years' war between Carlists and

Christinos, from a war of succession, became a strife of

principles and a war of citizens. At the outset, owing to the

skill of General Zumalacarreguy, to whom the Christinos could

oppose no leader of equal ability, the Carlists had the

advantage in the field. Don Carlos threatened the Spanish

frontiers from Portugal, where he had been living in exile

with his dear nephew, Don Miguel. In this strait, Christina

applied to England and France, and between those two states

and Spain and Portugal was concluded the quadruple alliance of

April 22d, 1834, the aim of which was to uphold the

constitutional thrones of Isabella and Maria da Gloria, and to

drive out the two pretenders, Carlos and Miguel. In that year

both pretenders, who enjoyed to a high degree the favor of the

Pope and the Eastern powers, had to leave Portugal. Carlos

reached England on an English ship in June, but fled again in

July, and, after an adventurous journey through France,

appeared suddenly in Navarre, to inspire his followers with

courage by the royal presence. The war was conducted with

passion and cruelty on both sides. After the death of

Zumalacarreguy at the siege of Bilbao, June 14th, 1835, the

Christinos, who were superior in point of numbers, seemed to

have the advantage. … The turning-point was reached when the

command of the Christino army was committed to Espartero. In

1836 he defeated the Carlists in the murderous battle of

Luchana. In 1837, when Carlos advanced into the neighborhood

of Madrid, he hastened to the succor of the capital, and

compelled him to retreat. To these losses were added disunion

in the Carlist camp. The utterly incapable, dependent

pretender was the tool of his Camarilla, which made excellence

in the catechism a more important requisite for the chief

command than military science, and which deposed the most

capable generals to put its own creatures in command. The new

commander-in-chief, Guergué, said, bluntly, to Carlos, 'We,

the blockheads and ignoramuses, have yet to conduct your

Majesty to Madrid; and whoever does not belong in that

category is a traitor.' This Apostolic hero was defeated

several times by Espartero in 1838, and the enthusiasm of the

northern provinces gradually cooled down. He was deposed, and

the chief command intrusted to the cunning Maroto. … As he

[Maroto] did not succeed in winning victories over Espartero,

who overmatched him, he concluded, instead, August 31st, 1839,

the treaty of Vergara, in accordance with which he went over

to the Christinos, with his army, and by that means obtained

full amnesty, and the confirmation of the privileges of

Navarre and the Basque provinces. After this, Don Carlos's

cause was hopelessly lost. He fled, in September, to France,

with many of his followers, and was compelled to pass six

years in Bourges under police supervision. In 1845, after he

had resigned his claims in favor of his eldest son, the Duke

of Montemolin, he received permission to depart, and went to

Italy. He died in Trieste, March 10th, 1855. His followers,

under Cabrera, carried on the war for some time longer in

Catalonia. But they, too, were overcome by Espartero, and in

July, 1840, they fled, about 8,000 strong, to France, where

they were put under surveillance. The civil war was at an end,

but the strife of principles continued. Espartero, who had

been made Duke of Victory (Vittoria), was the most important

and popular personage in Spain, with whom the regent, as well

as everybody else, had to reckon. In the mean time Christina

had contrived to alienate the respect and affection of the

Spaniards, both by her private life and her political conduct.

Her liberal paroxysms were not serious, and gave way, as soon

as the momentary need was past, to the most opposite tendency.

… In 1836 the Progressists apprehended a reaction, and sought

to anticipate it. Insurrections were organized in the larger

cities, and the constitution of 1812 was made the programme of

the revolt. … Soldiers of the guard forced their way into the

palace, and compelled [Christina] to accept the constitution

of 1812. A constitutional assembly undertook a revision of

this, and therefrom resulted the new constitution of 1837.

Christina swore to it, but hoped, by controlling the

elections, to bring the Moderados into the Cortes and the

ministry. When she succeeded in this, in 1840, she issued a

municipal ordinance placing the appointment of the municipal

authorities in the hands of the administration. This

occasioned riots in Madrid and other cities; and when

Christina commissioned Espartero, who was just returning

victorious, to suppress the revolt in Madrid, he refused to

constitute himself the tool of an unpopular policy. But he was

the only man who could hold in check the revolution which

threatened to break out on all sides; and so, September 16th,

1840, he had to be named minister president. … Under such

circumstances the regency had but little charm for Christina,

and there were, moreover, other causes working with these to

the same result.

{3015}

Soon after the death of her husband, she had bestowed her

favor on a young lifeguardsman named Munoz, made him her

chamberlain, and been secretly married to him. This union soon

published itself in a rich blessing of offspring, but it was

not until the year 1844 that her public marriage with Munoz,

and his elevation to the rank of duke (of Rianzares) and

grandee of Spain took place. Having by this course of life

forfeited the fame of an honest woman, and exposed herself to

all sorts of attacks, she preferred to leave the country.

October 12th, she abdicated the regency, and journeyed to

France. May 8th, 1841, the newly elected Cortes named

Espartero regent of Spain, and guardian of Queen Isabella and

her sister, the Infanta Luisa Fernanda. … Since he knew how

actively Christina, supported by Louis Philippe, was working

against him with gold and influence, he entered into closer

relations with England, whereupon his envious foes and rivals

accused him of the sale of Spanish commercial interests to

England. Because he quieted rebellious Barcelona by a

bombardment in 1842, he was accused of tyranny. In 1843 new

insurrections broke out in the south; Colonel Prim hastened to

Catalonia, and set himself at the head of the soldiers whom

Christina's agents had won over by a liberal use of money;

Espartero's deadliest foe, General Narvaez, landed in

Valencia, and marched into Madrid at the head of the troops.

Espartero, against whom Progressists and Moderados had

conspired together, found himself forsaken, and embarked at

Cadiz, July 26th 1843, for England, whence he did not dare to

return to his own country until 1848. In November, 1843, the

thirteen-year-old Isabella was declared of age. She assumed

the government, made Narvaez, now Duke of Valencia, minister

president, and recalled her mother. Thereby gate and doors

were opened to the French influence, and the game of intrigue

and reaction recommenced. In 1845 the constitution of 1837 was

altered in the interests of absolutism. … In order to secure

to his house a lasting influence in Spain, and acquire for it

the reversion of the Spanish throne, Louis Philippe, in

concert with Christina, effected, October 16th, 1846, the

marriage of Isabella with her kinsman Francis of Assis, and of

the Infanta Luisa with the Duke of Montpensier, his own

youngest son. (At first his plan was to marry Isabella also to

one of his sons, the Duke of Aumale, but he abandoned it on

account of the energetic protest of the Palmerston cabinet,

and, instead, chose for Isabella, in Francis of Assis, the

person who, by reason of his mental and physical weakness,

would be least likely to stand in the way of his son

Montpensier.) This secretly negotiated marriage cost Louis

Philippe the friendship of the English cabinet."

W. Müller,

Political History of Modern Times,

section 9.

ALSO IN:

W. Bollaert,

The Wars of Succession in Portugal and Spain, 1826 to 1840,

volume 2.

C. F. Henningsen,

A Twelve Months' Campaign with Zumalacarregui.

Sir H. L. Bulwer (Lord Dalling),

Life of Palmerston,

volume 3, chapter 7.

C. A. Fyffe,

History of Modern Europe,

volume 2, chapter 6.

SPAIN: A. D. 1845-1860.

Cuba in danger from the United States.

Filibustering movements.

The Ostend Manifesto.

See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

SPAIN: A. D. 1861.

Allied intervention in Mexico.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

SPAIN: A. D. 1866.

War with Peru.

Repulse from Callao.

See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

Vices and misgovernment of Isabella.

Revolution of 1868.

Flight of the Queen.

Constitution of 1869.

Religious toleration.

Candidates for the vacant throne.

Election of Amadeo of Italy.

Unfriendliness of the nation to him.

His abdication.

"In January, 1866, occurred an insurrection headed by General

Prim, a leading officer of the army, which, failing, caused

his temporary exile. In June there originated in the barrack

of San Gil, a few hundred yards from the palace, a more

serious revolt, which extended over a great part of Madrid. In

October of the same year the Ministry, in a public

proclamation, alleged as a justification for an autocratic

exercise of power, that 'revolutionary tendencies constituted

an imposing organism with dangerous pretensions; that a

rebellion adverse to the fundamental institutions of the

country and the dynasty of Isabella, such as had never been

seen in Spain, had obtained possession of important

municipalities, and triumphed in the deputations from all the

provinces,' and that it was necessary to dissolve the

municipalities and renew the provisional deputations. … By

this arbitrary assumption Spain was under as complete a

despotism as existed in the neighboring empire of Morocco. The

dissatisfaction at such maladministration, such abuses in the

government, and the thinly disguised immoralities of the

Queen, soon found expression in audible murmurs and severe

criticism. These verbal protests were followed by machinations

for the overthrow or control of a sovereign subject to

ambitious priests and a venal coterie. Two exiles, Marshal

Serrano and Marshal Prim, united with Admiral Topete at Cadiz,

and began a revolution which soon had the sympathy and

co-operation of a large part of the army and the navy. A

provisional revolutionary junta of forty-one persons—a few

others, notably Sagasta and Martos, were afterwards added —was

appointed, which signed decrees and orders having the force

and effect of laws. In less than a month Francisco Serrano was

authorized by the junta to form a temporary ministry to rule

the country until the Cortes should meet. The defeat of the

royal troops near Alcolea prevented the return of Isabella to

Madrid, and on September 30, 1868, she fled across the border

into France. … With the flight of the Queen vanished for a

time the parliamentary monarchy, and, despite her impotent

proclamations from France, and offers of amnesty, a

provisional government was at once established. A decree of

the Government to take inventories of 'all the libraries,

collections of manuscripts, works of art, or objects of

historical value—a measure necessary to make useful and

available these treasures, and to prevent spoliation and

transfer —was peacefully executed except at Burgos. Here,

under instigation of the priests and aided by them, a mob

assembled, broke down the doors of the cathedral, assassinated

the Governor, wounded the chief of police, and expelled those

engaged in making the required examination and inventory. This

outbreak, attributed to a clerical and Carlist conspiracy,

awakened opposition and horror. A strong pressure was created

for the immediate establishment of freedom of worship.

{3016}

The atrocious butchery at Burgos aroused the inhabitants of

the capital. The Nuncio was so imperilled by the excited

populace that the diplomatic corps interposed for the safety

and protection of their colleague. Marshal Serrano quieted the

angry multitude gathered at his residence by saying that the

Government had prepared the project of a constitution to be

submitted to the Constitutional Assembly, one of whose first

articles was liberty of worship. On February 12, 1869, the

Constitutional Cortes convoked by the Provisional Government,

assembled with unusual pomp and ceremony and with striking

demonstrations of popular enthusiasm. … The Republicans, among

whom the eloquent Castelar was influential, were a compact

phalanx, and to them the independent Progresistas, led by

General Prim, made overtures which were accepted. On Sunday

June 5, 1869, the Constitution was promulgated. … While

recognizing the provinces and endowing them with important

functions, the Cortes rejected the plan of a federal republic,

and adhered to the monarchical form of government as

corresponding with and a concession to Spanish traditions, and

as most likely to secure a larger measure of the liberal

principles of the revolution. The Constitution, the legitimate

outgrowth of that popular uprising, recognized the natural and

inherent rights of man, and established an elective monarchy.

… Congress was chosen by universal suffrage. The provincial

assemblies and the municipal authorities were elected by the

people of their respective localities. The ancient privileges

of the aristocracy were annulled, and the equality of all men

before the law was recognized. … The Clerical party claimed

the continued maintenance of the Roman Catholic Church and the

exclusion of all other worship, but the country had outgrown

such intolerance. … The Catholic form of faith was retained in

the organic law as the religion of the State, but a larger

liberty of worship was secured to the people. In Article XXI.

the Catholic Apostolic Roman religion was declared the State

religion, and the obligation to maintain its worship and

ministers was imposed. Foreigners were granted toleration for

public and private worship under the limitations of the

universal rules of morals and right, and Spaniards, even,

professing another than the Catholic religion were to have the

like toleration. … Spain quietly passed from the anomalous

condition of a provisional into a regular constitutional

government, the title of Provisional Government having been

changed to that of Executive Power. In June a regency was

established, and Serrano was chosen by a vote of 193 to 45.

From June 16, 1869, the date of Prim's first cabinet, until

December 27, 1870, when he was shot [as he rode through the

street, by assassins, who escaped], he had four separate

ministries besides several changes of individual ministers;

and this instability is characteristic of Spanish politics. …

For the vacant throne some Spaniards turned to the Duke of

Montpensier; some to the Court of Portugal, and in default

thereof to the house of Savoy. … At the moment of greatest

embarrassment, the candidature of Leopold, Prince of

Hohenzollern, was proposed [—a proposal which led to the

Franco-German war: see FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY)]. …

Leopold's declension was a welcome relief. His candidacy being

removed, the strife for the throne became fiercer. On November

3, 1870, General Prim announced to the Cortes the Duke of

Aosta, son of Victor Emmanuel, as the Ministerial candidate

for the crown. Castelar impetuously denounced the attempt to

put a foreigner over Spaniards. On the 15th, Amadeo was

elected king, receiving on a vote by ballot a majority of

seventy-one of those present and a majority of eighteen in a

full house. … The choice excited no enthusiasm, elicited no

applause, nor was a viva given by the multitude outside the

building where the Cortes had made a sovereign. Thirty

thousand troops, discreetly posted in principal thoroughfares,

prevented any hostile demonstration, and the leading

Republicans, Figueras, Castelar, and Piyy Margall, advised

against any acts of violence. Many journals condemned the

Cortes. Grandees, protested, placards caricatured and

ridiculed. … Nevertheless, Zorrilla went to Italy to make the

formal tender of the crown, and on January 2, 1871, the prince

reached Madrid and took the prescribed oaths of office in the

presence of the regent, the Cortes, and the diplomatic corps.

The ceremony was brief and simple. The reception by the

populace was respectful and cold. The Provisional Government

resigned, and a new ministry was appointed, embracing such men

as, Serrano, Martos, Moret, Sagasta, and Zorrilla. … Amadeo

never had the friendship of the Carlists nor of the simon-pure

Monarchists. The dynasty was offensive to the adherents of Don

Carlos and of Alfonso, and to the Republicans, who were

opposed to any king. … Becoming [after two years] convinced

that the Opposition was irreconcilable, that factions were

inevitable, that a stable ministry was impossible, Amadeo,

resolved on the singular course of abdicating the royal

authority, and returning to the nation the powers with which

he had been intrusted;" and this abdication he performed on

the 11th of February, 1873.

J. L. M. Curry,

Constitutional Government in Spain,

chapters 3-4.

ALSO IN:

J. A. Harrison,

Spain,

chapters 27-28.

SPAIN: A. D. 1873-1885.

Reign of Alphonso XII., son of Queen Isabella.

On the abdication of King Amadeo, "a republic was declared by

the Cortes, and the gifted and eminent statesman, Castelar,

strove to give it a constitutional and conservative character.

But during the disorders of the last few years the Basque

provinces of Navarre and Biscay had been in a ferment excited

by the Carlists. The grandson of the Don Carlos who had

troubled Spain from 1833 to 1839 appeared in those provinces

which were still favourable to his cause, and this ardent

young champion of divine right of course received the support

of French legitimists. On the other hand, the doctrines of the

Paris Commune had found in the south of Spain many adherents,

who desired that their country should form a federation of

provincial republics. Malaga, Seville, Cadiz, Cartagena, and

Valencia revolted, and were reduced only after sharp fighting.

A group of generals then determined to offer the crown to

Alphonso, the young son of Isabella II, in whose favour she

had abdicated in 1868. Castelar, the moderate republican

statesman, reluctantly consented, and young Alphonso XII, on

landing in Spain, 1874, received the support of most

republicans and Carlists, disgusted by the excesses of their

extreme partisans.

{3017}

His generals gradually hemmed in the Carlists along the north

coast by battles near Bilbao and Irun; and when the rebels

shot a German subject Prince Bismarck sent German ships to aid

the Alphonsists. These in the spring of 1876 forced Don Carlos

and most of his supporters to cross the French frontier. The

Madrid Government now determined to put an end to the fueros

or local privileges of the Basque provinces, which they had

misused in openly preparing this revolt. So Biscay and Navarre

henceforth contributed to the general war expenses of Spain,

and their conscripts were incorporated with the regular army

of Spain. Thus the last municipal and provincial privileges of

the old Kingdom of Navarre vanished, and national unity became

more complete in Spain, as in every other country of Europe

except Austria and Turkey. The Basque provinces resisted the

change which placed them on a level with the rest of Spain,

and have not yet become reconciled to the Madrid Government.

The young King, Alphonso XII, had many other difficulties to

meet. The government was disorganised, the treasury empty, and

the country nearly ruined; but he had a trusty adviser in

Canovas del Castillo, a man of great prudence and talent, who,

whether prime minister or out of office, has really held power

in his hands. He succeeded in unifying the public debt, and by

lowering its rate of interest he averted State bankruptcy. He

also strove to free the administration from the habits of

bribe-taking which had long enfeebled and disgraced it; but in

this he met with less success, as also in striving for purity

of parliamentary election. … The Senate is composed of (1)

nobles, (2) deputies elected by the corporations and wealthy

classes, and (3) of life senators appointed by the crown. The

Chamber of Deputies is elected by universal suffrage, one

deputy for every 50,000 inhabitants. The king or either House

of Parliament has the right of proposing laws. In 1883 King

Alphonso paid a visit to Berlin, and was made honorary colonel

of a Uhlan regiment. For this he was hooted and threatened by

the Parisians on his visit to the French capital; and this

reception increased the coldness of Spain toward the French,

who had aggrieved their southern neighbour by designs on

Morocco. The good understanding between Spain and Germany was

over-clouded by a dispute about the Caroline Islands in the

Pacific, which Spain rightly regarded as her own. This

aggravated an illness of Alphonso, who died suddenly (November

25, 1885). His young widow, as queen-regent for her infant

child, has hitherto [1889] succeeded with marvellous tact."

J. H. Rose,

A Century of Continental History,

chapter 43.

SPAIN: A. D. 1885-1894.

Alphonso XIII.

At the time of this writing (November, 1894), the

queen-regent, Maria Christina, is still reigning in the name

of her young son, Alphonso XIII.

----------SPAIN: End--------

SPALATO.

See SALONA, ANCIENT.

----------SPANISH AMERICA: Start--------

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1492-1517.

Discoveries and early settlements.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1492, to 1513-1517.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1524.

Discovery and conquest of Mexico.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518;

and MEXICO: 1519, to 1521-1524.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1527-1533.

Discovery and conquest or Peru.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528;

and PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, and 1531-1533.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1533.

Conquest of the kingdom of Quito.

See ECUADOR.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1550.

Spanish conquests in Chile.

See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1536-1538.

Conquest of New Granada.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1542-1568.

Establishment of the audiencias of Quito, Charcas,

New Granada, and Chile, under the viceroyalty of Peru.

See AUDIENCIAS.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1546-1724.

The Araucanian War.

See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1580.

Final founding of the city of Buenos Ayres.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1608-1767.

The Jesuits in Paraguay.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1620.

Formation of the government of Rio de La Plata.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1767.

Expulsion of the Jesuits.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1776.

Creation of the viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777;

and PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1816.

Revolt, independence and

confederation of the Argentine Provinces.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1818.

Chilean independence achieved.

See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1821.

The War of Independence in Venezuela and New Granada.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1811.

Paraguayan independence accomplished.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1820-1826.

The independence of Mexico.

Brief Empire of Iturbide.

The Federal Republic established.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1821.

Independence acquired in the Central American States.

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

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1824.

Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.

See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1826.

The Congress of Panama.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1828.

The Banda Oriental becomes the Republic of Uruguay.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

----------SPANISH AMERICA: End--------

SPANISH ARMADA, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.

SPANISH COINS.

"The early chroniclers make their reckonings of values under

different names at different times. Thus during the

discoveries of Columbus we hear of little else but

'maravedis'; then the 'peso de oro' takes the lead, together

with the 'castellano'; all along 'marco' and 'ducado' being

occasionally used. At the beginning of the 16th century, and

before and after, Spanish values were reckoned from a mark of

silver, which was the standard. A mark was half a pound either

of gold or silver. The gold mark was divided into 50

castellanos; the silver mark into eight ounces. In the reign

of Ferdinand and Isabella the mark was divided by law into 65

'reales de vellon' of 34 maravedis each, making 2,210

maravedis in a mark. … In the reign of Alfonso Xl., 1312-1350,

there were 125 maravedis to the mark, while in the reign of

Ferdinand VII., 1808-1833, a mark was divided into 5,440

maravedis.

{3018}

In Spanish America a 'real' is one-eighth of a 'peso,' and

equal to 2½ reales de vellon. The peso contains one ounce of

silver; it was formerly called 'peso de ocho reales de plata,'

whence came the term 'pieces of eight,' a vulgarism at one

time in vogue among the merchants and buccaneers in the West

Indies. … The castellano, the one fiftieth of the golden mark,

in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, was equivalent to 490

maravedis of that day. The 'peso de oro,' according to Oviedo,

was exactly equivalent to the castellano, and either was one

third greater than the ducado or ducat. The 'doblon' … was

first struck by Ferdinand and Isabella as a gold coin of the

weight of two castellanos. The modern doubloon is an ounce of

coined gold, and is worth 16 pesos fuertes. Reduced to United

States currency, the peso fuerte, as slightly alloyed bullion,

is in weight nearly enough equivalent to one dollar. Therefore

a mark of silver is equal to 8 dollars; a piece of eight,

equal to one peso, which equals one dollar; a real de vellon,

5 cents; a Spanish-American real], 12½ cents; a maravedi,

100/276 of a cent; a castellano, or peso de oro $2.56; a

doubloon $5.14; a ducat, $1.92; a mark of gold $128, assuming

the United States alloy. The fact that a castellano was

equivalent to only 490 maravedis shows the exceedingly high

value of silver as compared with gold at the period in

question."

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 1, pages 192-193, foot-note.

SPANISH CONSPIRACY, The.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

SPANISH ERA, The.

See ERA, SPANISH.

SPANISH FURY, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

SPANISH INQUISITION, The.

See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

SPANISH MAIN, The.

"The Spanish main was simply the mainland, terra firma, of

Spanish America, as opposed to the islands: but the term

'terra firma' was specially applied to the northern part of

South America, extending 'all along the North Sea from the

Pacific Ocean to the mouth of the river of Amazons upon the

Atlantic' (Burke, European Settlements in America, Part III.,

chapter xvi.), and comprising the towns of Panama, Carthagena,

and Porto Bello.

See TIERRA FIRME.

Longfellow blunders in the 'Wreck of the Hesperus' when he

speaks of the old sailor who 'had sailed the Spanish main.'"

C. P. Lucas,

Historical Geography of the British Colonies,

volume 2, page 35, foot-note.

SPANISH MARCH, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 778.

SPANISH MARRIAGES, The question of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

SPANISH SUCCESSION, The War of the.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, and after;

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, and after;

GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and after;

ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;

and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

----------SPARTA: Start--------

SPARTA: The City.

Its situation, origin and growth.

Laconia.

"Hollow Lacedæmon."

"Laconia is formed by two mountain-chains running immediately

from Arcadia [from the center to the southeastern extremity of

Peloponnesus], and enclosing the river Eurotas, whose source

is separated from that of an Arcadian stream by a very

trifling elevation. The Eurotas is, for some way below the

city of Sparta, a rapid mountain-stream; then, after forming a

cascade, it stagnates into a morass; but lower down it passes

over a firm soil in a gentle and direct course. Near the town

of Sparta rocks and hills approach the banks on both sides,

and almost entirely shut in the river both above and below the

town: this enclosed plain is without doubt the 'hollow

Lacedæmon' of Homer."

C. O. Müller,

History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,

book 1, chapter 4.

Upon the Dorian invasion and occupation of Peloponnesus (see

DORIANS AND IONIANS) the city and neighborhood of Sparta in

Laconia,—i. e. Sparta and 'hollow Lacedæmon,' —became the seat

of the dominant state which they founded in the peninsula. The

conquerors, themselves, and their descendants, were the only

full citizens of this Spartan state and were called Spartiatæ

or Spartans. The prior inhabitants of the country were reduced

to political dependence, in a class called the Periœci, or

else to actual serfdom in the more degraded class known as

Helots. "Sparta was not, like other towns of the Greeks,

composed of a solid body of houses, but, originally in a rural

and open situation on the river and its canals, it gradually

stretched out into the open country, and Dorians lived far

beyond Sparta along the entire valley, without the inhabitants

of remoter points being on that account in any less degree

citizens of Sparta than those dwelling by the ford of the

Eurotas. They were all Spartans, as by a stricter term they

were called, as distinguished from the Lacedæmonians. …

Strictly apart from this exclusive community of Spartiatæ

there remained, with its ancient conditions of life intact,

the older population of the land, which dwelt scattered on the

mountains surrounding the land of the Spartiatæ on all sides

(hence called the dwellers-around, or Periœci). More than

trebling the Spartiatæ in number, they cultivated the

incomparably less remunerative arable land of the mountains,

the precipitous declivities of which they made available by

means of terraced walls for cornfields and vineyards. … Free

proprietors on their own holdings, they, according to

primitive custom, offered their tribute to the kings. The

country people, on the other hand, residing on the fields of

the Spartiatæ, met with a harder fate. Part of them probably

consisted of peasants on the domains; others had been

conquered in the course of internal feuds. They were left on

the fields which had been once their own, on the condition of

handing over to the Spartiatæ quartered upon them an important

portion of their produce. This oppression provoked several

risings; and we must assume that the ancient sea-town of Helos

was for a time the centre of one of these outbreaks. For this

is the only admissible explanation of the opinion universally

prevailing among the ancients, that from that town is derived

the name of the Helots."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

volume 1, book. 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

G. F. Schömann,

Antiquities of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapter 1.

{3019}

SPARTA:

The Constitution ascribed to Lycurgus.

"Sparta was the city from which the Dorians slowly extended

their dominion over a considerable portion of Peloponnesus. Of

the progress of her power we have only the most meagre

information. … The internal condition of Sparta at this early

period is uniformly described as one of strife and bad

government, a condition of affairs which was certainly

unfavourable to external development and conquest. Herodotus

attributes these dissensions, at least in part, to the mutual

animosity of the two royal families; the twin sons of

Aristodemus quarrelled all their lives, and their descendants

after them did the same. Plutarch, on the other hand, speaks

of quarrels between the kings and the people. … Whatever the

cause, it is more certain than any other fact in early Spartan

history that the condition of the country was for a long time

one of internal strife and dissension. It was the great merit

of Lycurgus to have put an end to this disastrous state of

affairs. Lycurgus is the foremost name in Spartan history.

Tradition is nearly unanimous in describing this lawgiver as

the author of the prosperity of Sparta, and the founder of her

peculiar institutions, but about the date and the events of

his life the greatest uncertainty prevailed. … Thucydides,

though he does not mention Lycurgus, asserts that the form of

the government had continued the same in Sparta for more than

four hundred years before the end of the Peloponnesian war. In

his opinion, therefore, the reforms of Lycurgus were

introduced shortly before 804 B. C. This date is considerably

later than that usually given to Lycurgus, on the authority of

the ancient chronologers. … Herodotus tells us that Lycurgus,

when visiting the Delphic shrine, was hailed by the priestess

as a being more than human, and some authorities asserted that

the Spartan institutions were revealed to him there. The

Lacedaemonians, however, regarded Crete as the source of their

peculiar arrangements [see CRETE]. They were thus enabled to

connect them with the great name of Minos, and derive their

authority from Zeus himself. … Plutarch has fortunately

transcribed the text of the Rhetrae, or ordinances, which were

given to Lycurgus at Delphi. There does not seem to be any

reason to doubt that these were the oldest ordinances known at

Sparta, or that they formed the basis of their 'good

government.' They were therefore the oldest political

ordinances known in Hellas, and, indeed, in the world. 'Found

a temple to Zeus Hellanius, and Athena Hellania, arrange the

tribes, and the Obes, thirty in number, establish the Gerousia

with the Archagetae. Summon the people for meeting from time

to time between Babyca and the Cnacion, there bring forward

and decide (reject). The people are to have the supreme

power.' Thus the first duty of the lawgiver was to found a

public sanctuary which should be as it were the centre of the

community. Then the people were to be arranged in tribes and

Obes. The division into tribes was not a new one; from the

first the Dorians at Sparta, as elsewhere, when free from the

admixture of external elements, were divided into three

tribes, Hylleis, Dymanes, Pamphyli, but it is possible that

some changes were now introduced, regulating the internal

arrangement of the tribe. In each tribe were ten Obes, of

which we know nothing beyond the name. They appear to have

been local divisions. As the Gerousia [see GERUSIA], including

the kings, contained thirty members, we may conjecture that

each Obe was represented in the Senate, and therefore that the

two kings were the representatives of two distinct Obes. The

Archagetae are the kings, or leaders of the people. From time

to time the community were to be summoned to a meeting. …

Before the assembled people measures were to be introduced

that they might decide upon them, for no measure was valid

which had not received the sanction of the whole people. The

elements with which these ordinances deal—the Kings, the

Council and the Assembly—appear in the Homeric poems, and grew

naturally out of the patriarchal government of the tribe. The

work of Lycurgus did not consist in creating new elements, but

in consolidating those which already existed into a harmonious

whole. … Three other ordinances which are ascribed to Lycurgus

forbade (1) the use of written laws; (2) the use of any tools

but the axe and saw in building a house; (3) frequent wars

upon the same enemies. He is also said to have forbidden the

use of coined money in Sparta. Neither gold nor silver was to

be used for purposes of exchange, but bars of iron, which by

their small value and great bulk rendered money dealings on

any large scale impossible. The iron of these bars was also

made unusually brittle in order that it might be useless for

ordinary purposes. Such precepts were doubtless observed at

Sparta, though they may not have been derived from Lycurgus.

The training which every Spartan underwent was intended to

diminish the sphere of positive law as much as possible, and

to encourage the utmost simplicity and even rudeness of life.

… About a century after Lycurgus, in the reign of Theopompus,

two changes of great importance were made in the Spartan

constitution. The veto which the earlier rhetra had allowed to

the assembled people was cancelled, and a new law was

introduced, which gave the ultimate control to the Gerontes

and Kings. 'If the people decide crookedly, the elders and

chiefs shall put it back,' i. e. shall reverse the popular

decision. Under what circumstances this ordinance, which is

said to have been obtained from Delphi, was passed, we do not

know, nor is it quite clear how it consists with what we find

recorded of the constitutional history of Sparta in later

times. … The second innovation was even more important. Though

Herodotus ascribes the institution of the Ephoralty [see

EPHORS] to Lycurgus, it seems more correct to follow Aristotle

and others in ascribing it to Theopompus. The Ephors, who were

five in number, appear in the first instance to have been of

no great importance. But as they were intimately connected

with the commons, elected from and by them as their

representatives, we must assume that the ephoralty was a

concession to the people, and it may have been a compensation

for the loss of the right of voting in the assembly. In time

the ephors grew to be the most important officers in the

state, both in war and in peace. They were associated with the

council, they presided in the assembly, and even the kings

were not exempt from their power. To this result the growing

dread of 'a tyrannis,' like that at Corinth or Sicyon, and the

increasing importance of the Spartan training, which the

ephors superintended, in a great measure contributed. … The

kings were the leaders of the army. For a time they always

took the field together, but owing to the dissensions of

Cleomenes and Demaratus, a law was passed that one king only

should go out with the army, and it was henceforth the custom

for one king only to be absent from Sparta, at a time.

{3020}

The kings had the right of making war on whom they would, and

no one could prevent them, on pain of being under a curse, but

as they were liable to be brought to trial on their return for

failure in an expedition, they usually obtained the consent of

the ephors or the assembly before going. … The origin of the

dual monarchy, which from the first was so distinctive a

feature of the Spartan government, is very obscure, and many

attempts have been made to explain it. It may have arisen by a

fusion of the native and immigrant races, each of which was

allowed to retain its own prince in the new community. … It is

perhaps more reasonable to assume that the two kings represent

two leading families, each of which had a claim to give a

chief to the community. That two families holding equal rights

should be regarded as descended from the twin sons of the

Dorian founder of Sparta is merely one of the fictions which

of necessity arose in the period when all political unions and

arrangements were expressed in the terms of genealogical

connection. … The Apella was an assembly of all the Spartan

citizens who had reached the age of thirty years. … In

historical times it was presided over by the ephors. No

speaking was allowed except by officers of State and persons

duly invited, and perhaps the Senators. The votes were given

by acclamation. The assembly decided on war and peace,

treaties. and foreign politics generally; it elected the

ephors and gerontes. … More important for the development of

Sparta than her political constitution was the education and

training which her citizens received. … The Spartan did not

exist for himself but for his city; for her service he was

trained from birth, and the most intimate relations of his

life were brought under her control. In the secluded valley of

the Eurotas, where till the time of Epaminondas no invader

ever set foot, amid profound peace, he nevertheless led the

life of a warrior in the field. His strength and endurance

were tested to the utmost; he was not permitted to surrender

himself to the charm of family life and domestic affections.

Even when allowed to marry, he spent but little time at home;

his children, if thought worthy of life, were taken from him

at an early age to go through the same training in which he

himself had been brought up. Only when he reached the age of

sixty years, at which he could no longer serve his country in

the field, was he permitted to enjoy the feeling of personal

freedom."

E. Abbott,

History of Greece,

part 1, chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 6.

G. W. Cox,

History of Greece,

book 1, chapter 5.

C. O. Müller,

History and Antiquities of the Doric Race,

book 3 (volume 2).

SPARTA: B. C. 743-510.

The First and Second Messenian Wars.

Military supremacy in Peloponnesus established.

"The effect of the Lycurgean institutions was to weld the

people of Sparta into what Grote well denominates a 'military

brotherhood'—the most potent military machine which at that

time, and for long after, existed in Greece or in the world.

Had their political ambition and ability been proportionate,

it is difficult to doubt that the Lacedæmonians might have

anticipated the career of the Romans; but their inability to

produce really great statesmen, and the iron rigidity of their

political system, placed in their path effectual barriers to

the attainment of such grandeur. … The first object of their

attacks was the neighbouring Dorian kingdom of Messenia. The

kinship between the two peoples and their rulers had

previously kept them on friendly terms. It was symbolized and

expressed by joint sacrifices, annually celebrated at a temple

in honour of Artemis which stood on the borders between the

two countries, near the source of the river Neda. It was a

quarrel that broke out at these annual rites which led to the

outbreak of the first Messenian war, about 743 B. C. The

circumstances of the quarrel were differently related by the

two parties; but it resulted in the death of' Teleclus, one of

the Spartan kings. His subjects invaded Messenia to obtain

redress. At first the struggle was of an indecisive character,

but ultimately the Messenians were obliged to take refuge on

the fortified mountain of Ithome, and all the rest of their

country was overrun and conquered by their persistent enemies.

After the war had lasted twenty years, the Messenian garrison

was compelled to abandon Ithome, the fortifications of which

were razed by the Spartans, and Messenia became part of the

Lacedæmonian territory, —all its inhabitants who refused to

submit being driven into exile. Pausanius and other ancient

writers give long details of the events of this twenty years'

struggle, the great hero of which was the Messenian king

Aristomenes; but these details are as legendary as the

exploits of the Homeric heroes, and all that is certainly

known about the war is that it ended in the subjugation of

Messenia. The severity and oppression with which the conquered

people were ruled led them, about forty years later, to rise

up in revolt, and another struggle of seventeen years'

duration followed. In this, again, Aristomenes is represented

as the Messenian leader, although he had put an end to his own

life at the unsuccessful close of the former contest; and the

later Hellenic writers tried to get over this impossibility by

declaring that the Aristomenes of the second war must have

been a descendant of the earlier hero bearing the same name.

In the course of the war the Spartans suffered severely, as

the Messenians had the support of other Peloponnesian

communities—especially the Arcadians—who had begun to dread

the strength and arrogance of the Lacedæmonians. Ultimately,

however, the revolt was crushed, and from that time till the

days of Epaminondas, Messenia remained a part of the Laconian

territory.

See MESSENIAN WARS, FIRST AND SECOND.

To Sparta it was an important acquisition, for the plain of

the Pamisus was the most fertile district in Peloponnesus. The

Spartans next became aggressive on the eastern and northern

frontiers of their territory. Among the numerous independent

communities of Arcadia, the two most important were Tegea and

Mantinea, in the extreme east of the Arcadian territory. With

these cities, especially the former, the Spartans had some

severe struggles, but were not able to conquer them, though

they established a dominant influence, and reduced them to the

position of dependent allies. From Argos … the Lacedæmonians

wrested, in the course of two centuries, the strip of

territory between the Parnon range and the sea from Thyrea

down to the Malean promontory. By the beginning of the 6th

century B. C. they were masters of two-fifths of the whole

area of Peloponnesus—a territory of something more than 3,000

square miles.

{3021}

To modern notions, such a territory, which is smaller in

extent than more than one Scottish county, seems utterly

insignificant; but it sufficed to make Sparta the largest and

strongest state in Hellas, and even at the pinnacle of her

power she never made any further addition to her possessions

in Peloponnesus. Protected from invasion by impregnable

natural defences, and possessing a military discipline, a

social and political unity, such as no other Grecian community

could boast, the Lacedæmonians possessed peculiar advantages

in the competition for the Hellenic leadership. … It was about

the close of the 6th century B. C. that Sparta, having

asserted her supremacy in Peloponnesus, began to take an

active part in the affairs of the Hellenic communities outside

the peninsula. … In 510 B. C. her king, Cleomenes, went to

Athens at the head of a large force to obey the mandate of the

Delphic oracle and 'liberate the city' by the expulsion of the

Pisistratids."

C. H. Hanson,

The Land of Greece,

chapter 11.

ALSO IN:

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 9.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapters 7-8.

SPARTA: B. C. 509-506.

Persistent undertakings of Cleomenes to restore tyranny at

Athens, opposed by the Corinthians and other allies.

See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

SPARTA: B. C. 508.

Interference of King Cleomenes at Athens, and its failure.

See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

SPARTA: B. C. 501.

Refusal of aid to the Ionian revolt.

See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

SPARTA: B. C. 496.

War with Argos.

Prostration of the Argive state.

See ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.

SPARTA: B. C. 492-491.

Headship in Greece recognized.

Defiance of the Persian king.

Enforced unity of Greece for war.

See GREECE: B. C. 492-491.

SPARTA: B. C. 481-479.

Congress at Corinth.

Organized Hellenic Union against Persia.

The Spartan headship.

See GREECE: B. C. 481-479.

SPARTA: B. C. 480.

The Persian War.

Leonidas and his Three Hundred at Thermopylæ.

See GREECE: B. C. 480 THERMOPYLÆ.

SPARTA: B. C. 478.

Interference to forbid the rebuilding of the walls of Athens,

foiled by Themistocles.

See ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.

SPARTA: B. C. 478-477.

Mad conduct of Pausanias at Byzantium.

Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks.

Loss of the leadership of the Greek world.

Formation of the Confederacy of Delos, with Athens at

its head.

See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

SPARTA: B. C. 464-455.

The great Earthquake.

The Third Messenian War.

Offensive rebuff to Athenian friendliness.

See MESSENIAN WARS: THE THIRD.

SPARTA: B. C. 462-458.

Embittered enmity at Athens.

Rise of Pericles and the democratic Anti-Spartan party.

Athenian alliance with Argos, Thessaly, and Megara.

See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

SPARTA: B. C. 457.

Interference in Phocis.

Collision with the Athenians and victory at Tanagra.

See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

SPARTA: B. C.453.

Five years truce with Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

SPARTA: B. C. 449-445.

Aid to revolts in Bœotia, Eubœa and Megara

against Athenian rule or influence.

The Thirty Years Truce.

See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

SPARTA: B. C. 440.

Interference with Athens in Samos opposed by Corinth.

See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

SPARTA: B. C. 432-431.

Hearing of charges against Athens.

Congress of Allies.

Decision for war.

Theban attack on Platæa.

Opening of the Peloponnesian War.

See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.

SPARTA: B. C. 431-429.

First and second years of the Peloponnesian War:

Invasions of Attica.

Plague at Athens.

Death of Pericles.

See GREECE: B. C. 431-429.

SPARTA: B. C. 429-427.

The Peloponnesian War: Siege of Platæa.

See GREECE: B. C. 429-427 SIEGE OF PLATÆA.

SPARTA: B. C. 428-427.

The Peloponnesian War:

Aid to the insurgent Mityleneans.

Its failure.

See GREECE: B. C. 429-427 PHORMIO'S SEA-FIGHTS.

SPARTA: B. C. 425.

The Peloponnesian War: Catastrophe at Sphacteria.

Peace pleaded for and refused by Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 425.

SPARTA: B. C. 424-421.

Peloponnesian War: Successes of Brasidas in Chalcidice.

Athenian defeat at Delium.

Death of Brasidas.

Peace of Nikias.

See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

SPARTA: B. C. 421-418.

The Peloponnesian War: New hostile combinations.

The Argive confederacy.

War in Argos and Arcadia.

Victory at Mantinea.

See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

SPARTA: B. C. 415-413.

The Peloponnesian War:

Help to Syracuse against the Athenians.

Comfort to the fugitive Alcibiades.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

SPARTA: B. C. 413-412.

The Peloponnesian War:

Aid to the revolting cities in Asia and the Ægean.

Intrigues of Alcibiades.

See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

SPARTA: B. C. 413.

Negotiations with Persian satraps.

Subsidies for war against Athens.

Invasion of Attica.

The Decelian War.

See GREECE: B. C. 413.

SPARTA: B. C. 411-407.

Athenian victories at Cynossema and Abydos.

Exploits of Alcibiades.

His return to Athens.

His second deposition and exile.

See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

SPARTA: B. C. 406.

The Peloponnesian War: Defeat at Arginusæ.

See GREECE: B. C. 406.

SPARTA: B. C. 405.

The Peloponnesian War: Decisive victory at Ægospotami.

See GREECE: B. C. 405.

SPARTA: B. C. 404.

End of the Peloponnesian War: Surrender of Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 404.

SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

The organizing of Spartan supremacy.

The Harmosts in power.

The overthrow of Athenian power in the Greek world, made final

by the battle of Ægospotami, B. C. 405, rendered Sparta

supreme, and established her in a sovereignty of affairs which

is often alluded to as the Spartan, or Lacedæmonian Empire.

The cities which had been either allied or subject to Athens

were now submissive to the Spartan conqueror, Lysander. "He

availed himself of his strength to dissolve the popular system

of government in all the towns which had belonged to the Attic

confederation, and to commit the government to a fixed body of

men enjoying his confidence. As at Athens the Thirty, so

elsewhere Commissions of Ten [called Dekarchies] were

established.

See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

{3022}

In order to give security and strength to those governing

bodies, detachments of Spartan troops were placed by their

side, under the command of a Harmost. This measure, again,

was, by no means a novel invention. From an early period the

Lacedæmonians had been in the habit of despatching Harmostæ

(i. e. military governors) into the rural districts, to hold

sway over the Periœci, and to keep the latter in strict

subjection to the capital. Such Harmosts were subsequently

also sent abroad; and this, of itself, showed how the Spartans

had no intention of recognizing various kinds of subjection,

and how they at bottom designed to make no essential

difference between subject rural communities in Laconia and

the foreign towns which had of their own accord, or otherwise,

submitted to the power of Sparta. The duration of the

Harmosts' tenure of office was not defined."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 5, chapter 1 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 72.

G. F. Schömann,

Antiquities of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapter 1.

C. Sankey,

The Spartan and Theban Supremacies,

chapter 1.

SPARTA: B. C. 399-387.

War with Persia and with a hostile league in Greece.

Struggle for the Corinthian isthmus.

Restored independence of Athens.

The Peace of Antalcidas.

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

SPARTA: B. C. 385.

Destruction of Mantinea.

See GREECE: B. C. 385.

SPARTA: B. C. 383.

Treacherous seizure of the Kadmeia of Thebes.

See GREECE: B. C. 383.

SPARTA: B. C. 383-379.

Overthrow of the Olynthian Confederacy.

See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.

SPARTA: B. C. 379-371.

Liberation and triumph of Thebes.

Spartan supremacy broken at Leuctra.

See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

SPARTA: B. C. 371-362.

The conflict with Thebes.

Two attempts of Epaminondas against the city.

The battle of Mantinea.

See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

SPARTA: B. C. 353-331.

Independent attitude towards Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

SPARTA: B. C. 317.

Building of Walls.

It was not until about the year 317 B. C., during the

distractions which followed the death of Alexander the Great,

that walls were built around the city of Sparta. "The

maintenance of Sparta as an unwalled city was one of the

deepest and most cherished of the Lykurgean traditions; a

standing proof of the fearless bearing and self-confidence of

the Spartans against dangers from without. The erection of the

walls showed their own conviction, but too well borne out by

the real circumstances around them, that the pressure of the

foreigner had become so overwhelming as not to leave them even

safety at home."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 96.

SPARTA: B. C. 272.

Siege by Pyrrhus.

Not many years after the walls of Sparta were first built the

city was subjected to a siege by Pyrrhus, the ambitious

Epirotic king. There were two claimants to the Spartan crown,

and Pyrrhus, espousing the cause of the unsuccessful one,

marched into Peloponnesus with a powerful army, (B. C. 272)

and assailed the Lacedæmonian capital. He was repulsed and

repulsed again, and gave up the attempt at last, marching away

to Argos, where his interference in local quarrels had been

solicited. He perished there, ignominiously, in another

abortive enterprise, being killed by a tile flung down by a

woman's hand, from a housetop overlooking the street in which

he was attempting to manage the retreat of his discomfited

forces.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 60.

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

SPARTA: B. C. 227-221.

Downfall in the Cleomenic War.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

SPARTA: A. D. 267.

Ravaged by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

SPARTA: A. D. 395.

Plundered by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

----------SPARTA: End--------

SPARTACUS, The Rising of.

Schools for the training of gladiators, to supply the

barbarous amusement which the Romans delighted in, were

numerous at Rome and throughout Italy. The men placed in these

schools were slaves, criminal prisoners, or unfortunates whose

parents abandoned them in infancy. As a rule, they were forced

into the brutal profession and the schools which trained them

for it were places of confinement and restraint. From one of

these schools, at Capua, some seventy or more gladiators

escaped, in the year 73 B. C., and fled to the mountains. They

had for their leader a Thracian, named Spartacus, who proved

to be a soldier of remarkable ability and energy. Stationing

himself at first on Mount Vesuvius, Spartacus was joined by

other slaves and fugitives, until he had a large force under

his command. Again and again the Roman armies sent against him

were defeated and the insurgents equipped themselves with

captured arms. Nola, Nuceria, and other towns in Southern

Italy fell into their hands. In the year 72 B. C. they moved

toward North Italy, routing two consular armies on their way,

and were thought to be intending to escape beyond the Alps;

but, after another great victory at Mutina (Modena) over the

proconsul of Gallia Cisalpina, Spartacus turned southward

again, for some unexplained reason, and allowed himself to be

blockaded in the extremity of Lucania, by M. Licinius Crassus.

In this situation he sought to make terms, but his proposals

were rejected. He then succeeded in breaking through the Roman

lines, but was pursued by Crassus and overwhelmingly defeated

at Mount Calamatius, where 35,000 of the insurgents are said

to have been slain. The flying remnant was again brought to

bay near Petilia, in Bruttium, and there Spartacus ended his

life. A few thousand of the insurgents who escaped from the

field were intercepted by Pompey and cut to pieces, while

6,000 captives were crucified, with Roman brutality, along the

road between Capua and Rome.

G. Long,

Decline cf the Roman Republic,

volume 3, chapter 2.

See, also, ROME: B. C. 78-68.

SPARTAN EMPIRE.

See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

SPARTAN TRAINING.

See EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREECE;

also, SPARTA, THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

{3023}

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The splendor of the position of Speaker of the British House

of Commons is perhaps not generally realized. The appointment,

nominally for the duration of but one Parliament, generally

extends over several. … Chosen from among the members, subject

to the approval of the Crown, the Speaker can be removed only

upon an address to the Crown. Besides a palatial residence

occupying one wing of the Houses of Parliament, and a large

patronage, he receives a salary of £5,000 a year. At the end

of his labors he is rewarded with a peerage and a pension of

£4,000 per annum for two lives. He is a member of the Privy

Council, and the first gentleman in the United Kingdom, taking

rank after barons. … The wig and gown which he wears, the

state and ceremony with which he is surrounded, doubtless

contribute to the isolation and impressiveness of his

position. … When, at the opening of proceedings, he makes his

way in state from his residence to the Chamber, through the

corridors used by members for passing to the committee,

library, and refreshment rooms, it is against etiquette for

anyone to be found therein. When on summer evenings he and his

family take the air upon the portion of the terrace which is

outside his residence, there is no more thought of approaching

them than there would be if he were a Grand Lama. When in the

chair, he can be approached only upon strictly business

matters. His levees, held twice a year and open to all

members, can be attended only in court costume, sword by the

side."

The Nation, August 17, 1893 (page 117).

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

SPECIE CIRCULAR, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.

SPENCEAN PHILANTHROPISTS.

SPENCEANS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

SPEUSINII.

See SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, OF ATHENS.

SPHACTERIA, Capture of.

See GREECE: B. C. 425.

SPHINX, The.

"About six hundred yards to the Southeast of the Great Pyramid

is the Sphinx. The Sphinx is a natural rock, to which has been

given, more or less accurately, the external appearance of

that mystic animal. The head alone has been sculptured. The

body is formed of the rock itself, supplemented, where

defective, by a somewhat clumsy masonry of limestone. The

total height of the monument is 19 metres 80 centimetres,

equal to 65 English feet. The ear measures 6 feet 5 inches;

the nose 5 feet 10 inches; and the mouth 7 feet 8 inches. The

face, in its widest part, across the cheek, is 4 metres 15

centimetres, that is, 13 feet 7 inches. Its origin is still a

matter of doubt. At one time it was supposed to be a monument

of the reign of Thothmes IV. (XVIIIth dynasty). But we know

now, thanks to a stone in the Boulak Museum, that the Sphinx

was already in existence when Cheops (who preceded Chephren)

gave orders for the repairs which this stone commemorates. It

must also be remembered that the Sphinx is the colossal image

of an Egyptian god called Armachis."

A. Mariette,

Monuments of Upper Egypt,

page 70.

SPICHERN, OR FORBACH, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

SPINNING-JENNY, Invention of the.

See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

----------SPIRES: Start--------

SPIRES: A. D. 1526-1529.

The imperial Diets.

Legal recognition of the Reformed religion,

and its withdrawal.

Protest of Lutheran princes.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

SPIRES: A. D. 1689.

Destruction by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

SPIRES: A. D. 1713.

Taken by the French.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

----------SPIRES: End--------

SPOILS SYSTEM, The.

See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

SPOLETO: A. D. 1155.

Burned by Frederick Barbarossa.

See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

SPOLIA OPIMA.

"The proudest of all military trophies were Spolia Opima,

which could be gained only when the commander-in-chief of a

Roman army engaged and overthrew in single combat the

commander-in-chief of the enemy. … Roman history afforded but

three examples of legitimate Spolia Opima. The first were won

by Romulus from Acro, King of the Ceninenses; the second by

Aulus Cornelius Cossus from Lar Tolumnius, King of the

Veientes; the third by M. Claudius Marcellus from Virodomarus,

a Gaulish chief (B. C. 222). In all cases they were dedicated

to Jupiter Feretrius and preserved in his temple."

W. Ramsay,

Manual of Roman Antiquity,

chapter 12.

SPOLIATION CLAIMS, French.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.

SPORADES, The.

See CYCLADES.

SPOTTSYLVANIA, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA)

GRANT'S MOVEMENT, &C.: SPOTTSYLVANIA.

SPRING HILL, Engagement at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

SPRINGFIELD, Massachusetts: A. D. 1637.

The first settlement.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

SPURS, The Battle of the (1513).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

SPURS, The Day of the.

See COURTRAI, THE BATTLE OF.

SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

SQUIRE.

See CHIVALRY.

STAATEN-BUND.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

STADACONA.

See QUEBEC: A. D. 1535.

STADION, OR STADIUM, The.

See HIPPODROME.

STADIUM, OR STADE, The Greek.

"Throughout the present work I shall uniformly assume that the

Greeks employed but one measure under that designation [the

stadium] which was … a hundred fathoms, or 600 Greek feet.

This has been proved, in my opinion, beyond a doubt, by

Colonel Leake in his paper 'On the Stade as a Linear Measure'

… republished in his treatise 'On some disputed Questions of

Ancient Geography.' … At the present day the controversy may

be considered as settled. … A stade of 600 Greek feet was in

reality very nearly the 600th part of a degree [of the

circumference of the earth]; ten stades are consequently just

about equal to a nautical or geographical mile of 60 to a

degree."

E. H. Bunbury,

History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 6, note c.

STADTHOLDER.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

STADTLOHN, Battle of (1623).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

STAFFARDA, Battle of (1690).

See FRANCE: A. D, 1689-1691.

{3024}

STAHL, George E.: Influence upon Medical Science.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE:

17TH CENTURY. CLOSING PERIOD, &c.

STALLER AND HORDERE, The.

"In the time of Ælfred [Alfred the Great] the great officers

of the court were the four heads of the royal household, the

Hordere, the Staller, the Dish-thegn, and the Cup-thegn. … The

Hordere was the officer of the court in its stationery aspect,

as the Staller or Constable was of the court on progress. … Of

the four officers one only retained under the later West-Saxon

monarchy any real power. The dish-thegn and cup-thegn lost

importance as the court became stationary and no longer

maintained a vast body of royal followers. The staller

retained only the functions of leading in war as the feudal

constable, which in turn passed away with later changes in the

military system. The hordere alone held a position of growing

importance. … No doubt the 'Hoard' contained not only money

and coin, but the costly ornaments and robes of the crown."

J. R. Green,

Conquest of England,

chapter 10, note.

"The names by which the Chamberlain was designated are Hrægel

thegn, literally thane or servant of the wardrobe,

Cubicularius, Camerarius, Búrthegn, perhaps sometimes

Dispensator, and Thesaurarius or Hordere. … We may presume

that he had the general management of the royal property, as

well as the immediate regulation of the household. … The

Marshal (among the Franks Marescalcus and Comes stabuli) was

properly speaking the Master of the Horse. … The Anglosaxon

titles are Steallere [Staller] and Horsthegn, Stabulator and

Strator regis."

J. M. Kemble,

The Saxons in England,

book 2, chapter 3.

See, also, CONSTABLE.

STALWARTS AND HALF-BREEDS.

During the administration of President Grant, certain lenders

of the Republican party in the United States—conspicuous among

them Senator Conkling of New York—acquired a control of the

distribution of appointed offices under the Federal Government

which gave them a more despotic control of the organization of

their party than had been known before in the history of the

country. It was the culminating development of the "spoils

system" in American politics. It produced a state of things in

which the organization of the party—its elaborated structure

of committees and conventions—state, county, city, town and

district,—became what was accurately described as a "political

machine." The managers and workers of the machine were brought

under a discipline which allowed no room for personal opinions

of any kind; the passive adherents of the party were expected

to accept what was offered to them, whether in the way of

candidates or declarations of principle. The faction which

controlled and supported this powerful machine in politics

acquired the name of Stalwarts and contemptuously gave the

name of Half-breeds to their dissatisfied Republican

opponents. During the term of President Hayes, who favored

Civil Service Reform, the Stalwarts were considerably checked.

They had desired to nominate General Grant in 1876 for a third

term, but found it unwise to press the proposition. In 1880,

however, they rallied all their strength to accomplish the

nomination of Grant at Chicago and were bitterly enraged when

their opponents in the convention carried the nomination of

Garfield. They joined in electing him, but Conkling, the

Stalwart leader, speedily quarreled with the new President

when denied the control of the Federal "patronage" (that is,

official appointments) in New York State, resigned from the

Senate, appealed to the New York Legislature for re-election,

and was beaten. Then followed the tragedy of the assassination

of President Garfield, which had a very sobering effect on the

angry politics of the time. Conkling disappeared from public

life, and Stalwartism subsided with him.

J. C. Ridpath,

Life and Work of James A. Garfield,

chapters 10-12.

ALSO IN:

E. Stanwood,

History of Presidential Elections,

chapters 24-25.

J. Bryce,

The American Commonwealth,

chapters 60-65 (volume 2).

STAMBOUL.

"It must be remembered that the Constantinople of 1200 was

only that portion which is now called Stamboul or Istamboul, a

word which is probably the Turkish abbreviation of

Constantinople, just as Skenderoun is the abbreviation of

Alexandretta, Skender bey for Alexander bey, Isnik for Nicæa,

Ismidt for Nicomedia, &c. … The 'Itinerario' of Clavigo states

that before the Moslem occupation the inhabitants themselves

called the city Escomboli. The Turks allow a few foreigners to

have their warehouses in Stamboul, but will not permit them to

reside there. All the embassies and legations are in Pera,

that is, across the water; … or at Galata, which is a part of

what was originally called Pera."

E. Pears,

The Fall of Constantinople,

chapter 7, foot-note.

STAMFORD, Battle of.

See LOSE-COAT FIELD.

STAMFORD BRIDGE, Battle of.

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

STAMP ACT, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1765; and 1766.

STANDARD, The Battle of the (1138).

In the civil war which arose in England, on the death of Henry

I., over the disputed succession to the throne, Matilda's

claims, as the daughter of Henry, were supported against

Stephen of Blois by her mother's brother David, king of

Scotland. David, as the nephew of Edgar Ætheling, heir of the

dethroned Saxon royal house, had some claims of his own to the

English crown; but these he declared that he waived in favor

of his niece. "Though he himself declared that he had no

desire for the English throne, there is mentioned by one

chronicler a general conspiracy of the native English with

their exiled country-men, of whom the south of Scotland was

full, for the purpose of taking advantage of the condition of

the country to put to death the Normans, and to place the

crown upon David's head. The plot was discovered, … and many

of the conspirators were hanged, but many others found a

refuge in Scotland. At length, in 1118, David entered England

with a large army, and pushed forward as far as Northallerton

in Yorkshire. He was there met by the forces of the Northern

bishops and barons. … They gathered round a tall mast borne

upon a carriage, on which, above the standards of the three

Northern Saints, St. Peter of York, St. John of Beverley, and

St. Wilfred of Ripon, was displayed a silver pyx bearing the

consecrated wafer.

{3025}

The motley army of the Scots, some armed as the English, some

in the wild dress of the Picts of Galloway, after a

well-fought battle [August 22, 1138] broke against the

full-clad Norman soldiers, and were killed by the arrows,

which had now become the national weapon of the English;

11,000 are said to have fallen on the field.' From the great

standard above described, which probably resembled the

"Carroccio" of the mediæval Italian cities, the fight at

Northallerton was called the Battle of the Standard.

J. F. Bright,

History of England,

period 1, page 79.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1135-1154.

STÄNDERATH, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

STANDING ARMY: The first in modern Europe.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1453-1461.

STANDISH, Miles, and the Plymouth Colony.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

STANISLAUS AUGUSTUS PONIATOWSKI,

King of Poland, A. D. 1764-1795.

STANISLAUS LESZCZYNSKI,

King of Poland, A. D. 1704-1709.

STANWIX, Fort.

The early name of the fort afterwards called Fort Schuyler,

near the head of the Mohawk River, in New York.

STANWIX, Fort: A. D. 1768.

Boundary Treaty with the Six Nations.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

STANZ, Battle of (1798).

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.

STANZ, Convention of.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1481-1501.

STAOUELI, Battles of.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830.

STAPLE.

STAPLERS, The.

"A term which makes a great figure in the commercial

regulations of this period [13th and 14th centuries] is that

of the Staple. The word, in its primary acceptation, appears

to have meant a particular port or other place to which

certain commodities were obliged to be brought to be weighed

or measured for the payment of the customs, before they could

be sold, or in some cases exported or imported. Here the

king's staple was said to be established. The articles of

English produce upon which customs were anciently paid were

wool, sheep-skins (or woolfels), and leather; and these were

accordingly denominated the staples or staple goods of the

kingdom. The persons who exported these goods were called the

Merchants of the Staple: they were incorporated, or at least

recognized as forming a society with certain privileges." By a

charter granted by Edward II., in 1313, to the merchants of

the staple, Antwerp was made the staple for wool and woolfels,

and they could be carried for sale to no other port in

Brauant, Flanders or Artois. In 1326 the staple was removed

altogether from the continent and fixed at certain places

within the English kingdom. In 1341 it was established at

Bruges; in 1348 at Calais (which the English had captured); in

1353 it was again removed entirely from the continent; —and

thus the changes were frequent. During some intervals all

staples were abolished and trade was set free from their

restriction; but these were of brief duration.

G. L. Craik,

History of British Commerce,

chapter 4 (volume 1).

"The staplers were merchants who had the monopoly of exporting

the principle raw commodities of the realm, especially wool,

woolfels, leather, tin, and lead; wool figuring most

prominently among these 'staple' wares. The merchants of the

staple used to claim that their privileges dated from the time

of Henry III, but existing records do not refer to the staple

before the time of Edward I. … The staples were the towns to

which the above-mentioned wares had to be brought for sale or

exportation. Sometimes there was only one such mart, and this

was situated abroad, generally at Bruges or Calais,

occasionally at Antwerp, St. Omer, or Middleburg. From the

reign of Richard II until 1558 the foreign staple was at

Calais. The list of home staples was also frequently changed."

C. Gross,

The Gild Merchant,

pages 140-141.

ALSO IN:

A. Anderson,

History of Commerce,

volume 1, page 216. and after.

STAR, Knights of the.

"On the 8th September, 1351, king John [of France] revived the

almost obsolete order of the Star, in imitation of the Garter,

and the first chapter of it was held at his palace of St.

Ouen. At first there were but eighteen knights; the rest were

added at different chapters. They wore a bright star on the

crest of their helmets, and one pendant at their necks, and

the same was embroidered on their mantles."

T. Johnes,

Note to Froissart's Chronicles,

book 1, chapter 152.

STAR CHAMBER, The Court of.

"In the reign of Edward III, the king's Continual Council was

in the habit of sitting in what was called the Starred Chamber

(la Chambre des Etoiles). After the establishment of the Court

of Chancery as a separate and independent jurisdiction taking

cognizance of the greater portion of the civil business of the

Council, the latter body appears to have usually sat in the

Star Chamber while exercising jurisdiction over such cases as

were not sent to the Chancery. … Henry VII. … created, in the

3rd year of his reign, a new court, sometimes inaccurately

called the Court of Star Chamber. … It continued to exist as a

distinct tribunal from the Privy Council till towards the

close of the reign of Henry VIII.; but in the meantime,

probably during the chancellorship of Wolsey, the jurisdiction

of the ancient Star Chamber (i. e. the Council sitting for

judicial business) was revived, and in it the limited court

erected by Henry VII. became gradually merged. … Under the

Stewart Kings the court was practically identical with the

Privy Council, thus combining in the same body of men the

administrative and judicial functions. … Under the Stewart

Kings the pillory, whipping, and cruel mutilations were

inflicted upon political offenders by the sentence of this

court; and at length the tyrannical exercise and illegal

extension of its powers became so odious to the people that it

was abolished by the Long Parliament in 1641."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead,

English Constitutional History,

pages 181-183.

"The Star Chamber was no temporary court. During 150 years its

power penetrated into every branch of English life. No rank

was exalted enough to defy its attacks, no insignificance

sufficiently obscure to escape its notice. It terrified the

men who had worsted the Armada; it overshadowed the dignity of

the judicial bench; it summoned before its tribunal the

Prynnes and the Cromwells, who at last proved its destroyers.

{3026}

It fell at length, but great was the fall thereof, and in its

ruin was involved the downfall of the monarchy. It is with

something of astonishment that the inquirer discovers that

this august tribunal was merely the Council under another

name; and that the court, whose overgrown power the patriots

of 1640 cast to the ground, was the same body whose early

encroachments had alarmed the parliamentary leaders under

Edward III and Richard II. The process by which the judicial

authority of the Council passed into the form of the Court of

Star Chamber admits of some dispute, and is involved in no

little obscurity. … The Council's manner of proceeding was

unlike that of other courts. Its punishments were as arbitrary

as they were severe; it also exercised a power peculiar to

itself of extorting confession by torture. Some, however, may

imagine that powers so great were only occasionally exercised,

that exceptional exertions of authority were employed to meet

exceptional crimes, and that gigantic force was put forth to

crush gigantic evils. Some circumstances have given currency

to such a notion. … Yet no conception of the Star Chamber is

more false than that which makes it a 'deus ex machina' which

intervened only when the lower courts of justice stood

confronted by some criminal attempt with which they were too

weak to deal. The sphere of the Council's jurisdiction was

unlimited. It is now no question of what it had a right to do,

but of what it did. And anyone who examines the most certain

facts of history will be convinced that from the accession of

Henry VII till the meeting of the Long Parliament the Council

interfered in all matters, small as well as great. It is,

indeed, perhaps not generally known, that crimes of a very

ordinary nature, such as would now come before a police

magistrate, occupied the attention of the Star Chamber."

A. V. Dicey,

The Privy Council,

part 3, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

H. Hallam,

Constitutional History of England,

volume 1, chapter 1.

R. Gneist,

History of the English Constitution,

chapters 35 and 38 (volume 2).

STAR OF INDIA, The Order of the.

An Order of Knighthood instituted by Queen Victoria, in 1861,

to commemorate the assumption of the Government of India by

the British Crown.

Annual Register, 1861.

STAR SPANGLED BANNER:

The circumstances of the writing of the song.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

STARK, General John: Victory at Bennington.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

STARO-OBRIADTSI, The.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.

STAROSTS.

"Elders," in Poland, who administered justice in the towns.

Count Moltke,

Poland,

page 8.

See, also, MIR, THE RUSSIAN.

STARRY CROSS, Order of the.

An Austrian order, founded in 1668, for ladies of noble birth,

by the dowager Empress Eleanora.

STATE SOVEREIGNTY, The doctrine of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

----------STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: Start--------

STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:

In the 14th Century.

"I lately attempted to explain the manner in which the

identity or union of the Royal Council and of the Parliament

of Paris was virtually, though not formally dissolved [see

PARLIAMENT OF PARIS], so that each of them thenceforward

existed as a substantive and distinct body in the state. This

tacit revolution had been nearly completed when Philip Ie Bel

for the first time convened the States-General of France" (A.

D. 1301), The circumstances under which this occurred were as

follows: Philip had imposed a tax from which the clergy were

not excepted. Pope Boniface issued a bull forbidding them to

make the required payment. "Philip retaliated by an order

forbidding them to pay the customary papal dues to Boniface

himself. The Pope then summoned a synod, to advise him how he

might most effectually resist this invasion of his pontifical

rights; and Philip, in his turn, summoned the barons, clergy,

and commons of his realm to elect deputies who should meet him

at Paris, there to deliberate on the methods to be pursued for

the successful conduct of his controversy with Rome. To Philip

himself, the importance of this great innovation was probably

not perceptible. He, as we may well believe, regarded it only

as a temporary device to meet a passing exigency." Once more,

before the end of his reign, in 1314, Philip assembled the

States-General and procured their apparent assent to a tax,

which proved to be exceedingly unpopular and which provoked a

very turbulent resistance. The next meeting of the

States-General,—called by King John—was in 1355, on the

outbreak of the war with Edward III. of England. Under the

lead of the celebrated Etienne (Stephen) Marcel, the States

took matters on that occasion quite into their own hands. They

created a commission to superintend the collecting of funds

raised for the· war, and they provided for an adjourned

session in the following year to receive an accounting of the

Expenditure. When the adjourned session took place, in 1356,

King John was a prisoner in the hands of the English and his

son Charles reigned as regent in his stead. This Charles, who

became king in 1364, and who acquired the name of Charles the

Wise, contrived to make the meeting of 1356 an abortive one

and then endeavored to raise moneys and to rule without the

help of the three estates. The result was an insurrection at

Paris, led by Marcel, which forced the regent to convene the

States-General once more. They met in 1357 under circumstances

which gave them full power to check and control the royal

authority, even to the extent of instituting a permanent

commission, from their own membership, charged with a general

superintendence of the administration of the government during

the intervals between sessions of the States-General

themselves. At that moment there would have seemed to be more

promise of free government in France than across the channel.

But the advantage which the national representatives acquired

was brief. The taxes they imposed produced disappointment and

discontent. They lost public favor; they fell into quarrels

among themselves; the nobles and the clergy deserted the

deputies of the people. The young regent gained influence, as

the States-General lost it, and he was strengthened in the end

by the violence of Marcel, who caused two offending ministers

of the crown to be slain in the presence of the king. Then

ensued a short period of civil war; Paris was besieged by the

Dauphin-regent; Marcel perished by assassination; royalty

recovered its ascendancy in France, with more firmness of

footing than before. "It was the commencement of a long series

of similar conflicts and of similar successes—conflicts and

successes which terminated at length in the transfer of the

power of the purse from the representatives of the people to

the ministers of the crown."

Sir J. Stephen,

Lectures on the History of France,

lecture 10.

{3027}

"The year 1357 was the period when the States-General had

greatest power during the Middle Ages; from that time they

rapidly declined; they lost, as did also the Third Estate, all

political influence, and for some centuries were only empty

shadows of national assemblies."

E. de Bonnechose,

History of France,

period 4, book 2, chapter 3.

"One single result of importance was won for France by the

states-general of the 14th century, namely, the principle of

the nation's right to intervene in their own affairs, and to

set the government straight when it had gone wrong or was

incapable of performing that duty itself. … Starting from King

John, the states-general became one of the principles of

national right; a principle which did not disappear even when

it remained without application, and the prestige of which

survived even its reverses."

F. P. Guizot,

Popular History of France,

chapter 21.

ALSO IN:

A. Thierry,

Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,

volume 1, chapters 2-3.

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1356-1358.

STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:

The last States General before the Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.

STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:

The States-General of 1789.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (MAY) and (JUNE).

----------STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: End--------

STATES-GENERAL, OR ESTATES, OF THE NETHERLANDS.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519,

and 1584-1585 LIMITS OF THE UNITED PROVINCES.

----------STATES OF THE CHURCH: Start--------

STATES OF THE CHURCH:

Origin.

See PAPACY: A. D. 755-774; and 1077-1102.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1198-1216.

The establishing of Papal Sovereignty.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1275.

The Papal Sovereignty confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1352-1378.

Subjugation by Cardinal Albornoz.

Revolt, supported by Florence, and war with the Pope.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378;

and FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1380.

Proposed formation of the kingdom of Adria.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1409.

Sale to Ladislas, king of Naples, by Pope Gregory XII.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1503-1513.

Conquests and consolidation of Papal Sovereignty

under Julius II.

See PAPACY. A. D. 1471-1513,

and ITALY A. D. 1510-1513.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1545-1556.

Alienation of Parma and Placentia.

See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1597.

Annexation of Ferrara.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1631.

Annexation of Urbino.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1796-1797.

Territories taken by Bonaparte to add to the

Cispadine and Cisalpine Republics.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);

1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1808-1809.

Seizure by Napoleon.

Partial annexation to the kingdom of Italy.

Final incorporation with the French Empire.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1815.

Papal Sovereignty restored.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1831-1832.

Revolt suppressed by Austrian troops.

See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1860-1861.

Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

----------STATES OF THE CHURCH: End--------

STATUTES.

See LAW.

STAURACIUS,

Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 811.

STAVOUTCHANI, Battle of (1739).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

----------STEAM ENGINE: Start--------

STEAM ENGINE:

The beginning of its invention, before Watt.

"It is probable that the first contriver of a working

steam-engine was Edward, second Marquis of Worcester [A. D.

1601-1667]. … He was born at London in 1601. His early years

[when his title was Lord Herbert] were principally spent at

Raglan Castle, his father's country seat, where his education

was carefully attended to. … From an early period of his life

Lord Herbert took especial pleasure in mechanical studies, and

in the course of his foreign tours he visited and examined the

famous works of construction abroad. On settling down at

Raglan he proceeded to set up a laboratory, or workshop,

wherein to indulge his mechanical tastes. … Among the works

executed by Lord Herbert and his assistant at Raglan, was the

hydraulic apparatus by means of which the castle was supplied

with water. … It is probable that the planning and

construction of these works induced Lord Herbert to prosecute

the study of hydraulics, and to enter upon that series of

experiments as to the power of steam which eventually led to

the contrivance of his 'Water-commanding Engine.'" No

description of the Marquis's engine remains which enables

modern engineers to understand with certainty its principle

and mode of working, and various writers. "have represented it

in widely different forms … But though the Marquis did not

leave the steam-engine in such a state as to be taken up and

adopted as a practicable working power, he at least advanced

it several important steps. … Even during the Marquis's

lifetime other minds besides his were diligently pursuing the

same subject. … One of the most distinguished of these was Sir

Samuel Morland, appointed Master of Mechanics to Charles II.

immediately after the Restoration. … Morland's inventions

proved of no greater advantage to him than those of the

Marquis of Worcester had done. … The next prominent

experimenter on the powers of steam was Dr. Dionysius Papin."

Being a Protestant, he was driven to England in 1681, four

years before the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and

received, through the friendship of Dr. Boyle, the appointment

of Curator of the Royal Society. It was during this connection

that he constructed his well-known "Digester," which was an

apparatus for the cooking of meats under a high pressure and

consequent high temperature of steam. For the safe employment

of so high a pressure he invented the safety-valve. His

success with the Digester led him to experiments with steam as

a motive force. Having been invited to Germany, he made the

attempt there to pump water by atmospheric pressure, on a

large scale, producing the vacuum by a condensation of steam;

but his undertakings were not successful.

{3028}

He next tried steam navigation, converting the alternate

motion of a piston in a steam cylinder into rotary motion,

turning paddle-wheels on the sides of a boat, by arming the

piston-rods with teeth, geared into wheels on the paddle axis.

"His first experiments were doubtless failures;" but he

finally succeeded to his satisfaction, and was conveying his

model to London for exhibition, in 1707, when some barbarous

boatmen in Germany destroyed it. Papin could raise no means

for the construction of another, and three years later he

died. "The attempts hitherto made to invent a working

steam-engine, it will be observed, had not been attended with

much success." But, "although the progress made seemed but

slow, the amount of net result was by no means inconsiderable.

Men were becoming better acquainted with the elastic force of

steam. … Many separate and minor inventions, which afterwards

proved of great value, had been made, such as the four-way

cock, the safety-valve, and the piston moving in a cylinder.

The principle of a true steam-engine had not only been

demonstrated, but most of the separate parts of such an engine

had been contrived by various inventors. It seemed as if all

that was now wanting was a genius of more than ordinary power

to combine them in a complete and effective whole. To Thomas

Savery is usually accorded the merit of having constructed the

first actual working steam-engine. … Thomas Savery was born at

Shilston, … in Devon, about the year 1650. Nothing is known of

his early life, beyond that he was educated to the profession

of a military engineer. … He occupied much of his spare time

in mechanical experiments, and in projecting and executing

contrivances of various sorts." One of the earliest of these

was a boat propelled by paddle-wheels, worked by man-power,

turning a capstan, and this he exhibited on the Thames. "It is

curious that it should not have occurred to Savery, who

invented both a paddle-wheel boat and a steam-engine, to

combine the two in one machine; but he was probably sick of

the former invention … and gave it up in disgust, leaving it

to Papin, who saw both his inventions at work, to hit upon the

grand idea of combining the two in a steam-vessel. … It is

probable that Savery was led to enter upon his next and most

important invention by the circumstance of his having been

brought up in the neighbourhood of the mining districts," and

being well aware of the great difficulty experienced by the

miners in keeping their pits clear of water." He devised what

he called a "Fire Engine" for the raising of water. In this he

made a double use of steam, in tight cylinders, first to

create a vacuum, by condensing it, and then to force the

water, so lifted, to a greater height, by pressure of fresh

steam. "The great pressure of steam required to force up a

high column of water was such as to strain to the utmost the

imperfect boilers and receivers of those early days; and the

frequent explosions which attended its use eventually led to

its discontinuance in favour of the superior engine of

Newcomen, which was shortly after invented. … This engine [of

which the first working model was completed in 1705] … worked

entirely by the pressure of the atmosphere, steam being only

used as the most expeditious method of producing a vacuum," in

a steam cylinder, under the piston which worked the rod of a

pump. "The engine was, however, found to be very imperfect,"

until it was improved by a device for throwing a jet of cold

water into the cylinder, to produce a more rapid condensation

of steam. "Step by step, Newcomen's engine grew in power and

efficiency, and became more and more complete as a self-acting

machine."

S. Smiles,

Lives of Boulton and Watt,

chapters 1-4.

"We have … certain evidence that the Marquis of Worcester's

Engine was in full operation for at least seven years, and

that one of the conditions of the Act of Parliament obliged

him to deposit a model in the Exchequer. His own estimate of

its value may be judged by his gladly giving up for the

promised tithe of it to the King, his claim on Charles I equal

to £40,000, in lieu thereof. His Lordship's invention was

never offered by him as a merely amusing trifle."

H. Dircks,

Life and Times of the Second Marquis of Worcester,

page 337.

STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.

The improvements of James Watt.

After Newcomen, "no improvement of essential consequence … was

effected in the steam engine until it came into the hands of

Watt." James Watt, born at Greenock, Scotland, in 1736,

educated to the profession of a mathematical instrument maker,

and settled as such at Glasgow in 1757, began a few years

later to give his thoughts to this subject. "Directing his

attention first, with all his profound physical and

mathematical knowledge, to the various theoretical points

involved in the working of the machine, 'he determined,' says

M. Arago, 'the extent to which the water dilated in passing

from its liquid state into that of steam. He calculated the

quantity of water which a given weight of coal could

vaporise—the quantity of steam, in weight, which each stroke

of one of Newcomen's machines of known dimensions expended—the

quantity of cold water which required to be injected into the

cylinder, to give the descending stroke of the piston a

certain force—and finally, the elasticity of steam at

different temperatures. All these investigations would have

occupied the lifetime of a laborious philosopher; whilst Watt

brought all his numerous and difficult researches to a

conclusion, with·out allowing them to interfere with the

labours of his workshop.' … Newcomen's machine laboured under

very great defects. In the first place, the jet of cold water

into the cylinder was a very imperfect means of condensing the

steam. The cylinder, heated before, not being thoroughly

cooled by it, a quantity of steam remained uncondensed, and,

by its elasticity, impeded the descent of the piston,

lessening the power of the stroke. Again, when the steam

rushed into the cylinder from the boiler, it found the

cylinder cold, in consequence of the water which had recently

been thrown in; and thus a considerable quantity of steam was

immediately condensed and wasted while the rest did not attain

its full elasticity till the cylinder became again heated up

to 212 degrees. These two defects … were sources of great

expense. … Watt remedied the evil by a simple but beautiful

contrivance—his separate condenser. The whole efficacy of this

contrivance consisted in his making the condensation of the

steam take place, not in the cylinder, but in a separate

vessel communicating with the cylinder by a tube provided with

a stop-cock. … So far the invention was all that could be

desired; an additional contrivance was necessary, however, to

render it complete.

{3029}

The steam in the act of being condensed in the separate vessel

would give out its latent heat; this would raise the

temperature of the condensing water, from the heated water

vapour would rise; and this vapour, in addition to the

atmospheric air which would be disengaged from the injected

water by the heat, would accumulate in the condenser, and

spoil its efficiency. In order to overcome this defect, Watt

attached to the bottom of the condenser a common air-pump,

called the condenser pump, worked by a piston attached to the

beam, and which, at every stroke of the engine, withdrew the

accumulated water, air, and vapour. This was a slight tax upon

the power of the machine, but the total gain was

enormous—equivalent to making one pound of coal do as much

work as had been done by five pounds in Newcomen's engine.

This, certainly, was a triumph; but Watt's improvements did

not stop here. In the old engine, the cylinder was open at the

top, and the descent of the piston was caused solely by the

pressure of the atmosphere on its upper surface. Hence the

name of Atmospheric Engine, which was always applied to

Newcomen's machine." Watt constructed his engine with the

cylinder, closed at both ends, sliding the rod of the piston

through a tightly packed hole in the metallic cover,

introducing steam both above and below the piston,—but still

using its expansive power only in the upper chamber, while in

the lower it was employed as before to create a vacuum. "The

engine with this improvement Watt named the Modified Engine;

it was, however, properly, the first real steam engine; for in

it, for the first time, steam, besides serving to produce the

vacuum, acted as the moving force. … Another improvement less

striking in appearance, but of value in economising the

consumption of fuel, was the enclosing of the cylinder in a

jacket or external drum of wood, leaving a space between which

could be filled with steam. By this means the air was

prevented from acting on the outside of the cylinder so as to

cool it. A slight modification was also necessary in the mode

of keeping the piston air-tight. … The purpose was … effected

by the use of a preparation of wax, tallow, and oil, smeared

on the piston-rod and round the piston-rim. The improvements

which we have described had all been thoroughly matured by Mr.

Watt before the end of 1765, two years after his attention had

been called to the subject." Another two years had passed

before he found the means to introduce his invention into

practice. He formed a partnership at length with Dr. Roebuck,

who had lately founded the Carron iron-works, near Glasgow. "A

patent was taken out by the partners in 1769, and an engine of

the new construction, with an eighteen-inch cylinder, was

erected at the Kinneil coal-works [leased by Dr. Roebuck],

with every prospect of complete success; when, unfortunately,

Dr. Roebuck was obliged by pecuniary embarrassments to

dissolve the partnership, leaving Watt with the whole patent,

but without the means of rendering it available." For five

years after this failure the steam-engine was practically put

aside, while Watt devoted himself to civil engineering, which

he had worked into as a profession. "At length, in 1774, Mr.

Watt entered into a partnership most fortunate for himself and

for the world. This was with Mr. Matthew Boulton, of the Soho

Foundry, near Birmingham—a gentleman of remarkable scientific

abilities, of liberal disposition and of unbounded

enterprise." A prolongation of Watt's patent, which had nearly

expired, was procured with great difficulty from Parliament,

where a powerful opposition to the extension was led by Edmund

Burke. The new engine, now fairly introduced, speedily

supplanted Newcomen's, and Watt and his partner were made

wealthy by stipulating with mine owners for one third part of

the value of the coal which each engine saved. "The first

consequence of the introduction of Watt's improved

steam-engine into practice was to give an impulse to mining

speculations. New mines were opened; and old mines … now

yielded a return. This was the only obvious consequence at

first. Only in mines, and generally for the purpose of pumping

water was the steam-engine yet used; and before it could be

rendered applicable to other purposes in the arts … the genius

of Watt required once again to stoop over it, and bestow on it

new creative touches." He produced the beautiful device known

as the "parallel motion," for connecting the piston-rod of the

engine with the beam through which its motion is transmitted

to other pieces of machinery. "Another improvement, which, in

point of the additional power gained, was more important than

the parallel motion, and which indeed preceded it in point of

time, was the 'Double-acting Engine,'" in which steam was

introduced to act expansively on each side of the piston in

the engine. He also invented the governor, to regulate the

quantity of steam admitted from the boiler into the cylinder,

and thus regulate the motion of the engine. "To describe all

the other inventions of a minor kind connected with the

steam-engine which came from the prolific genius of Watt,

would occupy too much space."

Life of James Watt

(Chambers's Miscellany, volume 17).

"The Watt engine had, by the construction of the improvements

described in the patents of 1782-'85, been given its

distinctive form, and the great inventor subsequently did

little more than improve it by altering the forms and

proportions of its details. As thus practically completed, it

embodied nearly all the essential features of the modern

engine. … The growth of the steam-engine has here ceased to be

rapid, and the changes which followed the completion of the

work of James Watt have been minor improvements, and rarely,

if ever, real developments."

R. H. Thurston,

History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

S. Smiles,

Lives of Boulton and Watt,

chapters 5-17.

J. P. Muirhead,

Life of James Watt.

J. P. Muirhead,

Origin and Progress of the Mechanical Inventions

of James Watt.

----------STEAM ENGINE: End--------

STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

The beginning of Railroads.

"The application of the steam engine to locomotion on land

was, according to Watt, suggested by Robison, in 1759. In

1784, Watt patented a locomotive engine, which, however, he

never executed. About the same time Murdoch, assistant to

Watt, made a very efficient working model of a locomotive

engine. In 1802, Trevithick and Vivian patented a locomotive

engine, which was constructed and set to work in 1804 or 1805.

It travelled at about five miles an hour, with a net load of

ten tons. The use of fixed steam engines to drag trains on

railways by ropes, was introduced by Cook in 1808.

{3030}

After various inventors had long exerted their ingenuity in

vain to give the locomotive engine a firm hold of the track by

means of rackwork-rails and toothed driving wheels, legs, and

feet, and other contrivances. Blackett and Hedley, in 1813,

made the important discovery that no such aids are required,

the adhesion between smooth wheels and smooth rails being

sufficient. To adapt the locomotive engine to the great and

widely varied speeds at which it now has to travel, and the

varied loads which it now has to draw, two things are

essential—that the rate of combustion of the fuel, the

original source of the power of the engine, shall adjust

itself to the work which the engine has to perform, and shall,

when required, be capable of being increased to many times the

rate at which fuel is burned in the furnace of a stationary

engine of the same size; and that the surface through which

heat is communicated from the burning fuel to the water shall

be very large compared with the bulk of the boiler. The first

of these objects is attained by the 'blast-pipe,' invented and

used by George Stephenson before 1825; the second, by the

tubular boiler, invented about 1829, simultaneously by Seguin

in France and Booth in England, and by the latter suggested to

Stephenson. On the 6th October, 1829, occurred that famous

trial of locomotive engines, when the prize offered by the

directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was gained

by Stephenson's engine, the 'Rocket,' the parent of the swift

and powerful locomotives of the present day, in which the

blast-pipe and tubular boiler are combined."

W. J. M. Rankine,

Manual of the Steam Engine,

pages xxv-xxvii.

George Stephenson, the son of a common workingman, and

self-educated as a mechanic and engineer, was appointed

engine-wright of Killingworth Colliery in 1812. In the

following year he urged the lessees of the colliery to

undertake the construction of a "travelling engine," as he

called it. "Lord Ravensworth, the principal partner, had

already formed a very favourable opinion of Stephenson, from

the important improvements which he had effected in the

colliery engines, both above and below ground; and, after

considering the matter, and hearing Stephenson's statements,

he authorized him to proceed with the construction of a

locomotive. … The engine was built in the workshops at the

West Moor, the leading mechanic being John Thirlwall, the

colliery blacksmith, an excellent workman in his way, though

quite new to the work now entrusted to him. … The wheels of

the new locomotive were all smooth,—and it was the first

engine that had been so constructed. From the first, Mr.

Stephenson was convinced that the adhesion between a smooth

wheel and an edgerail would be as efficient as Mr. Blackett

had proved it to be between the wheel and the tramroad. … The

engine was, after much labour and anxiety, and frequent

alterations of parts, at length brought to completion, having

been about ten months in hand. It was first placed upon the

Killingworth Railway on the 25th of July, 1814; and its powers

were tried on the same day. On an ascending gradient of 1 in

450, the engine succeeded in drawing after it eight loaded

carriages of 30 tons' weight at about four miles an hour; and

for some time after, it continued regularly at work. It was

indeed the most successful working engine that had yet been

constructed. … The working of the engine was at first barely

economical; and at the end of the year the steam power and the

horse power were ascertained to be as nearly as possible upon

a par in point of cost. The fate of the locomotive in a great

measure depended on this very engine. Its speed was not beyond

that of a horse's walk, and the heating surface presented to

the fire being comparatively small, sufficient steam could not

be raised to enable it to accomplish more on an average than

about three miles an hour. The result was anything but

decisive; and the locomotive might have been condemned as

useless had not Mr. Stephenson at this juncture applied the

steam blast [carrying the escape of steam from the cylinders

of the engine into the chimney or smoke-stack of the furnace],

and at once more than doubled the power of the engine." A

second engine, embodying this and other improvements, was

constructed in 1815, with funds provided by Mr. Ralph Dodds.

"It is perhaps not too much to say that this engine, as a

mechanical contrivance, contained the germ of all that has

since been effected. … It is somewhat remarkable that,

although George Stephenson's locomotive engines were in daily

use for many years on the Killingworth railway, they excited

comparatively little interest." But in 1821, Mr. Stephenson

was employed to construct a line of railway from Witton

Colliery, near Darlington, to Stockton, and to build three

locomotives for use upon it. The Stockton and Darlington line

was opened for traffic on the 27th of September, 1825, with

great success. In 1826 the building of the Liverpool and

Manchester Railway was begun, with George Stephenson as the

chief engineer of the work, and the public opening of the line

took place on the 15th of September, 1830. The directors had

offered, in the previous year, a prize of £500 for the best

locomotive engine to be designed for use on their road, and

the prize was won by Stephenson's famous "Rocket," which

attained a speed of 35 miles an hour. It was at the ceremonial

of the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway that

Mr. Huskisson, then Prime Minister of England, was struck down

by the "Rocket" and fatally injured, expiring the same night.

S. Smiles,

Life of George Stephenson,

chapters 9-24.

"Whatever credit is due to the construction of the first

railroad ever built in America is usually claimed for the

State of Massachusetts. Every one who has ever looked into a

school history of the United States knows something of the

Quincy railway of 1826. Properly speaking, however, this was

never—or at least, never until the year 1871,—a railroad at

all. It was nothing but a specimen of what had been almost

from time immemorial in common use in England, under the name

of 'tram-ways.' … This road, known as the Granite railway,

built by those interested in erecting the Bunker Hill

Monument, for the purpose of getting the stone down from the

Quincy quarries to a wharf on Neponset River, from which it

was shipped to its destination. The whole distance was three

miles, and the cost of the road was about $34,000. … Apart,

however, from the construction of the Granite railway,

Massachusetts was neither particularly early nor particularly

energetic in its railroad development. At a later day many of

her sister States were in advance of her, and especially was

this true of South Carolina.

{3031}

There is, indeed, some reason for believing that the South

Carolina Railroad was the first ever constructed in any

country with a definite plan of operating it exclusively by

locomotive steam power. … On the 15th of January 1831,—exactly

four months after the formal opening of the Manchester &

Liverpool road,—the first anniversary of the South Carolina

Railroad was celebrated with due honor. A queer looking

machine, the outline of which was sufficient in itself to

prove that the inventor owed nothing to Stephenson, had been

constructed at the West Point Foundry Works in New York during

the summer of 1830—a first attempt to supply that locomotive

which the Board had, with a sublime confidence in

possibilities, unanimously voted on the 14th of the preceding

January should alone be used on the road. The name of Best

Friend was given to this very simple product of native genius.

… In June, 1831, a second locomotive, called the West Point,

had arrived in Charleston; and this at last was constructed on

the principle of Stephenson's Rocket. In its general aspect,

indeed, it greatly resembled that already famous prototype.

There is a very characteristic and suggestive cut representing

a trial trip made with this locomotive on March 5th, 1831. …

About six months before …there had actually been a trial of

speed between a horse and one of the pioneer locomotives,

which had not resulted in favor of the locomotive. It took

place on the present Baltimore & Ohio road upon the 28th of

August, 1830. The engine in this case was contrived by no

other than Mr. Peter Cooper. … The Cooper engine, however, was

scarcely more than a working model. Its active-minded inventor

hardly seems to have aimed at anything more than a

demonstration of possibilities. The whole thing weighed only a

ton, and was of one horse power. … Poor and crude as the

country was, however, America showed itself far more ready to

take in the far reaching consequences of the initiative which

Great Britain gave in 1830 than any other country in the

world. … It might almost be said that there was a railroad

mania. Massachusetts led off in 1826; Pennsylvania followed in

1827, and in 1828 Maryland and South Carolina. Of the great

trunk lines of the country, a portion of the New York Central

was chartered in 1825; the construction of the Baltimore &

Ohio was begun on July 4th, 1828. The country, therefore, was

not only ripe to accept the results of the Rainhill contest,

but it was anticipating them with eager hope. … Accordingly,

after 1830 trial trips with new locomotives followed hard upon

each other. To-day it was the sensation in Charleston;

to-morrow in Baltimore; the next day at Albany. Reference has

already been made to a cut representing the excursion train of

March 5th, 1831, on the South Carolina Railroad. There is,

however, a much more familiar picture of a similar trip made

on the 9th of August of the same year from Albany to

Schenectady, over the Mohawk Valley road. This sketch,

moreover, was made at the time and on the spot by Mr. W. H.

Brown."

C. F. Adams, Jr.,

Railroads: Their Origin and Problems,

chapter 1.

----------STEAM NAVIGATION: Start--------

STEAM NAVIGATION, The beginnings.

"The earliest attempt to propel a vessel by steam is claimed

by Spanish authorities … to have been made by Blasco de Garay,

in the harbor of Barcelona, Spain, in 1543. … The account

seems somewhat apochryphal, and it certainly led to no useful

results. … In 1690, Papin proposed to use his piston-engine to

drive paddle-wheels to propel vessels; and in 1707 he applied

the steam-engine, which he had proposed as a pumping-engine,

to driving a model boat on the Fulda at Cassel. …

See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS, &c.

In the year 1736, Jonathan Hulls took out an English patent

for, the use of a steam-engine for ship-propulsion, proposing

to employ his steamboat in towing. … There is no positive

evidence that Hull! ever put his scheme to the test of

experiment, although tradition does say that he made a model,

which he tried with such ill-success as to prevent his

prosecution of the experiment further. … A prize was awarded

by the French Academy of Science, in 1752, for the best essay

on the manner of impelling vessels without wind. It was given

to Bernouilli, who, in his paper, proposed a set of vanes like

those of a windmill —a screw in fact—one to be placed on each

side the vessel and two more behind. … But a more remarkable

essay is quoted by Figuier—the paper of l' Abbé Gauthier,

published in the 'Memoires de la Société Royale des Sciences

et Lettres de Nancy.' … A little later (1760), a Swiss

clergyman, J. A. Genevois, published in London a paper

relating to the improvement of navigation, in which his plan

was proposed of compressing springs by steam or other power,

and applying their effort while recovering their form to ship

propulsion. It was at this time that the first attempts were

made in the United States to solve this problem. … William

Henry was a prominent citizen of the then little village of

Lancaster, Pa., and was noted as an ingenious and successful

mechanic. … In the year 1760 he went to England on business,

where his attention was attracted to the invention—then new,

and the subject of discussion in every circle—of James Watt.

He saw the possibility of its application to navigation and to

driving carriages, and, on his return home, commenced the

construction of a steam-engine, and finished it in 1763.

Placing it in a boat fitted with paddle-wheels, he made a

trial of the new machine on the Conestoga River, near

Lancaster, where the craft, by some accident, sank, and was

lost. He was not discouraged by this failure, but made a

second model, adding some improvements. Among the records of

the Pennsylvania Philosophical Society is, or was, a design,

presented by Henry in 1782, of one of his steamboats. … John

Fitch, whose experiments will presently be referred to, was an

acquaintance and frequent visitor to the house of Mr. Henry,

and may probably have there received the earliest suggestions

of the importance of this application of steam. About 1777 …

Robert Fulton, then twelve years old, visited him, to study

the paintings of Benjamin West, who had long been a friend and

protege of Henry. He, too, not improbably, received there the

first suggestion which afterward … made the young

portrait-painter a successful inventor and engineer. … In

France, the Marquis de Jouffroy was one of the earliest to

perceive that the improvements of Watt, rendering the engine

more compact, more powerful, and, at the same time, more

regular and positive in its action, had made it, at last,

readily applicable to the propulsion of vessels. …

{3032}

Comte d' Auxiron and Chevalier Charles Mounin, of Follenai,

friends and companions of Jouffroy, were similarly interested,

and the three are said to have … united in devising methods of

applying the new motor. In the year 1770, D'Auxiron determined

to attempt the realization of the plans which he had

conceived. He resigned his position in the army," obtained

from the King a patent of monopoly for fifteen years, and

formed a company for the undertaking. "The first vessel was

commenced in December, 1772. When nearly completed, in

September, 1774, the boat sprung a leak, and, one night,

foundered at the wharf." Quarrels and litigation ensued,

D'Auxiron died, and the company dissolved. "The heirs of

D'Auxiron turned the papers of the deceased inventor over to

Jouffroy, and the King transferred to him the monopoly held by

the former. … M. Jacques Périer, the then distinguished

mechanic, was consulted, and prepared plans, which were

adopted in place of those of Jouffroy. The boat was built by

Périer, and a trial took place in 1774 [1775] on the Seine.

The result was unsatisfactory." Jouffroy was still

undiscouraged, and pursued experiments for several years, at

his country home and at Lyons, until he had impoverished

himself and was forced to abandon the field. "About 1785, John

Fitch and James Rumsey were engaged in experiments having in

view the application of steam to navigation. Rumsey's

experiments began in 1774, and in 1786 he succeeded in driving

a boat at the rate of four miles an hour against the current

of the Potomac at Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in presence of

General Washington. His method of propulsion has often been

reinvented since. … Rumsey employed his engine to drive a

great pump which forced a stream of water aft, thus propelling

the boat forward, as proposed earlier by Bernouilli. … Rumsey

died of apoplexy, while explaining some of his schemes before

a London society a short time later, December 23, 1793, at the

age of 50 years. A boat, then in process of construction from

his plans, was afterward tried on the Thames, in 1793, and

steamed at the rate of four miles an hour. … John Fitch was an

unfortunate and eccentric, but very ingenious, Connecticut

mechanic. After roaming about until 40 years of age, he

finally settled on the banks of the Delaware, where he built

his first steamboat. … The machinery [of Fitch's first model]

was made of brass, and the boat was impelled by paddle-wheels.

… In September, 1785, Fitch presented to the American

Philosophical Society, at Philadelphia, a model in which he

had substituted an endless chain and floats for the

paddle-wheels." His first actual steamboat, however, which he

tried at Philadelphia in August, 1787, before the members of

the Federal Constitutional Convention, was fitted with neither

paddle-wheels nor floats, but with a set of oars or paddles on

each side, worked by the engine. His second boat, finished in

1788, was similarly worked, but the oars were placed at the

stern. This boat made a trip to Burlington, 20 miles from

Philadelphia. "Subsequently the boat made a number of

excursions on the Delaware River, making three or four miles

an hour. Another of Fitch's boats, in April, 1790, made seven

miles an hour. … In June of that year it was placed as a

passenger-boat on a line from Philadelphia to Burlington,

Bristol, Bordentown, and Trenton. … During this period, the

boat probably ran between 2,000 and 3,000 miles, and with no

serious accident. During the winter of 1790-'91, Fitch

commenced another steamboat, the 'Perseverance,'" which was

never finished. Although he obtained a patent from the United

States, he despaired of success in this country, and went, in

1793, to France, where he fared no better. "In the year 1796,

Fitch was again in New York City, experimenting with a little

screw steamboat on the 'Collect' Pond, which then covered that

part of the city now occupied by the 'Tombs,' the city prison.

This little boat was a ship's yawl fitted with a screw, like

that adopted later by Woodcroft, and driven by a rudely made

engine. Fitch, while in the city of Philadelphia at about this

time, met Oliver Evans, and discussed with him the probable

future of steam-navigation, and proposed to form a company in

the West." Soon afterwards, he settled on a land-grant in

Kentucky, where he died in 1798: "During this period, an

interest which had never diminished in Great Britain had led

to the introduction of experimental steamboats in that

country. Patrick Miller, of Dalswinton, had commenced

experimenting, in 1786-'87, with boats having double or triple

hulls, and propelled by paddle-wheels placed between the parts

of the compound vessel." On the suggestion of James Taylor, he

placed a steam-engine in a boat constructed upon this plan, in

1788, and attained a speed of five miles an hour. The next

year, with a larger vessel, he made seven miles an hour. But

for some reason, he pursued his undertaking no further. "In

the United States, several mechanics were now at work besides

Fitch. Samuel Morey and Nathan Read were among these. Nicholas

Roosevelt was another. … In Great Britain, Lord Dundas and

William Symington, the former as the purveyor of funds and the

latter as engineer, followed by Henry Bell, were the first to

make the introduction of the steam-engine for the propulsion

of ships so completely successful that no interruption

subsequently took place in the growth of the new system of

water-transportation. … Symington commenced work in 1801. The

first boat built for Lord Dundas, which has been claimed to

have been the 'first practical steamboat,' was finished ready

for trial early in 1802. The vessel was called the 'Charlotte

Dundas,' in honor of a daughter of Lord Dundas. … Among those

who saw the Charlotte Dundas, and who appreciated the

importance of the success achieved by Symington, was Henry

Bell, who, 10 years afterward, constructed the Comet, the

first passenger-vessel built in Europe. This vessel was built

in 1811, and completed January 18, 1812. … Bell constructed

several other boats in 1815, and with his success

steam-navigation in Great Britain was fairly inaugurated."

Meantime this practical success had been anticipated by a few

years in the United States, through the labors and exertions

of Stevens, Livingston, Fulton, and Roosevelt. Fulton's and

Livingston's first experiments were made in France (1803),

where the latter was Ambassador from the United States. Three

years later they renewed them in America, using an engine

ordered for the purpose from Boulton & Watt. "In the spring of

1807 the 'Clermont,' as the new boat was christened, was

launched from the ship-yard of Charles Brown, on the East

River, New York. In August the machinery was on board and in

successful operation.

{3033}

The hull of this boat was 133 feet long, 18 feet wide, and 9

deep. The boat soon made a trip to Albany, running the

distance of 150 miles in 32 hours running time, and returning

in 30 hours. … This was the first voyage of considerable

length ever made by a steam vessel; and Fulton, though not to

be classed with James Watt as an inventor, is entitled to the

great honor of having been the first to make steam-navigation

an everyday commercial success. … The success of the Clermont

on the trial-trip was such that Fulton soon after advertised

the vessel as a regular passenger-boat between New York and

Albany. During the next winter the Clermont was repaired and

enlarged, and in the summer of 1808 was again on the route to

Albany; and, meantime, two new steamboats—the Raritan and the

Car of Neptune—had been built by Fulton. In the year 1811 he

built the Paragon. … A steam ferry-boat was built to ply

between New York and Jersey City in 1812, and the next year

two others, to connect the metropolis with Brooklyn. … Fulton

had some active and enterprising rivals." The prize gained by

him "was most closely contested by Colonel John Stevens, of

Hoboken," who built his first steamboat in 1804, propelling it

by a screw with four blades, and his second in 1807, with two

screws. He was shut out from New York waters by a monopoly

which Fulton and Livingston had procured, and sent his little

ship by sea to Philadelphia. "After Fulton and Stevens had

thus led the way, steam-navigation was introduced very rapidly

on both sides of the ocean." Nicholas J. Roosevelt, at

Pittsburgh, in 1811, built, from Fulton's plans, the first

steamer on the western rivers, and took her to New Orleans.

"The first steamer on the Great Lakes was the Ontario, built

in 1816, at Sackett's Harbor."

R. H. Thurston,

History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

R. H. Thurston,

Robert Fulton.

C. D. Colden,

Life of Robert Fulton.

T. Westcott,

Life of John Fitch.

STEAM NAVIGATION:

On the Ocean.

"In 1819 the Atlantic was first crossed by a ship using steam.

This was the Savannah, of 380 tons, launched at Corlear's

Hook, New York, August 22, 1818. She was built to ply between

New York and Savannah as a sailing packet. She was however,

purchased by Savannah merchants [by a Mr. Scarborough] and

fitted with steam machinery, the paddle-wheels being

constructed to fold up and be laid upon the deck when not in

use, her shaft also having a joint for that purpose. She left

Savannah on the 26th of May, and reached Liverpool in 25 days,

using steam 18 days. The log book, still preserved, notes

several times taking the wheels in on deck in thirty minutes.

In August she left Liverpool for Cronstadt. An effort was made

to sell her to Russia, which failed. She sailed for Savannah,

touching at Copenhagen and Arendal, and arrived in 53 days.

Her machinery later was taken out, and she resumed her

original character as a sailing packet, and ended her days by

being wrecked on the south coast of Long Island. But

steam-power had by 1830 grown large enough to strike out more

boldly. The Savannah's effort was an attempt in which steam

was only an auxiliary, and one, too, of a not very powerful

kind. Our coastwise steamers, as well as those employed in

Great Britain, as also the voyage of the Enterprise to

Calcutta in 1825 (though she took 113 days in doing it), had

settled the possibility of the use of steam at sea, and the

question had now become whether a ship could be built to cross

the Atlantic depending entirely on her steam power. It had

become wholly a question of fuel consumption. The Savannah, it

may be said, used pitch-pine on her outward voyage, and wood

was for a very long time the chief fuel for steaming purposes

in America. … In 1836, under the influence of Brunel's bold

genius, the Great Western Steamship Company was founded as an

off-shoot of the Great Western Railway, whose terminus was

then Bristol." The Company's first ship was the Great Western.

She was of unprecedented size—236 feet length and 35 feet 4

inches breadth—"determined on by Brunei as being necessary for

the requisite power and coal carrying capacity. … The Great

Western was launched on July 19, 1837, and was towed from

Bristol to the Thames to receive her machinery, where she was

the wonder of London. She left for Bristol on March 31, 1838;

and arrived, after having had a serious fire on board, on

April 2d. In the meantime others had been struck with the

possibility of steaming to New York; and a company, of which

the moving spirit was Mr. J. Laird, of Birkenhead, purchased

the Sirius, of 700 tons, employed between London and Cork, and

prepared her for a voyage to New York. The completion of the

Great Western was consequently hastened; and she left Bristol

on Sunday, April 8, 1838, at 10 A. M. with 7 passengers on

board, and reached New York on Monday, the 23d, the afternoon

of the same day with the Sirius, which had left Cork Harbor

(where she had touched en route from London) four days before

the Great Western had left Bristol. The latter still had

nearly 200 tons of coal, of the total of 800, on board on

arrival; the Sirius had consumed her whole supply, and was

barely able to make harbor. It is needless to speak of the

reception of these two ships at New York. It was an event

which stirred the whole country, and with reason; it had

practically, at one stroke, reduced the breadth of the

Atlantic by half. … The Great Western started on her return

voyage, May 7th, with 66 passengers. This was made in 14 days,

though one was lost by a stoppage at sea." Within a few years

following several steamers were placed in the transatlantic

trade, among them the Royal William, the British Queen, the

President, the Liverpool, and the Great Britain, the latter a

screw steamer, built of iron and put afloat by the Great

Western Company. In 1840 the long famous Cunard line was

founded by Mr. Samuel Cunard, of Halifax, Nova Scotia, in

company with Mr. George Burns of Glasgow and Mr. David McIver

of Liverpool. The screw propeller (taking the place of the

paddle-wheel), which made its first appearance in ocean

navigation with the Great Britain, obtained its practical

introduction through the labors of the great Swedish engineer,

John Ericsson, though an idea of it had been in the minds of

many inventors for a century and a half. Ericsson, induced by

Francis B. Ogden and Captain Robert F. Stockton, United States

Navy, came to the United States in 1839, and the introduction

of the screw-propeller occurred rapidly after that date, the

paddle-wheel disappearing from ocean steamships first, and

more slowly from the steamers engaged in lake and river

navigation.

F. E. Chadwick,

The Development of the Steamship

("Ocean Steamships," chapter 1).

ALSO IN:

A. J. Maginnis,

The Atlantic Ferry,

chapters 1-2.

R. H. Thurston,

History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,

chapter 5.

W. C. Church,

Life of Ericsson,

chapters 6-10 (volume 1).

{3034}

STEDMAN, FORT, The capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

STEEL BOYS.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

STEEL YARD, The Association of the.

See HANSA TOWNS.

STEENWYK: Siege and relief (1581).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

STEIN, Prussian reform measures of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST);

1807-1808; and 1808.

STEINKIRK, OR STEENKERKE, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1692.

STELA, OR STELE.

"This is one of the words most frequently used in Egyptian

archæology, because it designates a monument which is found in

hundreds. The stela is a rectangular fiat stone generally

rounded at the summit, and it was made use of by the Egyptians

for all sorts of inscriptions. These stelæ were, generally

speaking, used for epitaphs; they also served, however, to

transcribe texts which were to be preserved or exhibited to

the public, and in this latter case the stela became a sort of

monumental placard."

A. Mariette,

Monuments of Upper Egypt,

page 29, foot-note.

STENAY: A. D. 1654.

Siege and capture by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

STENAY: A. D. 1659.

Ceded to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

STEPHANUS, OR ESTIENNE,

Robert and Henry, The Press of.

See PRINTING &c.: A. D. 1496-1598.

STEPHEN

(of Blois), King of England, A. D. 1135-1154.

Stephen I., Pope, A. D. 752, March.

Stephen I. (called Saint), King of Hungary, 997-1038.

Stephen II., Pope, 752-757.

Stephen II., King of Hungary, 1114-1131.

Stephen III., Pope, 768-772.

Stephen III. and IV. (in rivalry),

Kings of Hungary, 1161-1173.

Stephen IV., Pope, 816-817.

Stephen V., Pope, 885-891.

Stephen V., King of Hungary, 1270-1272.

Stephen VI., Pope, 896-897.

Stephen VII., Pope, 929-931.

Stephen VIII., Pope, 939-942.

Stephen IX., Pope, 1057-1058.

Stephen Batory, King of Poland, 1575-1586.

Stephen Dushan, The Empire of.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356.

STEPHENS, Alexander H.

Opposition to Secession.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

Election to the Vice-Presidency of the rebellious

"Confederate States."

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).

The Hampton Roads Peace Conference.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY).

STEPHENSON, George, and the beginning of railroads.

See STEAM LOCOMOTION.

STETTIN: A. D. 1630.

Occupied by Gustavus Adolphus and his Swedes.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631.

STETTIN: A. D. 1648.

Cession to Sweden in the Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

STETTIN: A. D. 1677.

Siege and capture by the Elector of Brandenburg.

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

STETTIN: A. D. 1720.

Cession by Sweden to Prussia.

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

STEUBEN, Baron,

in the Virginia campaign of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1780-1781; 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).

STEVENS, Thaddeus, and the Reconstruction Committee.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-APRIL), to 1868-1870.

STEWART, Captain Charles, and the frigate Constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814.

STEWART DYNASTY, The.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370;

and ENGLAND: A. D. 1603, to 1688.

STILICHO, Ministry of.

See ROME: A. D. 394-395, to 404-408.

STILLWATER, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

STIRLING, Earl of, The American grant to.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

STIRLING, General Lord, and the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

STIRLING, Wallace's victory at (1297).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

STIRLING CASTLE, Sieges of.

Stirling Castle was taken in 1303 by Edward I. of England,

after a three months' siege, which he conducted in person and

which he looked upon as his proudest military achievement.

Eleven years later, in 1314, it was besieged and recaptured by

the Scots, under Edward Bruce, and it was in a desperate

attempt of the English to relieve the castle at that time that

the battle of Bannockburn was fought.

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapters 22-23 (volume 2).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314.

STOA, The.

"We have repeatedly mentioned the stoa or colonnade in

connection with other buildings; we now have to consider it as

a separate artistic erection [in ancient Greek cities]. … The

stoa, as an independent building, occurs both as an ornament

of streets and squares, and as a convenient locality for walks

and public meetings. Its simplest form is that of a colonnade

bounded by a wall. This back wall offers a splendid surface

for decorations, and is frequently adorned with pictures. A

stoa in the market-place of Athens contained illustrations of

the battle of Œnoë, of the fight of the Athenians against the

Amazons, of the destruction of Troy and of the battle of

Marathon. … The progress from this simple form to a further

extension is on a principle somewhat analogous to what we have

observed in the temple; that is, a row of columns was added on

the other side of the wall. The result was a double colonnade,

… as a specimen of which, Pausanias mentions the Korkyraic

stoa near the market place of Elis. As important we notice

Pausanias's remark that this stoa 'contained in the middle,

not columns, but a wall'; which shows that most of the double

colonnades contained columns in the centre as props of the

roof."

E. Guhl and W. Koner,

Life of the Greeks and Romans,

part 1, section 27.

{3035}

STOCKACH, Battle of (1799).

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

STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS.

STOCKHOLM: A. D. 1471.

Battle of the Brunkeberg.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

STOCKHOLM: A. D. 1521-1523.

Siege by Gustavus Vasa.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

STOCKHOLM: A. D. 1612.

Attacked by the Danes.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

STOCKHOLM, Treaty of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

STOCKTON AND DARLINGTON RAIL WAY.

See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

STOLA, The.

"The Roman ladies wore, by way of under garment, a long tunic

descending to the feet, and more particularly denominated

'stola.' This vestment assumed all the variety of modification

displayed in the corresponding attire of the Grecian females.

Over the stola, they also adopted the Grecian peplum, under

the name of palla."

T. Hope,

Costume of the Ancients,

volume 1, page 38.

STOLHOFEN, The breaking of the lines of (1707).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1706-1711.

STONE AGE.

BRONZE AGE.

IRON AGE.

"Human relics of great antiquity occur, more or less

abundantly, in many parts of Europe. … The antiquities

referred to are of many kinds—dwelling-places, sepulchral and

other monuments, forts and camps, and a great harvest of

implements and ornaments of stone and metal. In seeking to

classify these relics and remains according to their relative

antiquity, archæologists have selected the implements and

ornaments as affording the most satisfactory basis for such an

arrangement, and they divide prehistoric time into three

periods, which are termed respectively the Stone Age, the

Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Of these periods the earliest

was the Stone Age, when implements and ornaments were formed

exclusively of stone, wood, horn, and bone. The use of metal

for such purposes was then quite unknown. To the Stone Age

succeeded the Age of Bronze, at which time cutting

instruments, such as swords and knives and axes, began to be

made of copper, and an alloy of that metal and tin. When in

the course of time iron replaced bronze for

cutting-instruments, the Bronze Age came to an end and the

Iron Age supervened. … The archæological periods are simply so

many phases of civilisation, and it is conceivable that Stone,

Bronze, and Iron Ages might have been contemporaneous in

different parts of one and the same continent. … It has been

found necessary within recent years to subdivide the Stone Age

into two periods, called respectively the Old Stone and New

Stone Ages; or, to employ the terms suggested by Sir John

Lubbock, and now generally adopted, the Palæolithic and

Neolithic Periods. The stone implements belonging to the older

of these periods show but little variety of form, and are very

rudely fashioned, being merely roughly chipped into shape, and

never ground or polished."

J. Geikie,

Prehistoric Europe,

pages 5-11.

STONE OF DESTINY, The.

See LIA-FAIL.

STONE RIVER, OR MURFREESBOROUGH, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

STONE STREET.

An old Roman road which runs from London to Chichester.

STONEHENGE.

See ABURY.

STONEMAN'S RAID.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).

STONEY CREEK, The Surprise at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1813 (APRIL-JULY).

STONINGTON, Bombardment of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814.

STONY POINT, The storming of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

STORTHING, The.

See THING;

also SCANDINAVIAN STATES (NORWAY): A. D. 1814-1815;

and CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

STORY, Judge, and his judicial services.

See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1812.

STRAFFORD (Wentworth, Earl of) and Charles I.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637, 1640, and 1640-1641;

also, IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.

STRALSUND: The founding of the city.

See HANSA TOWNS.

STRALSUND: A. D. 1628.

Unsuccessful siege by Wallenstein.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

STRALSUND: A. D. 1678.

Siege and capture by the Elector of Brandenburg.

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

STRALSUND: A. D. 1715.

Siege and capture by the Danes and Prussians.

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

STRALSUND: A. D. 1720.

Restoration by Denmark to Sweden.

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

STRALSUND: A. D. 1809.

Occupied by the Patriot Schill.

Stormed and captured by the French.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).

----------STRASBURG: Start--------

STRASBURG: A. D. 357.

Julian's victory.

The most serious battle in Julian's campaigns against the

Alemanni was fought in August, A. D. 357, at Strasburg (then a

Roman post called Argentoratum) where Chnodomar had crossed

the Rhine with 35,000 warriors. The result was a great victory

for the Romans.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 19.

See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

STRASBURG: A. D. 842.

The Oaths.

During the civil wars which occurred between the grandsons of

Charlemagne, in 842, the year following the great battle at

Fontainelles, the two younger of the rivals, Karl and Ludwig,

formed an alliance against Lothaire. Karl found his support in

Aquitaine and Neustria; Ludwig depended on the East Franks and

their German kindred. The armies of the two were assembled in

February at Strasburg (Argentaria) and a solemn oath of

friendship and fidelity was taken by the kings in the presence

of their people and repeated by the latter. The oath was

repeated in the German language, and in the Romance

language—then just acquiring form in southern Gaul,—and it has

been preserved in both. "In the Romance form of this oath, we

have the earliest monument of the tongue out of which the

modern French was formed."

P. Godwin,

History of France: Ancient Gaul,

chapter 18.

ALSO IN:

J. C. L. de Sismondi,

The French Under the Carlovingians,

translated by Bellingham,

chapter 8.

{3036}

STRASBURG: A. D. 1525.

Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

STRASBURG: A. D. 1529.

Joined in the Protest which gave rise to the name Protestants.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

STRASBURG: A. D. 1674-1675.

The passage of the Rhine given to the Germans.

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

STRASBURG: A. D. 1681.

Seizure and annexation to France.

Overthrow of the independence of the town

as an Imperial city.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

STRASBURG: A. D. 1697.

Ceded to France by the Treaty of Ryswick.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

STRASBURG: A. D. 1870.

Siege and capture by the Germans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST),

and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

STRASBURG: A. D. 1871.

Acquisition (with Alsace) by Germany.

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

----------STRASBURG: End--------

STRATEGI.

In ancient Sparta, the Strategi were military commanders

appointed for those armies which were not led by one of the

kings. At Athens, the whole direction of the military system

belonged to a board of ten Strategi.

G. Schumann, Antiquities of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapters 1 and 3.

STRATHCLYDE.

See CUMBRIA;

also, SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

STRELITZ,

STRELTZE.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1698-1704.

STRONGBOW'S CONQUEST OF IRELAND.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

STUART, General J. E. B., The Raid of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).

STUARTS, The.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370;

and ENGLAND: A. D. 1603.

STUM, Battle of (1629).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

STUNDISTS, The.

In the neighborhood of Kherson, in southern Russia, the

Stundist religious movement arose, about 1858. As its name

implies, it "had a German origin. As far back as 1778 the

great Empress Catherine had colonized Kherson with peasants

from the Suabian land, who brought with them their religion,

their pastors, and their industrious, sober ways. For many

years national prejudices and the barriers of language kept

Russians and Germans apart from each other. But sooner or

later true life begins to tell. … Some of the Russian peasants

who had been helped in their poverty or ministered to in their

sickness by their German neighbours began to attend their

services —to keep the 'stunden,' or 'hours,' of praise and

prayer; they learned to read, were furnished with the New

Testament in their own language, and eventually some of them

found the deeper blessing of eternal life. In this simple

scriptural fashion this memorable movement began. Men told

their neighbours what God had done for their souls, and so the

heavenly contagion spread from cottage to cottage, from

village to village, and from province to province, till at

length the Russian Stundists were found in all the provinces

from the boundaries of the Austrian Empire in the West to the

land of the Don Cossack in the East, and were supposed to

number something like a quarter of a million souls. … M.

Dalton, a Lutheran clergyman, long resident in St. Petersburg,

and whose knowledge of religious movements in Russia is very

considerable, goes so far as to say that they are two millions

strong. But it is not alone to the actual number of professing

Stundists that we are to look in estimating the force and

extent of the movement which they have inaugurated in Russia.

… Compared with the enormous population of the Russian Empire,

the number of Stundists, whether two millions or only a

quarter of a million, is insignificant; but the spirit of

Stundism has spread, and is still spreading into regions as

ultra-Orthodox as the heart of the most bigoted Greek

Churchman could desire, and is slowly but surely leavening the

whole mass."

J. Brown, editor,

The Stundists,

preface and chapter. 14.

STUYVESANT, Peter, The administration of.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1647-1664, to 1664.

STYRIA:

Origin, and annexation to Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

STYRIA:A. D. 1576.

Annexation of Croatia.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

STYRIA:17th Century.

Suppression of the Reformation.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

SUABIA, The Imperial House of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;

and ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1183-1250.

SUABIA AND SUABIANS, Ancient.

See SUEVI; and ALEMANNI.

SUABIAN BUND, OR LEAGUE, The.

See LANDFRIEDE, &c.;

also CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;

and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

SUABIAN CIRCLE, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519;

also, ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

SUABIAN WAR (1496-1499).

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

SUARDONES, The.

See AVIONES.

SUBLICIAN BRIDGE.

The Pons Sublicius was the single bridge in ancient Rome with

which the Tiber was originally spanned. It was built of wood,

and constructed for easy removal when an enemy threatened. No

trace of it exists.

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography,

volume 2. page 103.

SUBLIME PORTE, The.

"The figurative language of the institutes of Mahomet II.

[Sultan, A. D. 1451-1481], still employed by his Successors,

describes the state under the martial metaphor of a tent. The

Lofty Gate of the Royal Tent (where Oriental rulers of old

sate to administer justice) denotes the chief seat of

government. The Italian translation of the phrase, 'La Porta

Sublima,' has been adopted by Western nations, with slight

modifications to suit their respective languages; and by 'The

Sublime Porte' we commonly mean the Imperial Otto·man

Government. The Turkish legists and historians depict the

details of their government by imagery drawn from the same

metaphor of a royal tent. The dome of the state is supported

by four pillars. These are formed by, 1st, the Viziers; 2nd,

the Kudiaskers (judges); 3rd, the Defterdars (treasurers); and

4th, the Nischandyis (the secretaries of state). Besides

these, there are the Outer Agas, that is to say, the military

rulers; and the Inner Agas, that is to say, the rulers

employed in the court.

{3037}

There is also the order of the Ulema, or men learned in the

law. The Viziers were regarded as constituting the most

important pillar that upheld the fabric of the state. In

Mahomet II.'s time the Viziers were four in number. Their

chief, the Grand Vizier, is the highest of all officers. … The

… high legal dignitaries (who were at that time next in rank

to the Kadiaskers) were, 1st, the Kho-dya, who was the tutor

of the Sultan and the Princes Royal; 2nd, the Mufti, the

authoritative expounder of the law; and, 3rdly, the Judge of

Constantinople. … The great council of state was named the

Divan; and, in the absence of the Sultan, the Grand Vizier was

its president. … The Divan was also attended by the

Reis-Effendi, a general secretary, whose power afterwards

became more important than that of the Nis-chandyis; by the

Grand Chamberlain, and the Grand Marshal, and a train of other

officers of the court."

Sir E. S. Creasy,

History of the Ottoman Turks,

pages 96-97.

See, also, PHARAOHS.

SUB-TREASURY, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1837.

SUBURA, at Rome, The.

"Between the converging points of the Quirinal and Esquiline

hills lay the Subura, a district of ill-fame, much abused by

the poets and historians of imperial times. It was one of the

most ancient district communities ('pagi') of Rome, and gave

name to one of the four most ancient regions. Nor was it

entirely occupied by the lowest class of people, as might be

inferred from the notices of it in Martial and Horace. Julius

Cæsar is said to have lived in a small house here. … The

Subura was a noisy, bustling part of Rome, full of small

shops, and disreputable places of various kinds."

H. Burn,

Rome and the Campagna,

chapter 6, part 1.

SUCCESSION, The Austrian: The Question and War of.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, 1740, and to 1744-1745;

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745, and 1746-1747;

ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743, to 1746-1747;

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

SUCCESSION, The Spanish:

The question and war of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, to 1713-1725;

and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SUCCOTH.

See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

----------SUDAN: Start--------

SUDAN, OR SOUDAN, The.

"Forming a natural frontier to the Great Desert is that

section of Africa known by the somewhat vague name of Sudan.

By this term is understood the region south of the Sahara,

limited on the west and south by the Atlantic Ocean as far as

it reaches. From the Gulf of Guinea inland, there is no

definite southern border line. It may, however, be assumed at

the fifth degree of north latitude. … [The] Nile region is

generally taken as the eastern frontier of Sudan, although it

properly reaches to the foot of the Abyssinian highlands.

Hence modern maps have introduced the appropriate expression

'Egyptian Sudan' for those eastern districts comprising

Senaar, Kordofan, Darfur, and some others. Sudan is therefore,

strictly speaking, a broad tract of country reaching right

across the whole continent from the Atlantic seaboard almost

to the shores of the Red Sea, and is the true home of the

Negro races. When our knowledge of the interior has become

sufficiently extended to enable us accurately to fix the

geographical limits of the Negroes, it may become desirable to

make the term Sudan convertible with the whole region

inhabited by them."

Hellwald-Johnston,

Africa (Stanford's Compendium),

chapter 9.

SUDAN: A. D. 1870-1885.

Egyptian conquest.

General Gordon's government.

The Mahdi's rebellion.

The British campaign.

Death of Gordon.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883; and 1884-1885.

----------SUDAN: End--------

SUDOR ANGLICUS.

See SWEATING SICKNESS;

and PLAGUE: A. D. 1486-1593.

SUDRAS.

See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

SUESSIONES, The.

See BELGÆ.

SUETONIUS PAULINUS: Campaigns in Britain.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

----------SUEVI: Start--------

SUEVI,

SUEBI, The.

"I must now speak of the Suevi, who are not one nation as are

the Chatti and Tencteri, for they occupy the greater part of

Germany, and have hitherto been divided into separate tribes

with names of their own, though they are called by the general

designation of 'Suevi.' A national peculiarity with them is to

twist their hair back and fasten it in a knot. This

distinguishes the Suevi from the other Germans, as it also

does their own freeborn from their slaves."—"Suevia would seem

to have been a comprehensive name for the country between the

Elbe and the Vistula as far north as the Baltic. Tacitus and

Cæsar differ about the Suevi. Suabia is the same word as

Suevia."

Tacitus,

Germany,

translated by Church and Brodribb,

chapter. 38, with geographical note.

"The Suebi, that is the wandering people or nomads. … Cæsar's

Suebi were probably the Chatti; but that designation certainly

belonged in Cæsar's time, and even much later, to every other

German stock which could be described as a regularly wandering

one."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 5, chapter 7, with note.

"The name of the country called Suabia is a true ethnological

term, even as Franconia is one. The one means the country

occupied by the Suevi, the other the country occupied by the

Franks. … At what time the name first became an unequivocal

geographical designation of what now, in the way of politics,

coincides with the Grand Duchy of Baden and part of

Wurtemburg, and, in respect to its physical geography, is part

of the Black Forest, is uncertain. It was not, however, later

than the reign of Alexander Severus (ending A. D. 235). …

Therein, Alamannia and Suevia appear together —as terms for

that part of Germany which had previously gone under the name

of 'Decumates agri,' and the parts about the 'Limes Romanus.'

With this, then, begins the history of the Suevi of Suabia,

or, rather, of the Suabians. Their alliances were chiefly with

the Alamanni and Burgundians; their theatre the German side of

France, Switzerland, Italy, and (in conjunction with the

Visigoths) Spain. Their epoch is from the reign of Alexander

to that of Augustulus, in round numbers, from about A. D. 225

to A. D. 475."

R. G. Latham,

The Germania of Tacitus, epilegomena,

section 20.

See, also, ALEMANNI,

and BAVARIA: THE ETHNOLOGY.

{3038}

SUEVI: B. C. 58.

Expulsion from Gaul by Cæsar.

A large body of the Suevi, a formidable German tribe, the name

of which has survived in modern Suabia, crossed the Rhine and

entered Gaul about B. C. 61. They came at the invitation of

the Arverni and Sequani of Gaul, who were forming a league

against the Ædui, their rivals, and who sought the aid of the

German warriors. The latter responded eagerly to the call,

and, having lodged themselves in the country of the Sequani,

summoned fresh hordes of their countrymen to join them. The

Gauls soon found that they had brought troublesome neighbors

into their midst, and they all joined in praying Cæsar and his

Roman legions to expel the insolent intruders. Cæsar had then

just entered on the government of the Roman Gallic provinces

and had signalized his first appearance in the field by

stopping the attempted migration of the Helvetii, destroying

two thirds of them, and forcing the remnant back to their

mountains. He welcomed an opportunity to interfere further in

Gallic affairs and promptly addressed certain proposals to the

Suevic chieftain, Ariovistus, which the latter rejected with

disdain. Some negotiations followed, but both parties meant

war, and the question, which should make a conquest of Gaul,

was decided speedily at a great battle fought at some place

about 80 miles from Vesontio (modern Besançon) in the year 58

B. C. The Germans were routed, driven into the Rhine and

almost totally destroyed. Ariovistus, with a very few

followers, escaped across the river, and died soon afterwards.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

Cæsar, Gallic Wars,

book 1, chapters 31-53.

Napoleon III.,

History of Cæsar,

book 3, chapter 4.

SUEVI: A. D. 406-409.

Final invasion of Gaul.

See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

SUEVI: A. D. 409-414.

Settlement in Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

SUEVI: A. D. 409-573.

Their history in Spain.

"The Suevi kept their ground for more than half a century in

Spain, before they embraced the Christian religion and became

Arians. Being surrounded on all sides by the Visigoths, their

history contains merely an account of the wars which they had

to maintain against their neighbours: they were long and

bloody; 164 years were passed in fighting before they could be

brought to yield. In 573, Leovigild, king of the Visigoths,

united them to the monarchy of Spain."

J. C. L. de Sismondi,

Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 7 (volume l).

See, also, VANDALS: A. D. 428,

and GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-712.

SUEVI: A. D. 460-500.

In Germany.

Those tribes of the Suevic confederacy which remained on the

German side of the Rhine, while their brethren pressed

southwards, along with the Vandals and Burgundians, in the

great invasive movement of 406, "dwelt in the south-west

corner of Germany, in the region which is now known as the

Black Forest, and away eastwards along the Upper Danube,

perhaps as far as the river Lech. They were already mingled

with the Alamanni of the mountains, a process which was no

doubt carried yet further when, some thirty years after the

time now reached by us [about 460] Clovis overthrew the

monarchy of the Alamanni [A. D. 496], whom he drove

remorselessly forth from all the lands north of the Neckar.

The result of these migrations and alliances was the formation

of the two great Duchies with which we are so familiar in the

mediaeval history of Germany—Suabia and Franconia. Suabia,

which is a convertible term with Alamannia, represents the

land left to the mingled Suevi and Alamanni; Franconia that

occupied east of the Rhine by the intrusive Franks."

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and her Invaders,

book 4, chapter 1 (volume 3).

See, also, ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

----------SUEVI: End--------

SUEVIC SEA.

The ancient name of the Baltic.

SUEZ CANAL, Opening of the (1869).

See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

SUFFERERS' LANDS, The.

See OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

SUFFETES.

"The original monarchical constitution [of Carthage]—doubtless

inherited from Tyre—was represented (practically in

Aristotle's time, and theoretically to the latest period) by

two supreme magistrates called by the Romans Suffetes. Their

name is the same as the Hebrew Shofetim, mistranslated in our

Bible, Judges. The Hamilcars and Hannos of Carthage were, like

their prototypes, the Gideons and the Samsons of the Book of

Judges, not so much the judges as the protectors and rulers of

their respective states."

R. B. Smith,

Carthage and the Carthaginians,

chapter 1.

See, also, JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.

SUFFOLK RESOLVES, The.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1774.

SUFFRAGE, Woman.

See WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

SUFFRAGE QUALIFICATION IN ENGLAND.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

SUFIS.

A sect of Mahometan mystics. "The final object of the Sufi

devotee is to attain to the light of Heaven, towards which he

must press forward till perfect knowledge is reached in his

union with God, to be consummated, after death, in absorption

into the Divine Being."

J. W. H. Stobart,

Islam and its Founder,

chapter 10.

SUGAMBRI,

SICAMBRI.

See USIPETES;

also FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.

SUGAR ACT, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

SUGAR-HOUSE PRISONS, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1776-1777 PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

SUIONES, The.

"Next [on the Baltic] occur the communities of the Suiones,

seated in the very Ocean, who, besides their strength in men

and arms, also possess a naval force. … These people honour

wealth." "The Suiones inhabited Sweden and the Danish isles of

Funen, Langland, Zeeland, Laland, etc. From them and the

Cimbri were derived the Normans."

Tacitus,

Germany,

Oxford Translation,

chapter 44 and note.

SULIOTES, The.

"The heroic struggle of the little commonwealth over a number

of years, [1787-1804] against all the resources and ingenuity

of Ali Pacha [vizir of Jannina] is very stirring and full of

episode. … The origin of the Suliotes is lost in obscurity. …

The chief families traced their origin to different villages

and districts; and, though their language was Greek, they

appear to have consisted, for the most part, of Christian

Albanians, with a small admixture of Greeks, who, flying from

the oppression of the invaders, had taken refuge in the

well-nigh inaccessible mountains of Chamouri (Chimari) [in

Epirus], and had there established a curious patriarchal

community. … At the time when they became conspicuous in

history the Suliotes were possessed of four villages in the

great ravine of Suli, namely, Kiapha, Avariko, Samoniva, and

Kako-Suli, composing a group known as the Tetrachorion; and

seven villages in the plains, whose inhabitants, being

considered genuine Suliotes, were allowed to retire into the

mountain in time of war. …

{3039}

They also controlled between 50 and 60 tributary villages,

with a mixed population of Greeks and Albanians; but these

were abandoned to their fate in war. In the early part of the

last century the Suliotes are said not to have had more than

200 fighting-men, although they were almost always engaged in

petty warfare and marauding expeditions; and at the period of

their extraordinary successes the numbers of the Suliotes

proper never exceeded 5,000 souls, with a fighting strength d

1,500 men, who were, however, reinforced at need by the women.

Their government was purely patriarchal; they had neither

written laws nor law courts, and the family formed the

political unit of the State. The families were grouped

together in tribal alliances called Pharas, of which there

were 29 in the Tetrachorion and 18 in the Heptachorion. All

disputes were settled by arbitration by the heads of the

Pharas; and these 47 elders formed a sort of general Council,

the matter for discussion being almost exclusively war. As

they were gradually driven from the plains which had supported

them to the mountains, which produced nothing but pasture for

their flocks, they were of necessity compelled to support

themselves by marauding expeditions, which involved them in

perpetual difficulties with the surrounding Ottoman governors.

The historian of Suli enumerates no less than eight wars in

which the community was involved before their great struggle

with Ali."

R. Rodd,

The Customs and Lore of Modern Greece,

chapter 10.

SULLA, Proscriptions by and Dictatorship of.

See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

SULLIVAN, General John,

and the War of the American Revolution.

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

1776 (AUGUST); 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SULTAN, The Title.

Gibbon (chapter 57) represents that the title of Sultan was

first invented for Mahmud the Gaznevide, by the ambassador of

the Caliph of Bagdad, "who employed an Arabian or Chaldaic

word that signifies 'lord' and 'master.'" But Dr. William

Smith in a note to this passage in Gibbon, citing Weil, says:

"It is uncertain when the title of Sultan was first used, but

it seems at all events to have been older than the time of

Mahmud. It is mentioned by Halebi, under the reign of

Motawaccel; but according to Ibn Chaldun it was first assumed

by the Bowides."

See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

SUMIR,

SHUMIR.

See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

SUMTER, The Confederate cruiser.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1861-1862.

----------SUMTER, Fort: Start--------

SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1860.

Occupied and held by Major Anderson, for the United

States Government.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).

SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1861 (April).

Bombardment and reduction by the Rebel batteries.

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

SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1863.

Attack and repulse of the Monitors.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1863.

Bombardment and unsuccessful assault.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1865 (February-April).

Recovery by the nation.

The restoring of the flag.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

----------SUMTER, Fort: End--------

SUNNAH, The.

See ISLAM.

SUNNI SECT, The.

See ISLAM.

SUOVETAURILIA.

Expiatory sacrifices of pigs, sheep and oxen, offered by the

ancient Romans at the end of a lustrum and after a triumph.

E. Guhl and W. Koner,

Life of the Greeks and Romans,

section 103.

SUPERIOR, Lake, The discovery of.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

SUPREMACY, The Acts of.

The first Act of Supremacy, which established the independence

of the Church of England and broke its relations with Rome,

was passed by the English Parliament during the reign of Henry

VIII., in 1534. It enacted "that the King should be taken and

reputed 'the only Supreme Head on earth of the Church of

England called Ecclesia Anglicana, and shall have and enjoy,

annexed and united to the imperial Crown of this realm, as

well the title and style thereof, as all honours, dignities,

pre-eminencies, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities,

immunities, profits, and commodities, to the said dignity of

Supreme Head of the same church belonging and appertaining';

with full power to visit, reform, and correct all heresies,

errors, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities which, by

any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction, ought to be

reformed or corrected."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead,

English Constitutional History,

chapter 11.

The Act of Supremacy was repealed in the reign of Mary and

re-enacted with changes in that of Elizabeth, 1559.

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

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, The.

"On the 24th day of September, 1789, the act organizing the

Supreme Court; was passed. The Court was constituted with a

Chief Justice and five associates. John Jay was appointed the

first Chief Justice by Washington. Webster said of him that

when the ermine fell upon his shoulders, it touched a being as

spotless as itself. The Court first convened in February,

1790, in New York. It does not appear from the reports that

any case then came before it. Jay remained Chief Justice until

1795, when he resigned to become governor of the State of New

York. A Chief Justice in our day would hardly do this. His

judicial duties were so few that he found time, in 1794, to

accept the mission to England to negotiate the treaty so

famous in history as 'Jay's Treaty.' John Rutledge of South

Carolina was appointed to succeed Jay, but he was so

pronounced in his opposition to the treaty, and so bitter in

his denunciation of Jay himself, that the federal Senate

refused to confirm him. William Cushing of Massachusetts, one

of the associate justices, was then nominated by Washington,

and was promptly confirmed; but he preferred to remain

associate justice, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut was

made Chief Justice. He held the office until 1801, when John

Marshall of Virginia was appointed by President Adams.

Marshall held the office thirty-four years. He was known at

the time of his appointment as an ardent Federalist.

{3040}

In our time he is known as 'the great Chief Justice.' Roger B.

Taney was the next incumbent. He was appointed by President

Jackson. His political enemies styled him a renegade

Federalist, and said that his appointment was his reward for

his obsequious obedience, while Secretary of the Treasury, to

President Jackson. But Taney, despite the Dred Scott decision,

was an honest man and a great judge. His opinions are models

of lucid and orderly discussion, and are of admirable literary

form. He held the office for twenty-eight years, and upon his

death in 1864, President Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase, of

Ohio. Chief Justice Chase died in 1874. President Grant then

appointed Morrison R. Waite of Ohio. He died in 1888. Melville

W. Fuller, of Illinois, is the present [1889] incumbent, his

appointment having been made by President Cleveland. … In 1807

an associate judge was added by Congress; two more were added

in 1837, and one in 1863. They were added to enable the Court

to perform the work of the circuits, which increased with the

growth of the country."

J. S. Landon,

The Constitutional History and Government

of the United States,

lecture 10.

"The Supreme court is directly created by Article iii.,

section 1 of the Constitution, but with no provision as to the

number of its judges. Originally there were six; at present

there are nine, a chief justice, with a salary of $10,500

(£2,100), and eight associate judges (salary $10,000). The

justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the

Senate. They hold office during good behaviour, i. e. they are

removable only by impeachment. They have thus a tenure even

more secure than that of English judges, for the latter may be

removed by the Crown on an address from both Houses of

Parliament. … The Fathers of the Constitution were extremely

anxious to secure the independence of their judiciary,

regarding it as a bulwark both for the people and for the

States against aggressions of either Congress or the

President. They affirmed the life tenure by an unanimous vote

in the Convention of 1787, because they deemed the risk of the

continuance in office of an incompetent judge a less evil than

the subserviency of all judges to the legislature, which might

flow from a tenure dependent on legislative will. The result

has justified their expectations. The judges have shown

themselves independent of Congress and of party, yet the

security of their position has rarely tempted them to breaches

of judicial duty. Impeachment has been four times resorted to,

once only against a justice of the Supreme court, and then

unsuccessfully. Attempts have been made, beginning from

Jefferson, who argued that judges should hold office for terms

of four or six years only, to alter the tenure of the Federal

judges, as that of the State judges has been altered in most

States; but Congress has always rejected the proposed

constitutional amendment. The Supreme court sits at Washington

from October till July in every year."

J. Bryce,

The American Commonwealth,

part 1, chapter 22 (volume 1).

"It is, I believe, the only national tribunal in the world

which can sit in judgment on a national law, and can declare

an act of all the three powers of the Union to be null and

void. No such power does or can exist in England. Anyone of

the three powers of the state, King, Lords, or Commons, acting

alone, may act illegally; the three acting together cannot act

illegally. An act of parliament is final; it may be repealed

by the power which enacted it; it cannot be questioned by any

other power. For in England there is no written constitution;

the powers of Parliament, of King, Lords, and Commons, acting

together, are literally boundless. But in your Union, it is

not only possible that President, Senate, or House of

Representatives, acting alone, may act illegally; the three

acting together may act illegally. For their powers are not

boundless, they have no powers but such as the terms of the

constitution, that is, the original treaty between the States,

have given them. Congress may pass, the President may assent

to, a measure which contradicts the terms of the constitution.

If they so act, they act illegally, and the Supreme Court can

declare such an act to be null and void. This difference flows

directly from the difference between a written and an

unwritten constitution. It does not follow that every state

which has a written constitution need vest in its highest

court such powers as are vested in yours, though it certainly

seems to me that, in a federal constitution, such a power is

highly expedient. My point is simply that such a power can

exist where there is a written constitution; where there is no

written constitution, it cannot."

E. A. Freeman,

The English People in its Three Homes:

Lectures to American Audiences,

pages 191-192.

SURA, Battle of (A. D. 530).

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

SURENA.

The title of the commander-in-chief or field-marshal of the

Parthian armies, whose rank was second only to that of the

king. This title was sometimes mistaken by Greek writers for

an individual name, as in the case of the Parthian general who

defeated Crassus.

G. Rawlinson,

Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,

page 23.

SURGERY.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE.

SURINAM.

See GUIANA: A. D. 1580-1814.

SURPLUS, The distribution of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.

SURRATT, Mrs.:

The Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

SUSA.

SUSIANA.

SHUSHAN.

Originally the capital of the ancient kingdom of Elam,

Shushan, or Susiana, or Susa, as it has been variously called,

was in later times made the principal capital of the Persian

empire, and became the scene of the Biblical story of Esther.

A French expedition, directed by M. Dieulafoy and wife,

undertook an exploration of the ruins of Susa in 1885 and has

brought to light some remarkably interesting and important

remains of ancient art. The name Susiana was applied by the

Greeks to the country of Elam, as well as to the capital city,

and it is sometimes still used in that sense.

Z. A. Ragozin,

Story of Media, Babylon and Persia,

appendix to chapter 10.

See, also, ELAM; and BABYLONIA: PRIMITIVE.

SUSIAN GATES.

A pass in the mountains which surrounded the plain of

Persepolis, the center of ancient Persia proper. Alexander had

difficulty in forcing the Gates.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 93.

SUSIANA.

See SUSA.

SUSMARSHAUSEN, Battle of(1648).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

SUSQUEHANNA COMPANY, The.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799.

SUSQUEHANNAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.

{3041}

SUSSEX.

Originally the kingdom formed by that body of the Saxon

conquerors of Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries which

acquired the name of the South Saxons. It is nearly

represented in territory by the present counties of Sussex and

Surrey.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

SUTRIUM, Battle of.

A victory of the Romans over the Etruscans, among the exploits

ascribed to the veteran Q. Fabius Maximus.

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 3, chapter 10.

SUTTEE, Suppression of, in India.

See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

SUVARROF,

SUWARROW,

Campaigns of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1762-1796;

also FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);

1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER), and (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

SVASTIKA, The.

See TRI-SKELION.

SWAANENDAEL.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.

SWABIA.

See SUABIA.

SWAMP ANGEL, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SWAN, The Order of the.

A Prussian order of knighthood, instituted in the 15th

century, which disappeared in the century following, and was

revived in 1843.

SWANS, The Road of the.

See NORMANS.

SWEATING SICKNESS, The.

The "Sudor Anglicus," or Sweating Sickness was a strange and

fearful epidemic which appeared in England in 1485 or 1486,

and again in 1507, 1518, 1529, and 1551. In the last three

instances it passed to the continent. Its first appearance was

always in England, from which fact it took one of its names.

Its peculiar characteristic was the profuse sweating which

accompanied the disease. The mortality from it was very great.

J. H. Baas,

Outlines of the History of Medicine,

pages 318-319.

See, also, PLAGUE, ETC.: A. D. 1485-1593.

SWEDEN: Early inhabitants.

See SUIONES.

SWEDEN: History.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES.

SWEDEN: Constitution.

See CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

SWEENEY, Peter B., and the Tweed Ring.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

SWERKER I., King of Sweden, A. D. 1155.

SWERKER II., King of Sweden, 1199-1210.

SWERKERSON.

See CHARLES SWERKERSON;

and JOHN SWERKERSON.

SWERRO, King of Norway, A. D. 1186-1202.

SWEYN I., King of Denmark, A. D. 991-1014.

Sweyn II., King of Denmark, 1047-1076.

Sweyn III., King of Denmark, 1156-1157.

Sweyn Canutson, King of Norway, 1030-1035.

SWISS CONFEDERATION AND CONSTITUTION.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890;

and CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND.

----------SWITZERLAND: Start--------

SWITZERLAND:

Early inhabitants.

See HELVETII; ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451;

also, below: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

SWITZERLAND:

The Three Forest Cantons, their original Confederation

(Eidgenossenschaft), and their relations with the House of

Austria.

History divested of Legend.

"It is pretty clear that among those Helvetii with whom Cæsar

had his cruel struggle [see HELVETII, TUE ARRESTED MIGRATION

OF THE], and who subsequently became an integral portion of

the empire, there were no people from the Forest Cantons of

Schwytz, Uri, and Unterwalden. The men who defied the Roman

eagles were inhabitants of the mountain slopes between the

lakes of Geneva and Constance. On the North, the authority of

the Romans penetrated no farther in the direction of the

mountainous Oberland than to Zurich or Turicum. They, no

doubt, ascended far up the valley of the Rhone, where they

have left their mark in the speech of the people to this day;

but they did not climb the mountain passes leading across the

great chain of the Alps. It may be questioned if the higher

valleys of Switzerland were then, or for centuries after the

fall of the Western Empire, inhabited. … In the district of

these Forest Cantons no remains of lake inhabitancy have yet

been found. … Yet none of the places where they are met with

could have been more naturally suited for lake-dwellings than

these. The three Forest Cantons began the political history of

Switzerland, having established among themselves that

political centre round which the other Cantons clustered. In

ethnological history, they were the latest members of the

Swiss family, since their territory remained without occupants

after the more accessible portions of the country had been

peopled. In the same sense, the canton from which the

confederation derived its name—that of Schwytz—is the youngest

of all. When the Irish monk, afterwards canonised as St. Gall,

settled near the Lake of Constance in the 7th century, he had

gone as completely to the one extreme of the inhabited world,

as his brother Columba had gone to the other when he sailed to

Iona. If the districts of Thurgau, Appenzell, and St. Gall

were at that period becoming gradually inhabited, it is

supposed that Schwytz was not occupied by a permanent

population until the latter half of the 9th century. … M.

Rilliet [in 'Les Origines de la Confederation Suisse,' par

Albert Rilliet) is one of the first writers who has applied

himself to the study of … original documents [title-deeds of

property, the chartularies of religious houses, records of

litigation, etc.] as they are still preserved in Switzerland,

for the purpose of tracing the character and progress of the

Swiss people and of their free institutions. It was among the

accidents propitious to the efforts of the Forest Cantons,

that, among the high feudal or manorial rights existing within

their territory, a large proportion was in the hands of

monastic bodies. Throughout Europe the estates of the

ecclesiastics were the best husbanded, and inhabited by the

most prosperous vassals. These bodies ruled their vassals

through the aid of a secular officer, a Vogt or advocate, who

sometimes was the master, sometimes the servant, of the

community.

{3042}

In either case there was to some extent a division of rule,

and it was not the less so that in these Cantons the larger

estates were held by nuns. The various struggles for supremacy

in which emperors and competitors for empire, the successive

popes, and the potentates struggling for dominion, severally

figured, gave many opportunities to a brave and sagacious

people, ever on the watch for the protection of their

liberties; but the predominant feature in their policy—that,

indeed, which secured their final triumph—was their steady

adherence in such contests to the Empire, and their

acknowledgment of its supremacy. This is the more worthy of

notice since popular notions of Swiss history take the

opposite direction, and introduce us to the Emperor and his

ministers as the oppressors who drove an exasperated people to

arms. In fact, there still lurk in popular history many

fallacies and mistakes about the nature of the 'Holy Roman

Empire' as an institution of the middle ages [see ROMAN

EMPIRE, THE HOLY]. … It is not natural or easy indeed to

associate that mighty central organisation with popular

liberty and power; and yet in the feudal ages it was a strong

and effective protector of freedom. … Small republics and free

cities were scattered over central Europe and protected in the

heart of feudalism. … M. Rilliet aptly remarks, that in the

Swiss valleys, with their isolating mountains, and their

narrow strips of valuable pasture, political and local

conditions existed in some degree resembling those of a walled

city." The election, in 1273, of Rudolph of Hapsburg, as King

of the Romans, was an event of great importance in the history

of the Swiss Cantons, owing to their previous connexion with

the House of Hapsburg (see AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282), "a

connexion geographically so close that the paternal domains,

whence that great family takes its ancient name, are part of

the Swiss territory at the present day." Such agencies as

belonged naturally to the most powerful family in the district

fell to the House of Hapsburg. Its chiefs were the chosen

advocates or champions of the religious communities neighbor

to them; and "under such imperial offices as are known by the

title Bailiff, Procurator, or Reichsvogt, they occasionally

exercised what power the Empire retained over its free

communities. Such offices conferred authority which easily

ripened into feudal superiorities, or other forms of

sovereignty. M. Rilliet attributes considerable, but not, it

seems to us, too much importance to a rescript bearing date

the 26th May, 1231. It is granted by Henry VII., King of the

Romans, or more properly of the aggregated German communities,

as acting for his father, the Emperor Frederic II. This

instrument revokes certain powers over the people of the

community of Uri, which had been granted at a previous time by

Frederic himself to the Count of Hapsburg. It addresses the

people of Uri by the term Universitas—high in class among the

enfranchised communities of the Empire—and promises to them

that they shall no more under any pretext be withdrawn from

the direct jurisdiction of the Empire. … The great point

reached through this piece of evidence, and corroborated by

others, is, that at this remote period the district which is

now the Canton of Uri was dealt with as a Roman Universitas—as

one of the communities of the Empire, exempt from the

immediate authority of any feudal chief. … M. Rilliet's

researches show that Uri is the Canton in which the character

of a free imperial community was first established, perhaps we

should rather say it was the Canton in which the privilege was

most completely preserved from the dangers that assailed it.

The Hapsburgs and their rivals had a stronger hold on Schwytz.

… In many of the documents relating to the rights of Rudolph

over this district, bearing date after he became Cæsar, it is

uncertain whether he acts as emperor or as immediate feudal

lord. … Rudolph, however, found it, from whatever cause, his

policy to attach the people of Schwytz to his interests as

emperor rather than as feudal lord; and he gave them charters

of franchise which seem ultimately to have made them, like

their neighbours of Uri, a free community of the Empire, or to

have certified their right to that character. In the

fragmentary records of the three Cantons, Unterwalden does not

hold rank as a free community of the Empire at so early a time

even as Schwytz. It is only known that in 1291 Unterwalden

acted with the other two as an independent community. In the

disputes for supremacy between the Empire and the Church all

three had been loyal to the Empire. There are some indications

that Rudolph had discovered the signal capacity of these

mountaineers for war, and that already there were bands of

Swiss among the imperial troops. The reign of Rudolph lasted

for 18 years. … During his 18 years of possession he changed

the character of the Cæsarship, and the change was felt by the

Swiss. In the early part of his reign he wooed them to the

Empire—before its end he was strengthening the territorial

power of his dynasty. … When Rudolph died in 1201, the

imperial crown was no longer a disputable prize for a chance

candidate. There was a conflict on the question whether his

descendants should take it as a hereditary right, or the

electors should show that they retained their power by another

choice. The three Cantons felt that there was danger to their

interests in the coming contest, and took a great step for

their own protection. They formed a league or confederacy

[Eidgenossenschaft] for mutual co-operation and protection.

Not only has it been handed down to us in literature, but the

very parchment has been preserved as a testimony to the early

independence of the Forest Cantons, the Magna Charter of

Switzerland. This document reveals the existence of

unexplained antecedents by calling itself a renewal of the old

league—the Antique Confederatio. … Thus we have a

Confederation of the Three Cantons, dated in 1201, and

referring to earlier alliances; while popular history sets

down the subsequent Confederation of 1314 as the earliest, for

the purpose of making the whole history of Swiss independence

arise out of the tragic events attributed to that period. If

this leads the way to the extinction of the story on which the

Confederation is based, there is compensation in finding the

Confederation in active existence a quarter of a century

earlier. But the reader will observe that the mere fact of the

existence of this anterior league overturns the whole received

history of Switzerland, and changes the character of the

alleged struggle with the House of Austria, prior to the

battle of Morgarten. There is nothing in this document or in

contemporary events breathing of disloyalty to the Empire.

{3043}

The two parties whom the Swiss held in fear were the Church,

endeavouring to usurp the old prerogatives of the Empire in

their fullness; and the feudal barons, who were encroaching on

the imperial authority. Among the three the Swiss chose the

chief who would be least of a master. … Two years before the

end of the 13th century [by the election of Albert, son of

Rudolph, the Hapsburg family] … again got possession of the

Empire, and retained it for ten years. It passed from them by

the well-known murder of the Emperor Albert. The Swiss and

that prince were ill-disposed to each other at the time of the

occurrence, and indeed the murder itself was perpetrated on

Swiss ground; yet it had no connexion with the cause of the

quarrel which was deepening between the House of Hapsburg and

the Cantons. … There exist in contemporary records no

instances of wanton outrage and insolence on the Hapsburg

side. It was the object of that power to obtain political

ascendancy, not to indulge its representatives in lust or

wanton insult. … There are plentiful records of disputes in

which the interests of the two powers were mixed up with those

of particular persons. Some of these were trifling and local,

relating to the patronage of benefices, the boundaries of

parishes, the use of meadows, the amount of toll duties, and

the like; others related to larger questions, as to the

commerce of the lake of the Four Cantons, or the transit of

goods across the Alps. But in these discussions the symptoms

of violence, as is natural enough, appear rather on the side

of the Swiss communities than on that of the aggrandising

imperial house. The Canton of Schwytz, indeed, appears to have

obtained by acts of violence and rapacity the notoriety which

made its name supreme among the Cantons. … We are now at a

critical point, the outbreak of the long War of Swiss

Independence, and it would be pleasant if we had more distinct

light than either history or record preserves of the immediate

motives which brought Austria to the point of invading the

Cantons. … The war was no doubt connected with the struggle

for the Empire [between Frederic of Austria and Louis of

Bavaria—see GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347]; yet it is not clear how

Frederic, even had he been victorious over the three Cantons,

could have gained enough to repay him for so costly an

expedition. … We are simply told by one party among historical

writers that his army was sent against his rebellious subjects

to reduce them to obedience, and by the other that it was sent

to conquer for the House of Hapsburg the free Cantons. That a

magnificent army did march against them, and that it was

scattered and ruined by a small body of the Swiss at

Morgarten, on the 15th November, 1315, is an historical event

too clearly attested in all its grandeur to stand open to

dispute. After the battle, the victorious Cantons renewed

their Confederation of 1291, with some alterations appropriate

to the change of conditions. The first bond or confederation

comes to us in Latin, the second is in German. … Such was the

base around which the Cantons of the later Swiss Confederation

were gradually grouped. … To this conclusion we have followed

M. Rilliet without encountering William Tell, or the

triumvirate of the meadow of Rütli, and yet with no

consciousness that the part of Hamlet has been left out of the

play." According to the popular tradition, the people of the

Three Cantons were maddened by wanton outrages and insolences

on the part of the Austrian Dukes, until three bold leaders,

Werner Stauffacher, Arnold of the Melkthal, and Walter Fürst,

assembled them in nightly meetings on the little meadow of

Grütli or Rütli, in 1307, and bound them by oaths in a league

against Austria, which was the beginning of the Swiss

Confederation. This story, and the famous legend of William

Tell, connected with it, are fading out of authentic history

under the light which modern investigation has brought to bear

on it.

The Legend of Tell and Rütli

(Edinburg Review, January, 1869).

ALSO IN:

O. Delepierre,

Historical Difficulties.

J. Heywood,

The Establishment of Swiss Freedom, and the Scandinavian

Origin of the Legend of William Tell

(Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 5).

SWITZERLAND: 4-11th Centuries.

See BURGUNDY.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1207-1401.

Extension of the dominions of the House of Savoy

beyond Lake Geneva.

The city of Geneva surrounded.

See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.

The extension of the old Confederation,

or "Old League of High Germany."

The Three Cantons increased to Eight.

"All the original cantons were German in speech and feeling,

and the formal style of their union was 'the Old League of

High Germany.' But in strict geographical accuracy there was …

a small Burgundian element in the Confederation, if not from

the beginning, at least from its aggrandizement in the 13th

and 14th centuries. That is to say, part of the territory of

the states which formed the old Confederation lay

geographically within the kingdom of Burgundy, and a further

part lay within the Lesser Burgundy of the Dukes of Zähringen.

But, by the time when the history of the Confederation begins,

the kingdom of Burgundy was pretty well forgotten, and the

small German-speaking territory which it took in at its

extreme northeast corner may be looked on as practically

German ground. … It is specially needful to bear in mind,

first, that, till the last years of the 13th century, not even

the germ of modern Switzerland had appeared on the map of

Europe; secondly, that the Confederation did not formally

become an independent power till the 17th century; lastly,

that, though the Swiss name had been in common use for ages,

it did not become the formal style of the Confederation till

the 19th century. Nothing in the whole study of historical

geography is more necessary than to root out the notion that

there has always been a country of Switzerland, as there has

always been a country of Germany, Gaul, or Italy. And it is no

less needful to root out the notion that the Swiss of the

original cantons in any way represent the Helvetii of Cæsar.

The points to be borne in mind are that the Swiss

Confederation is simply one of many German Leagues, which was

more lasting and became more closely united than other German

Leagues—that it gradually split off from the German

Kingdom—that in the course of this process, the League and its

members obtained a large body of Italian and Burgundian allies

and subjects —lastly, that these allies and subjects have in

modern times been joined into one Federal body with the

original German Confederates.

{3044}

The three Swabian lands [the Three Forest Cantons] which

formed the kernel of the Old League lay at the point of union

of the three Imperial kingdoms, parts of all of which were to

become members of the Confederation in its later form. … The

Confederation grew for a while by the admission of

neighbouring lands and cities as members of a free German

Confederation, owning no superior but the Emperor. First of

all [1332], the city of Luzern joined the League. Then came

the Imperial city of Zurich [1351], which had already begun to

form a little dominion in the adjoining lands. Then [1352]

came the land of Glarus and the town of Zug with its small

territory. And lastly came the great city of Bern [1353],

which had already won a dominion over a considerable body of

detached and outlying allies and subjects. These confederate

lands and towns formed the Eight Ancient Cantons. Their close

alliance with each other helped the growth of each canton

separately, as well as that of the League as a whole. Those

cantons whose geographical position allowed them to do so,

were thus able to extend their power, in the form of various

shades of dominion and alliance, over the smaller lands and

towns in their neighbourhood. … Zurich, and yet more Bern,

each formed, after the manner of an ancient Greek city, what

in ancient Greece would have passed for an empire. In the 15th

century [1415-1460], large conquests were made at the expense

of the House of Austria, of which the earlier ones were made

by direct Imperial sanction. The Confederation, or some or

other of its members, had now extended its territory to the

Rhine and the Lake of Constanz. The lands thus won, Aargau,

Thurgau, and some other districts, were held as subject

territories in the hands of some or other of the Confederate

States. … No new states were admitted to the rank of

confederate cantons. Before the next group of cantons was

admitted, the general state of the Confederation and its

European position had greatly changed. It had ceased to be a

purely German power. The first extension beyond the original

German lands and those Burgundian lands which were practically

German began in the direction of Italy. Uri had, by the

annexation of Urseren, become the neighbour of the Duchy of

Milan, and in the middle of the 15th century, this canton

acquired some rights in the Val Levantina on the Italian side

of the Alps. This was the beginning of the extension of the

Confederation on Italian ground. But far more important than

this was the advance of the Confederates over the Burgundian

lands to the west."

E. A. Freeman,

Historical Geography of Europe,

chapter 8, section 6.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

Austrian defeats at Sempach and Naefels.

"Seldom, if ever, has Switzerland seen a more eventful month

than that of July, 1386, for in that month she fought and won

the ever-memorable battle of Sempach. To set down all the

petty details as to the causes which led to this engagement

would be tedious indeed. It is sufficient to point out … that

there is seldom much love lost between oppressor and

oppressed, and Austria and the Swiss Confederation had for

some time held that relation to each other. A ten years' peace

had indeed been concluded between the two powers, but it was a

sham peace, and the interval had been used by both to prepare

for new conflicts. … Zurich laid siege to Rapperswyl with the

intent to destroy the odious Austrian toll-house; Lucerne

levelled with the ground the Austrian fort Rothenburg, and

entered into alliances with Entlebuch and Sempach to overthrow

the Austrian supremacy. This was equal to a declaration of

war, and war was indeed imminent. Duke Leopold III., of

Austria, was most anxious to bring the quarrel to an issue,

and to chastise the insolent Swiss citizens and peasantry. …

The nobles of Southern Germany rallied round the gallant

swordsman, and made him their leader in the expeditions

against the bourgeoisie and peasantry. And no sooner had the

truce expired (June, 1386), than they directed their first

attack on the bold Confederation. … Leopold's plan was to make

Lucerne the centre of his military operations, but in order to

draw away attention from his real object, he sent a division

of 5,000 men to Zurich to simulate an attack on that town.

Whilst the unsuspecting Confederates lay idle within the walls

of Zurich, he gathered reinforcements from Burgundy, Swabia,

and the Austro-Helvetian Cantons, the total force being

variously estimated at from 12,000 to 24,000 men. He marched

his army in the direction of Lucerne, but by a round-about

way, and seized upon Willisan, which he set on fire, intending

to punish Sempach 'en passant' for her desertion. But the

Confederates getting knowledge of his stratagem left Zurich to

defend herself, and struck straight across the country in

pursuit of the enemy. Climbing the heights of Sempach, … they

encamped at Meyersholz, a wood fringing the hilltop. The

Austrians leaving Sursee, for want of some more practicable

road towards Sempach, made their way slowly and painfully

along the path which leads from Sursee to the heights, and

then turns suddenly down upon Sempach. Great was their

surprise and consternation when at the junction of the Sursee

and Hiltisrieden roads they came suddenly upon the Swiss

force. … The Swiss … drew up in battle order, their force

taking a kind of wedge-shaped mass, the shorter edge foremost,

and the bravest men occupying the front positions. … The onset

was furious, and the Austrian Hotspurs, each eager to outstrip

his fellows in the race for honour, rushed on the Swiss, drove

them back a little, and then tried to encompass them and crush

them in their midst. … All the fortune of the battle seemed

against the Swiss, for their short weapons could not reach a

foe guarded by long lances. But suddenly the scene changed. 'A

good and pious man,' says the old chronicler, deeply mortified

by the misfortune of his country, stepped forward from the

ranks of the Swiss—Arnold von Winkelried. Shouting to his

comrades in arms, 'I will cut a road for you; take care of my

wife and children!' he dashed on the enemy, and, catching hold

of as many spears as his arms could encompass, he bore them to

the ground with the whole weight of his body. His comrades

rushed over his corpse, burst through the gap made in the

Austrian ranks, and began a fierce hand-to-hand encounter. … A

fearful carnage followed, in which no mercy was shown, and

there fell of the common soldiers 2,000 men, and no fewer than

700 of the nobility. The Swiss lost but 120 men. … This great

victory … gave to the Confederation independence, and far

greater military and political eminence. … The story of

Winkelried's heroic action has given rise to much fruitless

but interesting discussion.

{3045}

The truth of the tale, in fact, can neither be confirmed nor

denied, in the absence of any sufficient proof. But Winkelried

is no myth, whatever may be the case with the other great

Swiss hero, Tell. There is proof that a family of the name of

Winkelried lived at Unterwalden at the time of the battle. …

The victory of Naefels [April, 1388] forms a worthy pendant to

that of Sempach. … The Austrians, having recovered their

spirits after the terrible disaster," invaded the Glarus

valley in strong force, and met with another overthrow, losing

1,700 men. "In 1389 a seven years' peace was arranged. … This

peace was first prolonged for 20 years, and afterwards, in

1412, for 50 years."

Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,

The Story of Switzerland,

chapter 15.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

The Grey Leagues.

Democratic Independence of Graubünden (Grisons) achieved.

Their Alliance with the Swiss Cantons.

The Swabian War.

Practical separation of the Confederacy from the Empire.

"It was precisely at this epoch [the later years of the 14th

century] that the common people of Graubünden [or the Grisons]

felt the necessity of standing for themselves alone against

the world. Threatened by the Habsburgs, suspicious of the See

of Chur [see TYROL], ill-governed by their decadent dynastic

nobles, encouraged by the example of the Forest Cantons, they

began to form leagues and alliances for mutual protection and

the preservation of peace within the province. Nearly a

century was occupied in the origination and consolidation of

those three Leagues which turned what we now call Graubünden

into an independent democratic state. … The town of Chur,

which had been steadily rising in power, together with the

immediate vassals of the See, took the lead. They combined

into an association, which assumed the name of the

Gotteshausbund; and of which the Engadine [the upper valley of

the Inn] formed an important factor. Next followed a league

between the Abbot of Dissentis, the nobles of the Oberland,

the Communes of that district, and its outlying dependencies.

This was called the Grey League—according to popular tradition

because the folk who swore it wore grey serge coats, but more

probably because it was a League of Counts, Gräfen, Grawen.

The third league was formed after the final dispersion of the

great inheritance of Vaz, which passed through the Counts of

Toggenburg into the hands of females and their

representatives. This took the name of Zehn Gerichte, or Ten

Jurisdictions, and embraced Davos, Belfort, Schanfigg, the

Prättigau, and Maienfeld. The date of the formation of the

Gotteshausbund is uncertain; but its origin may be assigned to

the last years of the 14th century [some writers date it

1396]. That of the Grey League, or Graue Bund, or Obere Theil,

as it is variously called, is traditionally 1424. (It is worth

mentioning that this League took precedence of the other two,

and that the three were known as the Grey Leagues.) That of

the Zehn Gerichte is 1438. In 1471 these three Leagues formed

a triple alliance, defensive and offensive, protective and

aggressive, without prejudice to the Holy Roman Empire of

which they still considered themselves to form a part, and

without due reservation of the rights acquired by inheritance

or purchase by the House of Austria within their borders. This

important revolution, which defeudalized a considerable Alpine

territory, and which made the individual members of its

numerous Communes sovereigns by the right of equal voting, was

peaceably effected. … The constitution of Graubünden after the

formation of the Leagues, in theory and practise, … was a pure

democracy, based on manhood suffrage. … The first difficulties

with which this new Republic of peasants had to contend, arose

from the neighbourhood of feudal and imperial Austria. The

Princes of the House of Habsburg had acquired extensive

properties and privileges in Graubünden. … These points of

contact became the source of frequent rubs, and gave the

Austrians opportunities for interfering in the affairs of the

Grey Leagues. A little war which broke out in the Lower

Engadine in 1475, a war of raids and reprisals, made bad blood

between the people of Tirol and their Grisons neighbours. But

the real struggle of Graubünden with Austria began in earnest,

when the Leagues were drawn into the so-called Swabian War

(1496-1499). The Emperor Maximilian promoted an association of

south German towns and nobles, in order to restore his

Imperial authority over the Swiss Cantons. They resisted his

encroachments, and formed a close alliance with the Grey

Leagues. That was the commencement of a tie which bound

Graubünden, as a separate political entity, to the

Confederation, and which subsisted for several centuries.

Graubünden acted as an independent Republic, but was always

ready to cooperate with the Swiss. … Fighting side by side [in

the Swabian War] with the men of Uri, Glarus, Zürich, the

Bündners learned the arts of warfare in the lower Rheinthal.

Afterwards, in 1499, they gained the decisive battle of this

prolonged struggle on their own ground and unassisted. In a

narrow gorge called Calven, just where the Münsterthal opens

out into the Vintschgau above Glurns, 5,000 men of the Grey

Leagues defeated the whole chivalry and levies of Tirol. Many

thousands of the foe (from 4,000 to 5,000 is the mean

estimate) were left dead upon the field." Maximilian hastened

to the scene with a fresh army, but found only deserted

villages, and was forced by famine to retreat. "The victory of

Calven raised the Grisons to the same rank as the Swiss, and

secured their reputation in Europe as fighting men of the best

quality. It also led to a formal treaty with Austria, in which

the points at issue between the two parties were carefully

defined."

J. A. Symonds,

History of Graubünden

(in Strickland's "The Engadine," pages 29-33).

During the Swabian War, in 1499, the Swiss concluded a treaty

with France. "Willibald Pirkheimer, who was present with 400

red-habited citizens of Nuremberg, has graphically described

every incident of this war. The imperial reinforcements

arrived slowly and in separate bodies; the princes and nobles

fighting in real earnest, the cities with little inclination.

The Swiss were, consequently, able to defeat each single

detachment before they could unite, and were in this manner

victorious in ten engagements." The Emperor, "dividing his

forces, despatched the majority of his troops against Basle,

under the Count von Fürstenburg, whilst he advanced towards

Geneva, and was occupied in crossing the lake when the news of

Fürstenburg's defeat and death, near Dornach, arrived. The

princes, little desirous of staking their honour against their

low-born opponents, instantly returned home in great numbers,

and the emperor was therefore compelled to make peace [1499].

{3046}

The Swiss retained possession of the Thurgau and of Basle, and

Schaffhausen joined the confederation, which was not subject

to the imperial chamber, and for the future belonged merely in

name to the empire, and gradually fell under the influence of

France."

W. Menzel,

History of Germany,

chapter 191 (volume 2).

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1476-1477.

Defeat of Charles the Bold.

See BURGUNDY (THE FRENCH DUKEDOM): A. D. 1476-1477.

SWITZERLAND:A. D. 1481-1501.

Disagreements over the spoils of the war with Charles the Bold.

Threatened rupture.

The Convention of Stanz.

Enlargement of the Confederacy.

Its loose and precarious constitution.

"In the war with Charles the Bold, Bern had gained greatly in

extent on the west, while the immense booty taken in battle

and the tributes laid on conquered cities seemed to the

country cantons to be unfairly divided, for all were supposed

to receive an equal share. The cities protested that it was no

fair division of booty to give each one of the country states,

who had altogether furnished 14,000 men for the war, an even

share with Bern which had sent out 40,000. Another bone of

contention was the enlargement of the union. The cities had

for a long time desired to bring the cantons of Freiburg and

Solothurn into the League. … But these were municipal

governments, and the Forest States, unwilling to add more to

the voting strength of the cities and thereby place themselves

in the minority, refused again and again to admit these

cantons. The situation daily grew more critical. Schwyz, Uri,

and Unterwalden made an agreement with Glarus to stand by each

other in case of attack. Luzern, Bern, and Zurich made a

compact of mutual citizenship, a form of agreement by which

they sought to circumvent the oath they had taken in the

League of Eight to enter into no new alliances. Just at this

point there was alleged to have been discovered a plot to

destroy the city of Luzern by countrymen of Obwalden and

Entlibuch. The cities were thrown into a frenzy and peace was

strained to the utmost. Threats and recriminations passed from

side to side, but finally, as an almost hopeless effort toward

reconciliation, a Diet was called to meet at Stanz on the 8th

of December, 1481. The details of this conference read like

romance, so great was the transformation which took place in

the feelings of the confederates. … Just as the Diet was about

to break up in confusion a compromise was effected, and an

agreement was drawn up which is known as the Convention of

Stanz (Stanzerverkomniss). … As to the matter latest in

contention, it was agreed that movable booty should be divided

according to the number of men sent into war, but new

acquisitions of territory should be shared equally among the

states participating. Thus the principle of state-rights was

preserved and the idea of popular representation received its

first, and for 300 years almost its only recognition. In

another agreement, made the same day, Freiburg and Solothurn

were admitted to the League on equal terms with the others. In

1501 the confederation was enlarged by the admission of Basel,

which, on account of its situation and importance, was a most

desirable acquisition, and in the same year the addition of

Schaffhausen, like Basel, a free imperial city with outlying

territories, still further strengthened the Union. The next,

and for 285 years the last, addition to the inner membership

of the alliance was Appenzell. … Connected with the

confederacy there were, for varying periods and in different

relationships, other territories and cities more or less under

its control. One class consisted of the so-called Allied

Districts ('Zugewandte find Verbündete Orte'), who were

attached to the central body not as equal members, but as

friends for mutual assistance. This form of alliance began

almost with the formation of the league, and gradually

extended till it included St. Gallen, Biel, Neuchatel, the

Bishopric of Basel (which territory lay outside the city), the

separate confederacies of Graubünden and Valais, Geneva and

several free imperial cities of Germany, at one time so

distant as Strassburg. More closely attached to the

confederation were the 'Gemeine Vogteien.' or subject

territories [Aargau, Thurgau, etc.], whose government was

administered by various members of the league in partnership.

These lands had been obtained partly by purchase or forfeiture

of loans and partly by conquest. … Before the middle of the

16th century nearly all the territory now included in

Switzerland was in some way connected with the confederation.

Upon this territorial basis of states, subject lands and

allies, the fabric of government stood till the close of the

18th century. It was a loose confederation, whose sole organ

of common action was a Diet in which each state was entitled

to one vote. … Almost the only thread that held the Swiss

Confederation together was the possession of subject lands. In

these they were interested as partners in a business

corporation. … These common properties were all that prevented

complete rupture on several critical occasions."

J. M. Vincent,

State and Federal Government in Switzerland,

chapter 1.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1515.

Defeat by the French at Marignano.

Treaties of perpetual alliance with Francis I.

See FRANCE: A. D.1515; and 1515-1518.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1519.

Geneva in civic relations with Berne and Freiburg.

See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1519-1524.

Beginning of the Reformation at Zurich, under Zwingli.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.

The spreading of the Reformation.

Adhesion of the Forest Cantons to Romanism.

Differences between the Swiss Reformers

and the German Protestants.

The Conference at Marburg.

Civil war among the Cantons.

Death of Zwingli.

From Zurich, "the reformed faith penetrated, but only

gradually, into the northern and eastern cantons. Bern was

reached in 1528, after a brilliant disputation held in that

city. Basel and Schaffhausen followed in 1529, and then St.

Gall, Appenzell, Graubünden, and Solothurn, though some of

them had serious struggles within themselves and fell in only

partly with the reforms. But in the Central or Forest Cantons

it was that the fiercest opposition was encountered. … From

the very simplicity of their lives the people ignored the

degeneracy of the priesthood, and amongst these pastoral

peoples the priests were of simpler manners and more moral

life than those in the cities; they disliked learning and

enlightenment.

{3047}

Then there was the old feeling of antipathy to the cities,

coupled with a strong dislike for the reforms which had

abolished 'Reislaufen' [military service under foreign pay],

that standing source of income to the cantons. Lucerne, bought

with French gold, struggled with Zurich for the lead. So far

was the opposition carried that the Catholic districts by a

majority of votes insisted (at the Diet) on a measure for

suppressing heresy in Zurich, whilst some were for expelling

that canton from the league. The Forest Cantons issued orders

that Zwingli should be seized should he be found within their

territories; consequently he kept away from the great

convocation at Baden, 1526. … Wider and wider grew the chasm

between the two religious parties, and Zwingli at length

formed a 'Christian League' between the Swiss Protestants and

some of the German cities and the Elector of Hesse. On the

other hand, the Catholics entered into an alliance with

Ferdinand of Austria, a determined enemy to the reformed

religion. At last the Protestant party was exasperated beyond

bearing, and Zurich declared war on the Forest Cantons,

Zwingli himself joining in the vicissitudes of the campaign.

His camp presented the 'picture of a well-organized,

God-fearing army of a truly Puritan stamp.' The encounter at

Kappel, in June, 1529, however, took a peaceful turn, thanks

to the mediation of Landammann Aebli, of Glarus, greatly to

the disgust of Zwingli, who prophetically exclaimed that some

day the Catholics would be the stronger party, and then they

would not show so much moderation. All ill-feeling, indeed,

subsided when the two armies came within sight of each other.

The curious and touching episode known as the 'Kappeler

Milchsuppe' took place here. A band of jolly Catholics had got

hold of a large bowl of milk, but lacking bread they placed it

on the boundary line between Zug and Zurich. At once a group

of Zurich men turned up with some loaves, and presently the

whole party fell to eating the 'Milchsuppe' right merrily. A

peace was concluded on the 29th of June, 1529, by which the

Austrian League was dissolved, and freedom of worship granted

to all. … By his treatise, 'De verâ et falsâ religione'

(1525), Zwingli had, though unwillingly, thrown the gauntlet

into the Wittenberg camp. The work was intended to be a

scientific refutation of the Catholic doctrine of

transubstantiation, and a war of words arose. The contest was

by each disputant carried on 'suo more;' by Luther with his

usual authoritative and tempestuous vehemence, by Zwingli in

his own cool reasoning, dignified, and courteous style and

republican frankness. Presently there came a strong desire for

a union between the German Protestants, and the Swiss

Reformers [called Sacramentarians by the Lutherans], … the

impulse to it being given by Charles V.'s 'Protest' against

the Protestants. Landgrave Philip of Hesse, the political

leader of the German reformers, invited Luther and Zwingli to

meet at his castle of Marburg [1529], with the view of

reconciling the two sections. The religious colloquium was

attended by many savants, princes, nobles, and all the chief

leaders of the Reformation, and might have done great things,

but came to grief through the obstinacy of Luther, as is well

known, or rather through his determination to approve of no

man's views except they should agree exactly with his own.

Luther insisted on a literal interpretation of the words 'This

is my body,' whilst Zwingli saw in them only a metaphorical or

symbolical signification. … To return for a moment to home

politics. The peace of 1529 was a short-lived one. Zwingli,

anxious only to spread the reformed faith over the whole

republic, did not realize clearly the hatred of the Forest

district against the new creed. … War was imminent, and was

indeed eagerly desired on both sides. Bern, finding that war

was likely to be injurious to her private ends, insisted on a

stoppage of mercantile traffic between the opposing districts,

but Zwingli scorned to use such a means to hunger the enemy

and so bring them to submit. However Zurich was outvoted in

the Christian League (May 16th), and the Forest was excluded

from the markets of that city and Bern. The rest may be easily

guessed. On Zurich was turned all the fury of the famished

Forest men, and they sent a challenge in October, 1531. A

second time the hostile armies met at Kappel, but the

positions were reversed. Zurich was unprepared to meet a foe

four times as numerous as her own, and Bern hesitated to come

to her aid. However Göldlin, the captain of the little force,

recklessly engaged with the opposing army, whether from

treachery or incapacity is not known, but he was certainly

opposed to the reformed faith. Zwingli had taken leave of his

friend Bullinger, as though foreseeing his own death in the

coming struggle, and had joined the Zurich force. He was with

the chief banner, and, with some 500 of his overmatched

comrades, fell in the thickest of the battle. … But the

reformation was far too deeply rooted to be thus destroyed.

Bullinger, the friend of Zwingli, and, later on, of Calvin,

worthily succeeded to the headship of the Zurich reformers."

Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,

Switzerland, chapter 22.

ALSO IN:

J. H. Merle d' Aubigne,

History of the Reformation in the 16th century,

books 11 and 15-16 (volume 3-4).

L. von Ranke,

History of the Reformation in Germany,

book 6, chapters 2-4 (volume 3).

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.

Religious divisions and conflicts.

Annexations of territory.

Peace with the Duke of Savoy.

The coming of Protestant refugees.

Industrial progress.

Peace.

"A peace at Dennikon in 1531 marks the acknowledgement of the

principle of each Canton's independence. … The Confederacy was

now fatally divided. There is, perhaps, no other instance of a

State so deeply and so permanently sundered by the

Reformation. Other governments adopted or rejected the

reformed religion for their dominions as a whole; the

Confederacy, by its constitution, was constrained to allow

each Canton to determine its religion for itself; and the

presence of Catholic and Reformed States side by side, each

clinging with obstinacy to the religion of their choice,

became the origin of jealousies and wars which have threatened

more than once to rend asunder the ties of union. Next to the

endless but uninteresting theme of religious differences comes

the history of the annexations" by which the Confederacy

extended its limits. "In the direction of the Jura was a

country divided between many governments, which the princes of

Savoy, the Hapsburgs of the West, had once effectually ruled,

but which had become morselled among many claimants during a

century and a half of weakness, and which Duke Charles III. of

Savoy was now seeking to reconcile to his authority.

{3048}

Geneva was the chief city of these parts. … Factions in favour

of or against [the rule of the Duke of Savoy] … divided the

city [see GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535]. The alliance of Bern and

Freyburg was at length sought for; and the conclusion of a

treaty of co-citizenship in 1526 opened at once the prospect

of a collision between the House of Savoy and the Confederacy.

That collision was not long delayed. In 1536, after repeated

acts of provocation by Charles III., 7,000 men of Bern

appeared within Geneva. To reach the city they had traversed

the Pays de Vaud; after entering it they passed onwards to the

provinces of Gex and Chablais. All that they traversed they

annexed. Even the city which they had entered they would have

ruled, had not some sparks of honour and the entreaties of its

inhabitants restrained them from the annihilation of the

liberties which they had been called on to defend. The men of

Freyburg and of the Valais at the same time made humbler

conquests from Savoy. Later, the strong fortress of Chillon,

and the rich bishopric of Lausanne, were seized upon by Bern.

A wide extent of territory was thus added to the Confederacy;

and again a considerable population speaking the French tongue

was brought under the dominion of the Teutonic Cantons. These

acquisitions were extended, in 1555, by the cession of the

county of Gruyère, through the embarrassments of its last

impoverished Count. They were diminished, however, by the loss

of Gex and Chablais in 1564. The jealousy of many of the

cantons at the good fortune of their confederates, and the

reviving power of the House of Savoy, had made the conquests

insecure. Emmanuel Philibert, the hero of St. Quentin, the

ally of the great sovereigns of France and Spain, asked back

his provinces; and prudence counselled the surrender of the

two, in order to obtain a confirmation of the possession of

the rest.

See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.

The southern side of the Lake Leman, which had thus been

momentarily held, and which nature seemed to have intended to

belong to the Confederacy, was thus abandoned. The frontiers,

however, which were now secured became permanent ones. The

Dukes of Savoy had transferred much of their ambition, with

their capital, beyond the Alps; and the Confederates remained

secure in their remaining possessions. The Confederacy might

now have added further to its power by admitting new members

to its League. … Constance … had urged its own incorporation.

The religious tendencies of its inhabitants, however, had made

it suspected: and it was allowed to fall, in 1548, without

hope of recovery, under the dominion of Austria. Geneva … was

pleading loudly for admission. The jealousy of Bern, and later

the hostility of the Catholic Cantons to the faith of which

the city had become the centre, refused the request. She

remained a mere ally, with even her independence not always

ungrudgingly defended against the assaults of her enemies.

Religious zeal indeed was fatal during this century to

political sagacity. Under its influence the alliance with the

rich city of Mulhausen, which had endured for more than a

hundred years, was thrown off in 1587; the overtures of

Strasburg for alliance were rejected; the proposals of the

Grisons Leagues were repulsed. The opportunities of the

Confederates were thus neglected, while those of their

neighbours became proportionately increased. … The progress

that is to be traced during the 16th century is such as was

due to the times rather than to the people. The cessation of

foreign wars and the fewer inducements for mercenary service

gave leisure for the arts of peace; and agriculture and trade

resumed their progress. Already Switzerland began to be sought

by refugees from England, France, and Italy. The arts of

weaving and of dyeing were introduced, and the manufacture of

watches began at Geneva. … War, which had been almost

abandoned except in the service of others, comes little into

the annals of the Confederation as a State. … As another

century advances, there is strife at the very gates of the

Confederation. … But the Confederacy itself was never driven

into war."

C. F. Johnstone,

Historical Abstracts,

chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

H. Zschokke,

History of Switzerland,

chapters 33-41.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1536-1564.

Calvin's Ecclesiastical State at Geneva.

See GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.

The Catholic revival and rally.

The Borromean or Golden League.

"Pre-eminent amongst those who worked for the Catholic revival

was the famous Carlo Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan and nephew

of Pius IV. He lived the life of a saint, and in due time was

canonized. To his see belonged the Swiss bailliages in the

Ticino and Valtellina. Indefatigable in his labours,

constantly visiting every part of his diocese, toiling up to

the Alpine huts, he gathered the scattered flocks into the

Papal fold, whether by mildness or by force. … For the spread

of Catholic doctrines he hit upon three different means. He

called into being the Collegium Helveticum in 1579 at Milan,

where the Swiss priests were educated free. He sent the

Jesuits into the country, and placed a nuncio at Lucerne, in

1580. In 1586 was signed, between the seven Catholic cantons,

the Borromean or Golden League, directed against the

reformers, and in the following year a coalition was, by the

same cantons, excepting Solothurn, entered into with Philip of

Spain and with Savoy. The Jesuits settled themselves in

Lucerne and Freiburg, and soon gained influence amongst the

rich and the educated, whilst the Capuchins, who fixed

themselves at Altorf, Stanz, Appenzell, and elsewhere, won the

hearts of the masses by their lowliness and devotion. In this

way did Rome seek to regain her influence over the Swiss

peoples, and the effect of her policy was soon felt in the

semi-Protestant and subject lands. … In the Valais, the

Protestant party, though strong, was quite swept out by the

Jesuits, before 1630."

Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,

Switzerland, chapter 25.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1620-1626.

The Valtelline revolt and war with the Grisons.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1648.

The Peace of Westphalia.

Acknowledged independence and

separation from the German Empire.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

{3049}

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.

The Peasant Revolt and the Toggenburg War.

Religious conflicts.

Battles of Villmergen.

The Peace of Aarau.

"About the middle of the 17th century there was growing up, in

all the cantons except the Waldstätten, a feeling of strong

discontent among the peasants, who still suffered from many of

the tyrannies which had descended to them from the old days of

serfdom. They felt the painful contrast between their lot and

that of the three old cantons, where every peasant voted for

his own magistrates and his own laws, and helped to decide the

taxes and contributions which he should pay. … Now that their

liberty had been proclaimed at Westphalia, they were inspired

with the idea of trying to make it a reality. … They rose on

the occasion of the reduction of the value of their copper

coinage. … Opposition began among the Entlibuchers of Lucerne,

a tall and sturdy race, that lived in the long, fertile valley

on the banks of the Emmen. … Their spirit was soon quenched,

however, by the threats of Zurich and Berne; but though they

yielded for the moment, their example had spread, and there

were popular risings, excited in the large canton of Berne by

the same causes, which were not so easily checked. There was a

second revolt in Lucerne, which was intended to be nothing

less than a league of all the lower classes throughout the ten

cantons. The peasants of Lucerne, Berne, Basel, Solothurn, and

the territory of Aargau, all joined in this and held an

assembly at Sumiswald, in April 1653, where they chose

Nicholas Leuenberger as their chief, and proclaimed their

purpose of making themselves free as the Small Cantons. To

this union, unfortunately, they brought neither strength of

purpose nor wisdom. … Meanwhile the cities were not idle.

Zurich, the capital, gave the order for the whole confederacy

to arm, in May 1653. The struggle was short and decisive. For

a few weeks Leuenberger's soldiers robbed and murdered where

they could, and made feeble and futile attempts upon the small

cities of Aargau. Towards the end of May he met, near

Herzogenbuchsee, the Bernese troops. … A desperate fight

ensued, but the insurgents were soon overpowered. … This

battle ended the insurrection." Leuenberger was beheaded. "No

sooner was this revolt of the peasants over than the

smouldering fires of religious hatred, zealously fanned by the

clergy on both sides, broke out again. … Several families of

Arth, in Schwyz had been obliged by the Catholics to abjure

their faith, or fly from their homes." Zurich took up their

cause, and "a general war broke out. … Berne first despatched

troops to protect her own frontier, and then sent 40 banners

to the help of Zurich." The Bernese troops were so careless

that they allowed themselves to be surprised (January 14,

1656) by 4,000 Lucerners, in the territory of Villmergen, and

were ruinously defeated, losing 800 men and eleven guns. "Soon

afterwards a peace was concluded, where everything stood much

as it had stood at the beginning of this war, which had lasted

only nine weeks. … A second insurrection, on a smaller scale

than the peasants' revolt, took place in St. Gall in the first

years of the 18th century. The Swiss, free in the eyes of the

outside world, were, as we have already seen, mere serfs in

nearly all the cantons, and such was their condition in the

country of Toggenburg. … The greater part of the rights over

these estates had been sold to the abbot of St. Gall in 1468.

In the year 1700, the abbey of St. Gall was presided over by

Leodegar Burgisser as sovereign lord. … He began by

questioning all the commune rights of the Toggenburgers, and

called the people his serfs, in order that they might become

so used to the name as not to rebel against the hardness of

the condition. Even at the time when he became abbot, there

was very little, either of right or privilege, remaining to

these poor people. … When, in 1701, Abbot Leodegar ordered

them to build and keep open, at their own expense, a new road

through the Hummelwald, crushed as they had been, they

turned." After much fruitless remonstrance and appeal they

took up arms, supported by the Protestant cantons and attacked

by the Catholics, with aid contributed by the nuncio of the

pope, himself. "The contest was practically ended on the 25th

of July, 1712, by a decisive victory by the Protestants on the

battle-field of Villmergen, where they had been beaten by the

Lucerne men 56 years before. The battle lasted four hours, and

2,000 Catholics were slain. … In the month of August, a

general peace was concluded at Aarau, to the great advantage

of the conquerors. The five Catholic cantons were obliged to

yield their rights over Baden and Rapperswyl, and to associate

Berne with themselves in the sovereignty over Thurgau and the

Rheinfeld. By this provision the two religions became

equalized in those provinces. … The Toggenburgers came once

more under the jurisdiction of an abbot of St. Gall, but with

improved rights and privileges, and under the powerful

protection of Zurich and Berne. The Catholic cantons were long

in recovering from the expenses of this war. … During 86 years

from the peace of Aarau, the Swiss were engaged in neither

foreign nor civil war, and the disturbances which agitated the

different cantons from time to time were confined to a limited

stage. But real peace and union were as far off as ever.

Religious differences, plots, intrigues, and revolts, kept

people of the same canton and village apart, until the

building which their forefathers had raised in the early days

of the republic was gradually weakened and ready to fall, like

a house of cards, at the first blow from France."

H. D. S. Mackenzie,

Switzerland,

chapters 15-16.

ALSO IN:

H. Zschokke,

History of Switzerland,

chapters 42-56.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.

The ferment of the French Revolution.

Invasion and subjugation by the French.

Robbing of the treasure of Berne.

Formation of the Helvetic Republic.

"The world rang with arms and cries of war, with revolutions,

battles and defeats. The French promised fraternity and

assistance to every people who wished to make themselves free.

… Their arms advanced victorious through Savoy and the

Netherlands and over the Rhine. Nearer and nearer drew the

danger around the country of the Alpine people. But the

government of the Confederate states showed no foresight in

view of the danger. They thought themselves safe behind the

shield of their innocence and their neutrality between the

contending parties. They had no arms and prepared none; they

had no strength and did not draw closer the bands of their

everlasting compact. Each canton, timidly and in silence,

cared for its own safety, but little for that of the others. …

All kinds of pamphlets stirred up the people. At Lausanne,

Vevey, Rolle and other places, fiery young men, in noisy

assemblages, drank success to the arms of emancipated France.

{3050}

Although public order was nowhere disturbed by such

proceedings, the government of Berne thought it necessary to

put a stop to them by severe measures and to compel silence by

wholesome fear. They sent plenipotentiaries supported by an

armed force. The guilty and even the innocent were punished.

More fled. This silenced Vaud, but did not quell her

indignation. The fugitives breathed vengeance. … In foreign

countries dwelt sadly many of those who, at various times, had

been banished from the Confederacy because they had, by word

or deed, too boldly or importunately defended the rights and

freedom of their fellow-citizens. Several of these addressed

the chiefs of the French republic. … Such addresses pleased

the chiefs of France. They thought in their hearts that

Switzerland would be an excellent bulwark for France, and a

desirable gate, through which the way would be always open to

Italy and Germany. They also knew of and longed for the

treasures of the Swiss cities. And they endeavored to find

cause of quarrel with the magistrates of the Confederates. …

Shortly afterwards, came the great general Napoleon

Buonaparte, and marched through Savoy into Italy against the

forces of the emperor. … In a very few months, though in many

battles, Buonaparte vanquished the whole power of Austria,

conquered and terrified Italy from one end to the other, took

the whole of Lombardy and compelled the emperor to make peace.

He made Lombardy a republic, called the Cisalpine. When the

subjects of Grisons in Valtelina, Chiavenna and Bormio saw

this, they preferred to be citizens of the neighboring

Cisalpine republic, rather than poor subjects of Grisons. For

their many grievances and complaints were rarely listened to.

But Buonaparte said to Grisons: 'If you will give freedom and

equal rights to these people, they may be your

fellow-citizens, and still remain with you. I give you time;

decide and send word to me at Milan.' … When the last period

for decision had passed, Buonaparte became indignant and

impatient, and united Valtelina, Chiavenna and Bormio to the

Cisalpine republic (22d October, 1797). … So the old limits of

Switzerland were unjustly contracted; four weeks afterwards

also, that part of the bishopric of Bale which had hitherto

been respected on account of its alliance with the Swiss, was

added to France. Thereat great fear fell on the Confederates.

… Then the rumor spread that a French army was approaching the

frontiers of Switzerland to protect the people of Vaud. They

had called for the intervention of France in virtue of ancient

treaties. But report said that the French intended to

overthrow the Confederate authorities and to make themselves

masters of the country. … Almost the whole Confederacy was in

a state of confusion and dissolution. The governments of the

cantons, powerless, distrustful and divided, acted each for

itself, without concert. … In the mean while a large army of

French advanced. Under their generals Brune and Schauenberg

they entered the territory of the Confederates, and Vaud,

accepting foreign protection, declared herself independent of

Berne. Then the governments of Switzerland felt that they

could no longer maintain their former dominion. Lucerne and

Schauffhausen declared their subjects free and united to

themselves. Zurich released the prisoners of Stafa, and

promised to ameliorate her constitution to the advantage of

the people. … Even Freiburg now felt that the change must come

for which Chenaur had bled. And the council of Berne received

into their number 52 representatives of the country and said:

'Let us hold together in the common danger.' All these reforms

and revolutions were the work of four weeks; all too late.

Berne, indeed, with Freiburg and Solothurn, opposed her troops

to the advancing French army. Courage was not wanting; but

discipline, skill in arms and experienced officers. … On the

very first day of the war (2d March, 1798), the enemy's light

troops took Freiburg and Solothurn, and on the fourth (5th

March), Berne itself. … France now authoritatively decided the

future fate of Switzerland and said: 'The Confederacy is no

more. Henceforward the whole of Switzerland shall form a free

state, one and indivisible, under the name of the Helvetian

republic. All the inhabitants, in country as well as city,

shall have equal rights of citizenship. The citizens in

general assembly shall choose their magistrates, officers,

judges and legislative council; the legislative council shall

elect the general government; the government shall appoint the

cantonal prefects and officers.' The whole Swiss territory was

divided into 18 cantons of about equal size. For this purpose

the district of Berne was parcelled into the cantons of Vaud,

Oberland, Berne and Aragau; several small cantons were united

in one; as Uri, Schwyz. Unterwalden and Zug in the canton of

Waldstatten; St. Gallen district, Rheinthal and Appenzell in

the canton of Santis; several countries subject to the

Confederacy, as Baden, Thurgau, Lugano and Bellinzona, formed

new cantons. Valais was also added as one; Grisons was invited

to join; but Geneva, Muhlhausen and other districts formerly

parts of Switzerland, were separated from her and incorporated

with France. So decreed the foreign conquerors. They levied

heavy war-taxes and contributions. They carried off the tons

of gold which Berne, Zurich and other cities had accumulated

in their treasure-chambers during their dominion. … But the

mountaineers of Uri, Nidwalden, Schwyz and Glarus, original

confederates in liberty, said: 'In battle and in blood, our

fathers won the glorious jewel of our independence; we will

not lose it but in battle and in blood.' … Then they fought

valiantly near Wollrau and on the Schindellegi, but

unsuccessfully. … But Aloys Reding reassembled his troops on

the Rothenthurm, near the Morgarten field of victory. There a

long and bloody battle took place. … Thrice did the French

troops renew the combat: thrice were they defeated and driven

back to Aegeri in Zug. It was the second of May. Nearly 2,000

of the enemy lay slain upon that glorious field. Gloriously

also fought the Waldstatten on the next day near Arth. But the

strength of the heroes bled away in their very victories. They

made a treaty, and, with sorrow in their hearts, entered the

Helvetian republic. Thus ended the old Bond of the

Confederates. Four hundred and ninety years had it lasted; in

seventy-four days it was dissolved."

H. Zschokke,

The History of Switzerland,

chapters 57 and 60.

{3051}

"A system of robbery and extortion, more shameless even than

that practised in Italy, was put in force against the cantonal

governments, against the monasteries, and against private

individuals. In compensation for the material losses inflicted

upon the country, the new Helvetic Republic, one and indivisible,

was proclaimed at Aarau. It conferred an equality of political

rights upon all natives of Switzerland, and substituted for

the ancient varieties of cantonal sovereignty a single

national government, composed, like that of France, of a

Directory and two Councils of Legislature. The towns and

districts which had been hitherto excluded from a share in

government welcomed a change which seemed to place them on a

level with their former superiors: the mountain-cantons fought

with traditional heroism in defence of the liberties which

they had inherited from their fathers; but they were

compelled, one after another, to submit to the overwhelming

force of France, and to accept the new constitution. Yet, even

now, when peace seemed to have been restored, and the whole

purpose of France attained, the tyranny and violence of the

invaders exhausted the endurance of a spirited people. The

magistrates of the Republic were expelled from office at the

word of a French Commission; hostages were seized; at length

an oath of allegiance to the new order was required as a

condition for the evacuation of Switzerland by the French

army. It was refused by the mountaineers of Unterwalden, and a

handful of peasants met the French army at the village of

Stanz, on the eastern shore of the Lake of Lucerne (September

8). There for three days they fought with unyielding courage.

Their resistance inflamed the French to a cruel vengeance:

slaughtered families and burning villages renewed, in this

so-called crusade of liberty, the savagery of ancient war."

C. A. Fyffe,

History of Modern Europe,

volume 1, chapter 4.

"Geneva at the same time [1798] fell a prey to the ambition of

the all-engrossing Republic. This celebrated city had long

been an object of their desire; and the divisions by which it

was now distracted afforded a favourable opportunity for

accomplishing the object. The democratic party loudly demanded

a union with that power, and a commission was appointed by the

Senate to report upon the subject. Their report, however, was

unfavourable; upon which General Gerard, who commanded a small

corps in the neighbourhood, took possession of the town; and

the Senate, with the bayonet at their throats, formally agreed

to a union with the conquering Republic."

Sir A. Alison,

History of Europe, 1789-1815,

chapter 25 (volume 6).

ALSO IN:

A. Thiers,

History of the French Revolution (American Edition),

volume 4, pages 248-252.

Mallet du Pan,

Memoirs and Correspondence,

volume 2, chapters 13-14.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1797.

Bonaparte's dismemberment of the Graubünden.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1798-1799.

Battlefield of the second Coalition against France.

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

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1799 (August-December).

Campaign of the French against the Russians.

Battle of Zurich.

Carnage in the city.

Suwarrow's retreat.

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

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1800.

Bonaparte's passage of the Great St. Bernard.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1802.

Revolution instigated and enforced by Bonaparte.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

Napoleon's Act of Mediation.

Independence regained and Neutrality guaranteed by

the Congress of Vienna.

Geneva, the Valais, and Neuchâtel.

The Federal Pact of 1815.

The Sonderbund and Civil War.

The Federal Constitution of 1848.

"Bonaparte summoned deputies of both parties to Paris, and

after long consultation with them he gave to Switzerland, on

the 2d February 1803, a new Constitution termed the Act of

Mediation. Old names were restored, and in some cases what had

been subject lands were incorporated in the League, which now

consisted of 19 Cantons, each having a separate Constitution.

The additional six were: St. Gallen, the Grisons, Aargau,

Thurgau, Ticino, and Vaud. This was the fifth phase of the

Confederation. A Diet was created, there being one deputy to

each Canton, but still with limited powers, for he could only

vote according to his instructions. The 19 deputies had,

however, between them 25 votes, because every deputy who

represented a Canton with more than 100,000 inhabitants

possessed two votes, and there were six of these Cantons. The

Diet met once a year in June, by turns at Zürich, Bern,

Luzern, Freiburg, Solothurn, and Basel, the Cantons of which

these were the capitals becoming successively directing

Cantons. Three were Catholic and three Protestant. The head of

the directing Canton for the time being was Landammann of

Switzerland and President of the Diet. The Act of Mediation

was not acceptable to all parties, and before Switzerland

could become entirely independent there was to be one more

foreign intervention. The fall of the Emperor Napoleon brought

with it the destruction of his work in that country, the

neutrality and independence of which were recognized by the

Congress of Vienna [see VIENNA: CONGRESS OF), though upon

condition of the maintenance in the Confederation of the new

Cantons; and in 1814 the Valais (a Republic allied to the

Confederation from the Middle Ages till 1798), Neuchâtel

(which, from being subject to the King of Prussia, had been

bestowed by Napoleon upon Marshal Berthier), and Geneva (which

had been annexed to France under the Directory in 1798, but

was now independent and rendered more compact by the addition

of some territory belonging to France and Savoy) were added to

the existing Cantons. Finally, the perpetual neutrality of

Switzerland and the inviolability of her territory were

guaranteed by Austria, Great Britain, Portugal, Prussia, and

Russia, in an Act signed at Paris on the 20th November 1815.

Neuchâtel, however, only really gained its independence in

1857, when it ceased to be a Prussian Principality. The

Confederation now consisted of 22 Cantons, and a Federal Pact,

drawn up at Zürich by the Diet in 1815, and accepted by the

Congress of Vienna, took the place of the Act of Mediation,

and remained in force till 1848. It was in some respects a

return to the state of things previous to the French

Revolution, and restored to the Cantons a large portion of

their former sovereignty. … Then came an epoch of agitation

and discord. The Confederation suffered from a fundamental

vice, i. e. the powerlessness of the central authority. The

Cantons had become too independent, and gave to their deputies

instructions differing widely from each other. The fall of the

Bourbons in 1830 had its echo in Switzerland, the patricians

of Bern and the aristocratic class in other Cantons lost the

ascendency which they had gradually recovered since the

beginning of the century, and the power of the people was

greatly increased.

{3052}

In several months 12 Cantons, among which were Luzern and

Freiburg, modified their Constitutions in a democratic sense,

some peaceably, others by revolution. … Between 1830 and 1847

there were in all 27 revisions of cantonal Constitutions. To

political disputes religious troubles were added. In Aargau

the Constitution of 1831, whereby the Grand Council was made

to consist of 200 members, half being Protestants and half

Catholics, was revised in 1840, and by the new Constitution

the members were no longer to be chosen with any reference to

creed, but upon the basis of wide popular representation, thus

giving a numerical advantage to the Protestants. Discontent

arose among the Catholics, and eventually some 2,000 peasants

of that faith took up arms, but were beaten by Protestants of

Aargau at Villmergen in January 1841, and the consequence was

the suppression of the eight convents in that Canton, and the

confiscation of their most valuable property. … A first result

of the suppression of these convents was the fall of the

Liberal government of Luzern, and the advent to power of the

chiefs of the Ultramontane party in that Canton. Two years

later the new government convoked delegates of the Catholic

Cantons at Rothen, near Luzern, and there in secret

conferences, and under the pretext that religion was in

danger, the bases of a separate League or Sonderbund were

laid, embracing the four Forest Cantons, Zug, and Freiburg.

Subsequently the Valais joined the League, which was clearly a

violation not only of the letter but also of the spirit of the

Federal Pact. In 1844 the Grand Council of Luzern voted in

favour of the Jesuits' appeal to be entrusted with the

direction of superior public education, and this led to

hostilities between the Liberal and Ultramontane parties.

Bands of volunteers attacked Luzern and were defeated, the

expulsion of the Jesuits became a burning question, and

finally, when the ordinary Diet assembled at Bern in July

1847, the Sonderbund Cantons declared their intention of

persevering in their separate alliance until the other Cantons

had decreed the re-establishment of the Aargau convents,

abandoned the question of the Jesuits, and renounced all

modifications of the Pact. These conditions could evidently

not be accepted. … On the 4th November 1847, after the

deputies of the Sonderbund had left the Diet, this League was

declared to be dissolved, and hostilities broke out between

the two contending parties. A short and decisive campaign of

25 days ensued, Freiburg was taken by the Federal troops,

under General Dufour, later Luzern opened its gates, the small

Cantons and the Valais capitulated and the strife came to an

end. … As soon as the Sonderbund was dissolved, it became

necessary to proceed to the revision of the Federal Pact."

Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,

The Swiss Confederation,

chapter 1.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1810.

Annexation of the Valais to France.

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

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1817.

Accession to the Holy Alliance.

See HOLY ALLIANCE.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1832.

Educational reforms.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.

SWITZERLAND.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

The existing Federal Constitution.

On the conclusion of the Sonderbund Secession and War, 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 8th 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 Constitution should be found 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

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 6 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.

{3053}

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. … The highest power of the

Bund is exercised by the 'Bundesversammlung,' or Parliament,

which consists of two chambers, the 'Nationalrath,' and the

'Ständerath.' The Nationalrath corresponds to the English

House of Commons, and the Ständerath partially to the House of

Lords; the former represents the Swiss people, the latter the

Cantons. The Nationalrath consists of 145 members. … Every

Canton or half Canton must choose at least one member; and for

the purpose of election Switzerland is divided into 49

electoral districts. The Nationalrath is triennial. … The

Ständerath consists of 44 members, each Canton having two

representatives and each half Canton one. … A bill is regarded

as passed when it has an absolute majority in both chambers,

but it does not come into force until either a plebiscite is

not demanded for a space of three months, or, if it is

demanded (for which the request of 30,000 voters is necessary)

the result of the appeal to the people is in favor of the

bill. This privilege of the people to control the decision of

their representatives is called Das Referendum. …

See REFERENDUM.

The highest administrative authority in Switzerland is the

Bundesrath, composed of seven members, which [like the

Bundesversammlung] … meets in Bern. Its members are chosen by

the Bundesversammlung and the term of office is ten years. …

The president of the Confederation (Bundespresident) is chosen

by the Bundesversammlung from the members of the Bundesrath

for one year. … The administration of justice, so far as it is

exercised by the Bund, is entrusted to a Court, the

Bundesgericht, consisting of nine members."

P. Hauri,

Sketch of the Constitution of Switzerland

(in Strickland's "The Engadine").

ALSO IN:

Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,

The Swiss Confederation.

J. M. Vincent,

State and Federal Government in Switzerland.

Old South Leaflets,

general series, number 18.

University of Pennsylvania,

Publications, number 8.

For the text of the Swiss Constitution,

See CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1871.

Exclusion of Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1894.

The President of the Swiss Federal Council for 1894 is Emile

Frey, the Vice President, Joseph Zemp. According to the latest

census, taken in 1888, the population of Switzerland was

2,917,740.

----------SWITZERLAND: End--------

SWORD, German Order of the.

See LIVONIA: 12-13TH CENTURIES.

SWORD, Swedish Order of the.

An Order, ascribed to Gustavus Vasa. It was revived, after

long neglect, by King Frederick I. in 1748.

SYAGRIUS, Kingdom of.

See GAUL: A. D. 457-486.

SYBARIS.

SYBARITES.

Sybaris and Kroton were two ancient Greek cities, founded by

Achæan colonists, on the coast of the gulf of Tarentum, in

southern Italy. "The town of Sybaris was planted between two

rivers, the Sybaris and the Krathis (the name of the latter

borrowed from a river of Achaia); the town of Kroton about

twenty-live miles distant, on the river Æsarus. … The fatal

contest between these two cities, which ended in the ruin of

Sybaris, took place in 510 B. C., after the latter had

subsisted in growing prosperity for 210 years. … We are told

that the Sybarites, in that final contest, marched against

Kroton with an army of 300,000 men. … The few statements which

have reached us respecting them touch, unfortunately, upon

little more than their luxury, fantastic self-indulgence and

extravagant indolence, for which qualities they have become

proverbial in modern times as well as in ancient. Anecdotes

illustrating these qualities were current, and served more

than one purpose in antiquity."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 22.

SYBOTA, Naval Battle of.

Fought, B. C. 432, between the fleets of Corinth and Corcyra,

in the quarrel which led up to the Peloponnesian War. The

Athenians had ten ships present, as allies of the Corcyreans,

intending only to watch affairs, but at the end they were

drawn into the fight. The Corcyreans were beaten.

Thucydides,

History,

book 1, section 46.

SYCOPHANTS.

"Not until now [about B. C. 428, when the demagogue Cleon rose

to power at Athens] did the activity of the Sycophants attain

to its full height; a class of men arose who made a regular

trade of collecting materials for indictments, and of bringing

their fellow citizens before a legal tribunal. These

denunciations were particularly directed against those who

were distinguished by wealth, birth and services, and who

therefore gave cause for suspicion; for the informers wished

to prove themselves zealous friends of the people and active

guardians of the constitution. … Intrigues and conspiracies

were suspected in all quarters, and the popular orators

persuaded the citizens to put no confidence in any magistrate,

envoy or commission, but rather to settle everything in full

assembly and themselves assume the entire executive. The

Sycophants made their living out of this universal suspicion.

… They threatened prosecutions in order thus to extort money

from guilty and innocent alike; for even among those who felt

free from guilt were many who shunned a political prosecution

beyond all other things, having no confidence in a jury."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3).

SYDENHAM, and Rational Medicine.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY.

{3054}

SYDNEY: First settlement (1788).

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

SYLLA.

See SULLA.

SYLLABARIES.

"A good deal of the [Assyrian] literature was of a lexical and

grammatical kind, and was intended to assist the Semitic

student in interpreting the old Accadian texts. Lists of

characters were drawn up with their pronunciation in Accadian

and the translation into Assyrian of the words represented by

them. Since the Accadian pronunciation of a character was

frequently the phonetic value attached to it by the Assyrians,

these syllabaries, as they have been termed—in consequence of

the fact that the cuneiform characters denoted syllables and

not letters—have been of the greatest possible assistance in

the decipherment of the inscriptions."

A. H. Sayce,

Assyria, its Princes, Priests and People,

chapter 4.

SYLLABUS OF 1864, The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1864.

SYLVANIA, The proposed State of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

SYLVESTER II., Pope, A. D. 999-1003.

SYLVESTER III., Antipope, 1044.

SYMMACHIA.

An offensive and defensive alliance between two states was so

called by the Greeks.

SYMMORIÆ, The.

"In the archonship of Nausinicus in Olymp. 100,3 (B. C. 378)

the institution of what were called the symmoriæ (collegia, or

companies), was introduced [at Athens] in relation to the

property taxes. The object of this institution, as the details

of the arrangement themselves show, was through the joint

liability of larger associations to confirm the sense of

individual obligation to pay the taxes, and to secure their

collection, and also, in case of necessity, to cause those

taxes which were not received at the proper time to be

advanced by the most wealthy citizens."

A. Boeckh,

Public Economy of the Athenians

(translated by Lamb),

book 4, chapter 9.

SYMPOSIUM.

The Symposium of the ancient Greeks was that part of a feast

which ensued when the substantial eating was done, and which

was enlivened with wine, music, conversation, exhibitions of

dancing, etc.

C. C. Felton,

Greece, Ancient and Modern,

Course 2, lecture 5.

SYNHEDRION, OR SYNEDRION, The.

See SANHEDRIM.

SYNOECIA.

See ATHENS: THE BEGINNING.

SYNOD OF THE OAK, The.

See ROME: A. D. 400-518.

----------SYRACUSE: Start--------

SYRACUSE: B. C. 734.

The Founding of the city.

"Syracuse was founded the year after Naxos, by Corinthians,

under a leader named Archias, a Heracleid, and probably of the

ruling caste, who appears to have been compelled to quit his

country to avoid the effects of the indignation which he had

excited by a horrible outrage committed in a family of lower

rank. … Syracuse became, in course of time, the parent of

other Sicilian cities, among which Camarina was the most

considerable. … Forty-five years after Syracuse, Gela was

founded by a band collected from Crete and Rhodes, chiefly

from Lindus, and about a century later (B. C. 582) sent forth

settlers to the banks of the Acragas, where they built

Agrigentum."

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 12.

The first settlement at Syracuse was on the islet of Ortygia.

"Ortygia, two English miles in circumference, was separated

from the main island only by a narrow channel, which was

bridged over when the city was occupied and enlarged by Gelôn

in the 72nd Olympiad, if not earlier. It formed only a small

part, though the most secure and best-fortified part, of the

vast space which the city afterwards occupied. But it sufficed

alone for the inhabitants during a considerable time, and the

present city in its modern decline has again reverted to the

same modest limits. Moreover, Ortygia offered another

advantage of not less value. It lay across the entrance of a

spacious harbour, approached by a narrow mouth, and its

fountain of Arethusa was memorable in antiquity both for the

abundance and goodness of its water."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 22.

SYRACUSE: B. C. 480.

Defeat of the Carthaginians at Himera.

See SICILY: B. C. 480.

SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

Siege by the Athenians.

The Greek city of Syracuse, in Sicily, having been founded and

built up by colonization from Corinth, naturally shared the

deep hatred of Athens which was common among the Dorian

Greeks, and which the Corinthians particularly found many

reasons to cherish. The feeling at Athens was reciprocal, and,

as the two cities grew supreme in their respective spheres and

arrogant with the consciousness of superior power, mutual

jealousies fed their passion of hostility, although nothing in

their affairs, either politically or commercially, brought

them really into contact with one another. But Syracuse,

enforcing her supremacy in Sicily, dealt roughly with the

Ionian settlements there, and Athens was appealed to for aid.

The first call upon her was made (B. C. 428) in the midst of

the earlier period of the Peloponnesian War, and came from the

people of Leontini, then engaged in a struggle with Syracuse,

into which other Sicilian cities had been drawn. The Athenians

were easily induced to respond to the call, and they sent a

naval force which took part in the Leontine War, but without

any marked success. The result was to produce among the

Sicilians a common dread of Athenian interference, which led

them to patch up a general peace. But fresh quarrels were not

long in arising, in the course of which Leontini was entirely

destroyed, and another Sicilian city, Egesta, which Athens had

before received into her alliance, claimed help against

Syracuse. This appeal reached the Athenians at a time (B. C.

416) when their populace was blindly following Alcibiades,

whose ambition craved war, and who chafed under the restraints

of the treaty of peace with Sparta which Nicias had brought

about. They were carried by his influence into the undertaking

of a great expedition of conquest, directed against the

Sicilian capital—the most costly and formidable which any

Greek state had ever fitted out. In the summer of B. C. 415

the whole force assembled at Corcyra and sailed across the

Ionian sea to the Italian coast and thence to Sicily. It

consisted of 134 triremes, with many merchant, ships and

transports, bearing 5,100 hoplites, 480 bowmen and 700 Rhodian

slingers. The commanders were Nicias, Lamachus and Alcibiades.

On the arrival of the expedition in Sicily a disagreement

among the generals made efficient action impossible and gave

the Syracusans time to prepare a stubborn resistance.

{3055}

Meantime the enemies of Alcibiades at Athens had brought about

a decree for his arrest, on account of an alleged profanation

of the sacred Eleusinian mysteries, and, fearing to face the

accusation, he fled, taking refuge at Sparta, where he became

the implacable enemy of his country. Three months passed

before Nicias, who held the chief command, made any attempt

against Syracuse. He then struck a single blow, which was

successful, but which led to nothing; for the Athenian army

was withdrawn immediately afterwards and put into winter

quarters. In the following spring the regular operations of a

siege and blockade were undertaken, at sea with the fleet and

on land by a wall of circumvallation. The undertaking promised

well at first and the Syracusans were profoundly discouraged.

But Sparta, where Alcibiades worked passionately in their

favor, sent them a general, Gylippus, who proved to be equal

to an army, and promised reinforcements to follow. The more

vigorous Athenian general, Lamachus, had been killed, and

Nicias, with incredible apathy, suffered Gylippus to gather up

a small army in the island and to enter Syracuse with it, in

defiance of the Athenian blockade. From that day the situation

was reversed. The besieged became the assailants and the

besiegers defended themselves. Nicias sent to Athens for help

and maintained his ground with difficulty through another long

winter, until a second great fleet and army arrived, under the

capable general Demosthenes, to reinforce him. But it was too

late. Syracuse had received powerful aid, in ships and men,

from Corinth, from Sparta and from other enemies of Athens,

had built a navy and trained sailors of her own, and was full

of confident courage. The Athenians were continually defeated,

on land and sea, and hoped for nothing at last but to be able

to retreat. Even the opportunity to do that was lost for them

in the end by the weakness of Nicias, who delayed moving on

account of an eclipse, until his fleet was destroyed in a

final sea-fight and the island roads were blocked by an

implacable enemy. The flight when it was undertaken proved a

hopeless attempt, and there is nothing in history more

tragical than the account of it which is given in the pages of

Thucydides. On the sixth day of the struggling retreat the

division under Demosthenes gave up and surrendered to the

pursuers who swarmed around it. On the next day Nicias yielded

with the rest, after a terrible massacre at the river

Assinarus. Nicias and Demosthenes were put to the sword,

although Gylippus interceded for them. Their followers were

imprisoned in the Syracusan quarries. "There were great

numbers of them and they were crowded in a deep and narrow

place. At first the sun by day was still scorching and

suffocating, for they had no roof over their heads, while the

autumn nights were cold, and the extremes of temperature

engendered violent disorders. Being cramped for room they had

to do everything on the same spot. The corpses of those who

died from their wounds, exposure to the weather, and the like,

lay heaped one upon another. The smells were intolerable; and

they were at the same time afflicted by hunger and thirst.

During eight months they were allowed only about half a pint

of water and a pint of food a day. Every kind of misery which

could befall man in such a place befell them. This was the

condition of all the captives for about ten weeks. At length

the Syracusans sold them, with the exception of the Athenians

and of any Sicilian or Italian Greeks who had sided with them

in the war. The whole number of the public prisoners is not

accurately known, but they were not less than 7,000. Of all

the Hellenic actions which took place in this war, or indeed

of all Hellenic actions which are on record, this was the

greatest—the most glorious to the victors, the most ruinous to

the vanquished; for they were utterly and at all points

defeated, and their sufferings were prodigious. Fleet and army

perished from the face of the earth; nothing was saved, and of

the many who went forth few returned home. Thus ended the

Sicilian expedition."

Thucydides,

History

(translated by Jowett),

books 6-7.

ALSO IN:

E. A. Freeman,

History of Sicily,

volume 3.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapters 58-60.

Sir E. Creasy,

Fifteen Decisive Battles,

chapter 2.

See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 415-413.

SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

Dionysius and the Carthaginians.

Eighteen years after the tragic deliverance of Syracuse from

the besieging host and fleet of the Athenians, the Sicilian

capital experienced a second great peril and extraordinary

escape of like kind. The democratic government of Syracuse had

meantime fallen and a new tyrant had risen to power.

Dionysius, who began life in a low station, made his way

upward by ruthless energy and cunning, practising skilfully

the arts of a demagogue until he had won the confidence of the

people, and making himself their master in the end. When the

sovereignty of Dionysius had acquired firmness and the

fortifications and armament of his city had been powerfully

increased, it suited his purposes to make war upon the

Carthaginians, which he did, B. C. 397. He attacked Motye,

which was the most important of their cities in Sicily, and

took it after a siege of some months' duration, slaughtering

and enslaving the wretched inhabitants. But his triumph in

this exploit was brief. Imilkon, or Himilco, the Carthaginian

commander, arrived in Sicily with a great fleet and army and

recaptured Motye with ease. That done he made a rapid march to

Messene, in the northeastern extremity of the island, and

gained that city almost without a blow. The inhabitants

escaped, for the most part, but the town is said to have been

reduced to an utter heap of ruins—from which it was

subsequently rebuilt. From Messene he advanced to Syracuse,

Dionysius not daring to meet him in the field. The Syracusan

fleet, encountering that of the Carthaginians, near Katana,

was almost annihilated, and when the vast African armament,

numbering more than seventeen hundred ships of every

description, sailed into the Great Harbor of Syracuse, there

was nothing to oppose it. The city was formidably invested, by

land and sea, and its fate would have appeared to be sealed.

But the gods interposed, as the ancients thought, and avenged

themselves for insults which the Carthaginians had put upon

them. Once more the fatal pestilence which had smitten the

latter twice before in their Sicilian Wars appeared and their

huge army was palsied by it. "Care and attendance upon the

sick, or even interment of the dead, became impracticable; so

that the whole camp presented a scene of deplorable agony,

aggravated by the horrors and stench of 150,000 unburied

bodies.

{3056}

The military strength of the Carthaginians was completely

prostrated by such a visitation. Far from being able to make

progress in the siege, they were not even able to defend

themselves against moderate energy on the part of the

Syracusans; who … were themselves untouched by the distemper."

In this situation the Carthaginian commander basely deserted

his army. Having secretly bribed Dionysius to permit the

escape of himself and the small number of native Carthaginians

in his force, he abandoned the remainder to their fate (B. C.

394). Dionysius took the Iberians into his service; but the

Libyans and other mercenaries were either killed or enslaved.

As for Imilkon, soon after his return to Carthage he shut

himself in his house and died, refusing food. The blow to the

prestige of Carthage was nearly fatal, producing a rebellion

among her subjects which assumed a most formidable character;

but it lacked capable command and was suppressed.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 82.

SYRACUSE: B. C. 394-384.

Conquests and dominion of Dionysius.

"The successful result of Dionysios' first Punic War seems to

have largely spread his fame in Old Greece," while it

increased his prestige and power at home. But "he had many

difficulties. He too, like the Carthaginians, had to deal with

a revolt among his mercenaries, and he had to give up to them

the town of Leontinoi. And the people of Naxos and Katanê,

driven out by himself, and the people of Messana, driven out

by Himilkôn, were wandering about, seeking for

dwelling-places. He restored Messana, but he did not give it

back to its old inhabitants. He peopled it with colonists from

Italy and from Old Greece. … He also planted a body of

settlers from the old Messenian land in Peloponnêsos," at

Tyndaris. "Thus the north-eastern corner of Sicily was held by

men who were really attached to Dionysios. And he went on

further to extend his power along the north coast. … The Sikel

towns were now fast taking to Greek ways, and we hear of

commonwealths and tyrants among them, just as among the

Greeks. Agyris, lord of Agyrium, was said to be the most

powerful prince in Sicily after Dionysios himself. … With him

Dionysios made a treaty, and also with other Sikel lords and

cities." But he attacked the new Sikel town of Tauromenion,

and was disastrously repulsed. "This discomfiture at

Tauromenion checked the plans of Dionysios for a while.

Several towns threw off his dominion. … And the Carthaginians

also began to stir again. In B. C. 393 their general Magôn,

seemingly without any fresh troops from Africa, set out from

Western Sicily to attack Messana." But Dionysios defeated him,

and the next year he made peace with the Carthaginians, as one

of the consequences of which he captured Tauromenion in 391.

"Dionysios was now at the height of his power in Sicily. … He

commanded the whole east coast, and the greater part of the

north and south coasts. … Dionysios and Carthage might be said

to divide Sicily between them, and Dionysios had the larger

share." Being at peace with the Carthaginians, he now turned

his arms against the Greek cities in Southern Italy, and took

Kaulônia, Hippônion, and Rhêgion (B. C. 387), making himself,

"beyond all doubt, the chief power, not only in Sicily, but in

Greek Italy also." Three years later (B. C. 384) Dionysios

sent a splendid embassy to the Olympic festival in Greece.

"Lysias called on the assembled Greeks to show their hatred of

the tyrant, to hinder his envoys from sacrificing or his

chariots from running. His chariots did run; but they were all

defeated. Some of the multitude made an attack on the splendid

tents of his envoys. He had also sent poems of his own to be

recited; but the crowd would not hear them."

E. A. Freeman,

The Story of Sicily,

chapter 10.

SYRACUSE: B. C. 383.

War with Carthage.

See SICILY: B. C. 383.

SYRACUSE: B. C. 344.

Fall of the Dionysian tyranny.

The elder Dionysius,—he who climbed by cunning demagoguery

from an obscure beginning in life to the height of power in

Syracuse, making himself the typical tyrant of antiquity,—died

in 367 B. C. after a reign of thirty-eight years. He was

succeeded by his son, Dionysius the younger, who inherited

nothing in character from his father but his vices and his

shameless meannesses. For a time the younger Dionysius was

largely controlled by the admirable influence of Dion,

brother-in-law and son-in-law of the elder tyrant (who had

several wives and left several families). Dion had Plato for

his teacher and friend, and strove with the help of the great

Athenian—who visited Sicily thrice—to win the young tyrant to

a life of virtue and to philosophical aims. The only result

was to finally destroy the whole influence with which they

began, and Dion, ere long, was driven from Syracuse, while

Dionysius abandoned himself to debaucheries and cruelties.

After a time Dion was persuaded to lead a small force from

Athens to Syracuse and undertake the overthrow of Dionysius.

The gates of Syracuse were joyfully opened to him and his

friends, and they were speedily in possession of the whole

city except the island-stronghold of Ortygia, which was the

entrenchment of the Dionysian tyranny. Then ensued a

protracted and desperate civil war in Syracuse, which half

ruined the magnificent city. In the end Ortygia was

surrendered, Dionysius having previously escaped with much

treasure to his dependent city of Lokri, in southern Italy.

Dion took up the reins of government, intending to make

himself what modern times would call a constitutional monarch.

He wished the people to have liberty, but such liberty as a

philosopher would find best for them. He was distrusted,—

misunderstood,—denounced by demagogues, and hated, at last, as

bitterly as the tyrants who preceded him. His high-minded

ambitions were all disappointed and his own character suffered

from the disappointment. At the end of a year of sovereignty

he was assassinated by one of his own Athenian intimates,

Kallippus, who secured the goodwill of the army and made

himself des·pot. The reign of Kallippus was maintained for

something more than a year, and he was then driven out by

Hipparinus, one of the sons of Dionysius the elder, and

half-brother to the younger of that name. Hipparinus was

presently murdered and another brother, Nysæus, took his

place. Then Nysæus, in turn, was driven out by Dionysius, who

returned from Lokri and re-established his power. The

condition of Syracuse under the restored despotism of

Dionysius was worse than it ever had been in the past, and the

great city seemed likely to perish.

{3057}

At the last extremity of suffering, in 344 B. C., its people

sent a despairing appeal to Corinth (the mother-city of

Syracuse) for help. The Corinthians responded by despatching

to Sicily a small fleet of ten triremes and a meagre army of

1,200 men, under Timoleon. It is the first appearance in

history of a name which soon shone with immortality; for

Timoleon proved himself to be one of the greatest and the

noblest of Greeks. He found affairs in Sicily complicated by

an invasion of Carthaginians, co-operating with one Hiketas,

who had made himself despot of Leontini and who hoped to

become master of Syracuse. By skilfully using the good fortune

which the gods were believed to have lavished upon his

enterprise, Timoleon, within a few months, had defeated

Hiketas in the field; had accepted the surrender of Dionysius

in Ortygia and sent the fallen tyrant to Corinth; had caused

such discouragement to the Carthaginians that they withdrew

fleet and army and sailed away to Africa. The whole city now

fell quickly into his hands. His first act was to demolish the

stronghold of tyranny in Ortygia and to erect courts of

justice upon its site. A free constitution of government was

then re-established, all exiled citizens recalled, a great

immigration of Greek inhabitants invited, and the city

revivified with new currents of life. The tyranny in other

cities was overthrown and all Sicily regenerated. The

Carthaginians returning were defeated with fearful losses in a

great battle on the Krimesus, and a peace made with them which

narrowed their dominion in Sicily to the region west of the

Halykus. All these great achievements completed, Timoleon

resigned his generalship, declined every office, and became a

simple citizen of Syracuse, living only a few years, however,

to enjoy the grateful love and respect of its people.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapters 84-85.

ALSO IN:

Plutarch,

Timoleon.

SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.

Under Agathokles.

A little more than twenty years after Timoleon expelled the

brood of the tyrant Dionysius from Syracuse, and liberated

Sicily, his work was entirely undone and a new and worse

despot pushed himself into power. This was Agathokles, who

rose, like his prototype, from a humble grade of life,

acquired wealth by a lucky marriage, was trusted with the

command of the Syracusan army—of mercenaries, chiefly—obtained

a complete ascendancy over these soulless men, and then turned

them loose upon the city, one morning at daybreak (B. C. 317),

for a carnival of unrestrained riot and massacre. "They broke

open the doors of the rich, or climbed over the roofs,

massacred the proprietors within, and ravished the females.

They chased the unsuspecting fugitives through the streets,

not sparing even those who took refuge in the temples. … For

two days Syracuse was thus a prey to the sanguinary,

rapacious, and lustful impulses of the soldiery; 4,000

citizens had been already slain, and many more were seized as

prisoners. The political purposes of Agathokles, as well as

the passions of the soldiers, being then sated, he arrested

the massacre. He concluded this bloody feat by killing such of

his prisoners as were most obnoxious to him, and banishing the

rest. The total number of expelled or fugitive Syracusans is

stated at 6,000." In a city so purged and terrorized,

Agathokles had no difficulty in getting himself proclaimed by

acclamation sole ruler or autocrat, and he soon succeeded in

extending his authority over a large part of Sicily. After

some years he became involved in war with the Carthaginians,

and suffered a disastrous defeat on the Himera (B. C. 310).

Besieged in Syracuse, as a consequence, he resorted to bolder

tactics than had been known before his time and "carried the

war into Africa." His invasion of Carthage was the first that

the Punic capital ever knew, and it created great alarm and

confusion in the city. The Carthaginians were repeatedly

beaten, Tunes, and other dependent towns, as well as Utica,

were captured, the surrounding territory was ravaged, and

Agathokles became master of the eastern coast. But all his

successes gained him no permanent advantage, and, after four

years of wonderful campaigning in Africa, he saw no escape

from the difficulties of his situation except by basely

stealing away from his army, leaving his two sons to be killed

by the furious soldiers when they discovered his flight.

Returning to Sicily, the wonderfully crafty and unscrupulous

abilities which he possessed enabled him to regain his power

and to commit outrage after outrage upon the people of

Syracuse, Egesta, and other towns, until his death in

289 B. C.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 97.

SYRACUSE: B. C. 212.

Siege by the Romans.

See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

SYRACUSE: A. D. 279.

Sacked by Franks.

The Emperor Probus, who expelled from Gaul, A. D. 277, the

invaders then beginning to swarm upon the hapless province,

removed a large body of captive Franks to the coast of Pontus,

on the Euxine, and settled them there. The restive barbarians

soon afterwards succeeded (A. D. 279) in capturing a fleet of

vessels, in which they made their way to the Mediterranean,

plundering the shores and islands as they passed towards the

west. "The opulent city of Syracuse, in whose port the navies

of Athens and Carthage had formerly been sunk, was sacked by a

handful of barbarians, who massacred the greatest part of the

trembling inhabitants." This was the crowning exploit of the

escaping Franks, after which they continued their voyage and

reached in due time their own shores, among the islands of the

delta of the Rhine.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 12.

SYRACUSE: A. D. 878.

Siege and capture by the Saracens.

See SICILY: A. D. 827-878.

----------SYRACUSE: End--------

SYRIA.

"Between the Arabian Desert and the eastern coast of the

Levant there stretches—along almost the full extent of the

latter, or for nearly 400 miles—a tract of fertile land

varying from 70 to 100 miles in breadth. This is so broken up

by mountain range and valley, that it has never all been

brought under one native government; yet its well-defined

boundaries—the sea on the west, Mount Taurus on the north,

and the desert to east and south—give it a certain unity, and

separate it from the rest of the world. It has rightly,

therefore, been covered by one name, Syria. Like that of

Palestine, the name is due to the Greeks, but by a reverse

process. As 'Palestina,' which is really Philistina, was first

the name of only a part of the coast, and thence spread inland

to the desert, so Syria, which is a shorter form of Assyria,

was originally applied by the Greeks to the whole of the

Assyrian Empire from the Caucasus to the Levant, then shrank

to this side of the Euphrates, and finally within the limits

drawn above. … Syria is the north end of the Arabian world. …

The population of Syria has always been essentially Semitic. …

See SEMITES.

{3058}

Syria's position between two of the oldest homes of the human

race made her the passage for the earliest intercourse and

exchanges of civilisation. It is doubtful whether history has

to record any great campaigns … earlier than those which Egypt

and Assyria waged against each other across the whole extent

of Syria. …

See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400, to B. C. 670-525].

The Hittites came south from Asia Minor over Mount Taurus, and

the Ethiopians came north from their conquest of the Nile.

Towards the end of the great duel between Assyria and Egypt,

the Scythians from north of the Caucasus devastated Syria.

When the Babylonian Empire fell, the Persians made her a

province of their empire, and marched across her to Egypt.

See EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.

At the beginning of our era, she was overrun by the Parthians.

The Persians invaded her a second time, just before the Moslem

invasion of the seventh century.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639

She fell, of course, under the Seljuk Turks in the eleventh

[century].

See TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073, and after;

And in the thirteenth and fourteenth the Mongols thrice swept

through her. Into this almost constant stream of empires and

races, which swept through Syria from the earliest ages,

Europe was drawn under Alexander the Great. …

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330, and after.

She was scoured during the following centuries by the wars of

the Seleucids and Ptolemies, and her plains were planted all

over by their essentially Greek civilisation.

See SELEUCIDÆ;

and JEWS: B. C. 332-167.

Pompey brought her under the Roman Empire, B. C. 65, and in

this she remained till the Arabs took her, 634 A. D.

See ROME: B. C. 69-63;

and JEWS: B. C. 166-40,

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

The Crusaders held her for a century, 1098-1187, and parts of

her for a century more. …

See CRUSADES: A. D.1096-1099].

Napoleon the Great made her the pathway of his ambition

towards that empire on the Euphrates and Indus whose fate was

decided on her plains, 1799.

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

Since then, Syria's history has mainly consisted in a number

of sporadic at·tempts on the part of the Western world to

plant upon her both their civilisation and her former

religion."

George Adam Smith,

Historical Geography of the Holy Land,

book 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

C. R. Conder,

Syrian Stone Lore.

É. Reclus,

The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,

volume 4, chapter 9.

See, also, DAMASCUS.

SYRIA, CŒLE.

See CŒLE-SYRIA.

SYRO-CHALDEAN LANGUAGE, The.

See SEMITIC LANGUAGES.

SYRTIS MAJOR AND SYRTIS MINOR.

These were the names given by the Greeks to the two gulfs (or

rather the two corners of the one great gulf) which deeply

indent the coast of North Africa. Syrtis Major, or the Greater

Syrtis, is now known as the Gulf of Sidra; Syrtis Minor as the

Gulf of Khabs, or Cabes.

SYSSITIA, The.

"The most important feature in the Cretan mode of life is the

usage of the Syssitia, or public meals, of which all the

citizens partook, without distinction of rank or age. The

origin of this institution cannot be traced: we learn however

from Aristotle that it was not peculiar to the Greeks, but

existed still earlier in the south of Italy among the

Œnotrians. … At Sparta [which retained this institution, in

common with Crete, to the latest times], the entertainment was

provided at the expense, not of the state, but of those who

shared it. The head of each family, as far as his means

reached, contributed for all its members; but the citizen who

was reduced to indigence lost his place at the public board.

The guests were divided into companies, generally of fifteen

persons, who filled up vacancies by ballot, in which unanimous

consent was required for every election. No member, not even

the king, was permitted to stay away, except on some

extraordinary occasion, as of a sacrifice, or a lengthened

chase, when he was expected to send a present to the table:

such contributions frequently varied the frugal repast."

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapters 7-8.

SZATHMAR, Treaty of (1711).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

SZECHENYI, and the Hungarian wakening.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844.

SZEGEDIN, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

SZEGEDIN, The broken Treaty of.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

SZIGETH, Siege of (1566).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

T

TABELLARIÆ, Leges.

"For a long period [at Rome] the votes in the Comitia were

given vivâ voce …; but voting by ballot ('per tabellas') was

introduced at the beginning of the 7th century [2d century B.

C.] by a succession of laws which, from their subject, were

named Leges Tabellariae. Cicero tells us that there were in

all four, namely:

1. Lex Gabinia, passed B. C. 139.

2. Lex Cassia, carried in B. C. 137.

3. Lex Papiria, passed B. C. 131.

4. Lex Caelia, passed B. C. 107."

W. Ramsay,

Manual of Roman Antiquity,

chapter 4.

TABLES, The.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.

TABORITES, The.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

TABREEZ, Battle of.

See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

TACHIES, The.

See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

TACITUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 275-276.

TACNA, Battle of (1880).

See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

TACULLIES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

TADCASTER FIGHT (1642).

Lord Fairfax, commanding in Yorkshire for the Parliament, and

having his headquarters at Tadcaster, where he had assembled a

small force, was attacked by 8,000 royalists, under the Earl

of Newcastle, December 7, 1642, and forced to retire, after

obstinate resistance. This was one of the earliest encounters

of the great English Civil War.

C. R. Markham,

Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,

chapter 8.

{3059}

TADMOR.

See PALMYRA.

TAENSAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NATCHESAN FAMILY.

TAEXALI, The.

A tribe which held the northeastern coast of ancient

Caledonia.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

TAGLIACOZZO, Capture of Conradin at.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.

TAGLIAMENTO, Battle of the (1797).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

TAGOS, OR TAGUS, The Greek title.

See DEMIURGI.

TAIFALÆ, The.

In the fourth century, "the Taifalæ inhabited that part of the

province of Dacia which is now called Wallachia. They are

first mentioned as allies of the Thervingi in A. D. 291

(Mamertin, Panegyr. ii. c. 17). Their ethnological relations

are uncertain. Zosimus vaguely calls them Scythians (ii. c.

31); St. Martin conjectures that they were the last remains of

the great and powerful nation of the Dacians, and Latham that

they were Slavonians. But we only know for certain that they

were constantly allies of the Visigoths, and that Farnobius,

one of their chiefs, is expressly called a Goth by Ammianus

(xxxi. c. 9). They subsequently accompanied the Visigoths in

their migrations westward, and settled on the south side of

the Liger, in the country of the Pictavi, where they were in

the time of Gregory of Tours, who calls them Theiphali, and

their district Theiphalia."

W. Smith,

Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 26.

TAILLE AND GABELLE, The.

Under the old regime, before the Revolution, "the chief item

in the French budget was the taille [analogous to the English

word 'tally']. This was a direct tax imposed upon the property

of those assessed, and in theory it was in proportion to the

amount they possessed. But in the most of France it fell

chiefly upon personal property. It was impossible that with

the most exact and honest system it should be accurately

apportioned, and the system that was in force was both loose

and dishonest. The local assessors exempted some and overtaxed

others; they released their friends or their villages, and

imposed an increased burden upon others, and, to a very large

extent, exemptions or reductions were obtained by those who

had money with which to bribe or to litigate. The bulk of this

tax fell upon the peasants. From it, indeed, a large part of

the population, and the part possessing the most of the wealth

of the country, was entirely exempt. The nobility were free

from any personal tax, and under this head were probably

included 400,000 people. The clergy were free, almost all of

the officials of every kind, and the members of many

professions and trades. Many of the cities had obtained

exemption from the taille by the payment of a sum of money,

which was either nominal or very moderate. Only laborers and

peasants, it was said, still remained subject to it. Out of

11,000,000 people [in the 17th century] in those portions of

France where the taille was a personal tax, probably 2,500,000

were exempt. … Next to the taille, the most important tax was

the gabelle, and, though less onerous, it also produced a vast

amount of misery. The gabelle was a duty on salt, and it was

farmed by the government. The burden of an excessive tax was

increased by the cupidity of those who bought the right to

collect its proceeds. The French government retained a

monopoly of salt, much like that which it now possesses of

tobacco, but the price which it charged for this article of

necessity was such, that the States of Normandy declared that

salt cost the people more than all the rest of their food. In

some provinces the price fixed imposed a duty of about 3,000

per cent., and salt sold for nearly ten sous a pound, thirty

times its present price in France, though it is still subject

to a considerable duty. From this tax there were no personal

exemptions, but large portions of the country were not subject

to the gabelle. Brittany was free, Guienne, Poitou, and

several other provinces were wholly exempt or paid a trifling

subsidy. About one third of the population were free from this

duty, and the exemption was so valued that a rumor that the

gabelle was to be imposed was sufficient to excite a local

insurrection. Such a duty, on an article like salt, was also

necessarily much more oppressive for the poor than the rich.

As the exorbitant price would compel many to go without the

commodity, the tax was often rendered a direct one. The amount

of salt was fixed which a family should consume, and this they

were forced to take at the price established by the

government. … The gabelle was farmed for about 20,000,000

livres, and to cover the expenses and profits of the farmers

probably 27,000,000 in all was collected from the people. A

family of six would, on an average, pay the equivalent of

ninety francs, or about eighteen dollars a year, for this

duty."

J. B. Perkins,

France under Mazarin,

chapter 18 (volume 2).

"Not only was the price of salt rendered exorbitant by the

tax, but its consumption at this exorbitant price was

compulsory. Every human being above seven years of age was

bound to consume seven pounds of salt per annum, which salt,

moreover, was to be exclusively used with food or in cooking.

To use it for salting meat, butter, cheese, &c., was

prohibited under severe penalties. The average price of salt

[in the reign of Louis XIV.] over two-thirds of the country,

was a shilling a pound. To buy salt of anyone but the

authorised agents of the Government was punished by fines of

200, 300, and 500 livres (about £80 of our money), and

smugglers were punished by imprisonment, the galleys, and

death. … The use of salt in agriculture was rendered

impossible, and it was forbidden, under a penalty of 300

livres (about £50), to take a beast to a salt-marsh, and allow

it to drink sea-water. Salted hams and bacon were not allowed

to enter the country. The salt used in the fisheries was

supervised and guarded by such a number of vexatious

regulations that one might suppose the object of the

Government was to render that branch of commerce impossible. …

But even the Gabelle was less onerous than the Taille. The

amount of the Taille was fixed in the secret councils of the

Government, according to the exigencies of the financial

situation every year. The thirty-two Intendants of the

provinces were informed of the amount which their districts

were expected to forward to the Treasury. Each Intendant then

made known to the Elections (sub-districts) of his Généralité

the sum which they had to find, and the officers called Elus

apportioned to each parish its quota of contribution. Then, in

the parishes, was set in motion a system of blind, stupid, and

remorseless extortion, of which one cannot read even now

without a flash of indignation.

{3060}

First of all, the most flagitious partiality and injustice

presided over the distribution of the tax. Parishes which had

a friend at Court or in authority got exempt, and with them

the tax was a mere form. But these exemptions caused it to

fall with more crushing weight on their less fortunate

neighbours, as the appointed sum must be made up, whoever paid

it. The inequalities of taxation almost surpass belief. … But

this was far from being the worst feature. The chief

inhabitants of the country villages were compelled to fill, in

rotation, the odious office of collectors. They were

responsible for the gross amount to be levied, which they

might get as they could out of their parishioners. … Friends,

or persons who had powerful patrons, were exempted; while

enemies, or the unprotected, were drained of their last

farthing. … The collectors went about, we are told, always

keeping well together for fear of violence, making their

visits and perquisitions, and met everywhere with a chorus of

imprecations. As the Taille was always in arrear, on one side

of the street might be seen the collectors of the current year

pursuing their exactions, while on the other side were those

of the year previous engaged on the same business, and further

on were the agents of the Gabelle and other taxes employed in

a similar manner. From morning to evening, from year's

beginning to year's ending, they tramped, escorted by volleys

of oaths and curses, getting a penny here and a penny there;

for prompt payment under this marvellous system was not to

be thought of."

J. C. Morison,

The Reign of Louis XIV.

(Fortnightly Review, April, 1874, volume 21).

Under Colbert (1661-1683), in the reign of Louis XIV., both

the taille (or villein tax, as it was often called) and the

gabelle were greatly reduced, and the iniquities of their

distribution and collection were much lessened.

H. Martin,

History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,

volume 1, chapter 1.

For an intimation of the origin of the taille,

See FRANCE: A. D. 1453-1461.

TAIPING REBELLION, The.

See CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.

TAJ MAHAL, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658.

TAKBIR, The.

The Mahometan war-cry—"God is Great."

TAKILMAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TAKILMAN FAMILY.

TALAJOTS.

See SARDINIA, THE ISLAND: NAME AND EARLY HISTORY.

TALAVERA, Battle of.

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

TALCA, Battle of (1818).

See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

TALENT, Attic, Babylonian, &c.

"Not only in Attica, but in almost all the Hellenic States,

even in those which were not in Greece but were of Hellenic

origin, money was reckoned by talents of sixty minas, the mina

at a hundred drachmas, the drachma at six oboli. At Athens the

obolus was divided into eight chalci … the chalcûs into seven

lepta. Down to the half obolus, the Athenian money was, in

general, coined only in silver; the dichalchon, or quarter

obolus, in silver or copper; the chalcûs and the smaller

pieces only in copper. … The value of the more ancient Attic

silver talent, silver value reckoned for silver value, will be

1,500 thaler Prussian currency; of the mina, 25 thaler; of the

drachma, 6 gute groschen; of the obolus 1 g. gr.,—equivalent

to $1.026, $17.10, 71.1 cents, 2.85 cents respectively. …

Before the time of Solon, the Attic money was heavier; also

the commercial weight was heavier than that by which money was

weighed. One hundred new drachmas were equivalent to 72-73

ancient drachmas; but the ancient weight remained with very

little alteration as commercial weight, to which, in later

times, an increase was also added. Through the alterations of

Solon, the Attic money, which before stood to the Æginetan in

the relation of 5:6, had to the same the relation of 3:5. The

new was related to the ancient Attic money as 18:25. Compared

with the heavy Æginetan drachma …, the Attic was called the

light drachma. … The former was equivalent to ten Attic oboli;

so that the Æginetan talent weighed more than 10,000 Attic

drachmas. It was equal to the Babylonian talent. Nevertheless

the Æginetan money was soon coined so light that it was

related to the Attic nearly as 3:2. … The Corinthian talent is

to be estimated as originally equivalent to the Æginetan, but

it was also in later times diminished. … The Egyptian talent …

contained, according to Varro in Pliny, eighty Roman pounds,

and cannot, therefore, have been essentially different from

the Attic talent, since the Attic mina is related to the Roman

pound as 4:3. … The Euboic talent is related … to the Æginetan

as five to six, and is no other than the money-talent of the

Athenians in use before the time of Solon, and which continued

in use as commercial weight. According to the most accurate

valuation, therefore, one hundred Euboic drachmas are

equivalent to 138 8/9 drachmas of Solon. … Appian has given

the relation of the Alexandrian to the Euboic talent in round

numbers as 6 to 7 = 120 to 140; but it was rather more

accurately as 120 to 138 8/9. … So much gold … as was

estimated to be equivalent to a talent of silver, was

undoubtedly also called a talent of gold. And, finally, a

weight of gold of 6,000 drachmas, the value of which, compared

with silver, always depended upon the existing relation

between them, was sometimes thus called."

A. Boeckh,

Public Economy of Athens

(translated by Lamb),

book 1, chapters 4-5.

See, also, SHEKEL.

TALLAGE, The.

"Under the general head of donum, auxilium, and the like, came

a long series of imposts [in the period of the Norman kings],

which were theoretically gifts of the nation to the king, and

the amount of which was determined by the itinerant justices

after separate negotiation with the payers. The most important

of these, that which fell upon the towns and demesne lands of

the Crown, is known as the tallage. This must have affected

other property besides land, but the particular method in

which it was to be collected was determined by the community

on which it fell, or by special arrangement with the

justices."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 13, section 161 (volume 1).

TALLEYRAND, Prince de:

Alienation from Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808.

TALLIGEWI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS.

{3061}

TALMUD, The.

"The Talmud [from a Hebrew verb signifying 'to learn'] is a

vast irregular repertory of Rabbinical reflections,

discussions, and animadversions on a myriad of topics treated

of or touched on in Holy Writ; a treasury, in chaotic

arrangement, of Jewish lore, scientific, legal, and legendary;

a great storehouse of extra-biblical, yet biblically

referable, Jewish speculation, fancy, and faith. … The Talmud

proper is throughout of a twofold character, and consists of

two divisions, severally called the Mishna and the Gemara. …

The Mishna, in this connection, may be regarded as the text of

the Talmud itself, and the Gemara as a sort of commentary. …

The Gemara regularly follows the Mishna, and annotates upon it

sentence by sentence. … There are two Talmuds, the Yerushalmi

[Jerusalem], or, more correctly, the Palestinian, and the

Babli, that is, the Babylonian. The Mishna is pretty nearly

the same in both these, but the Gemaras are different. The

Talmud Yerushalmi gives the traditional sayings of the

Palestinian Rabbis, … the 'Gemara of the Children of the

West,' as it is styled; whereas the Talmud Babli gives the

traditional sayings of the Rabbis of Babylon. This Talmud is

about four times the size of the Jerusalem one; it is by far

the more popular, and to it almost exclusively our remarks

relate."

P. I. Hershon,

Talmudic Miscellany,

introduction.

The date of the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud is fixed

at about A. D. 500; that of Jerusalem was a century or more

earlier.

See, also, MISCHNA.

TALUKDARS.

"A Taluka [in India] is a large estate, consisting of many

villages, or, as they would be called in English, parishes.

These villages had originally separate proprietors, who paid

their revenue direct to the Government treasury. The Native

Government in former times made over by patent, to a person

called Talukdar, its right over these villages, holding him

responsible for the whole revenue. … The wealth and influence

thus acquired by the Talukdar often made him, in fact,

independent. … When the country came under British rule,

engagements for payment of the Government Revenue were taken

from these Talukdars, and they were called Zamindars."

Sir R. Temple,

James Thomason,

page 158.

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

TAMANES, Battle of.

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

TAMASP I., Shah of Persia, A. D. 1523-1576.

TAMASP II., Shah of Persia, 1730-1732.

TAMERLANE, OR TIMOUR.

See TIMOUR.

TAMMANY RING, The.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

TAMMANY SOCIETY.

TAMMANY HALL.

"Shortly after the peace of 1783, a society was formed in the

city of New York, known by the name of the Tammany Society. It

was probably originally instituted with a view of organizing

an association antagonist to the Cincinnati Society. That

society was said to be monarchical or rather aristocratical in

its tendency, and, when first formed, and before its

constitution was amended, on the suggestion of General

Washington and other original members, it certainly did tend

to the establishment of an hereditary order, something like an

order of nobility. The Tammany Society originally seems to

have had in view the preservation of our democratic

institutions. … Tammany Society, or Columbian Order, was

founded by William Mooney, an upholsterer residing in the city

of New York, some time in the administration of President

Washington. … William Mooney was one of those who, at that

early day, regarded the powers of the general government as

dangerous to the independence of the state governments, and to

the common liberties of the people. His object was to fill the

country with institutions designed, and men determined, to

preserve the just balance of power. His purpose was patriotic

and purely republican. … Tammany was, at first, so popular,

that most persons of merit became members; and so numerous

were they that its anniversary [May 12] was regarded as a

holiday. At that time there was no party politics mixed up in

its proceedings. But when President Washington, in the latter

part of his administration, rebuked "self created societies,"

from an apprehension that their ultimate tendency would be

hostile to the public tranquility, the members of Tammany

supposed their institution to be included in the reproof; and

they almost forsook it. The founder, William Mooney, and a few

others, continued steadfast. At one anniversary they were

reduced so low that but three persons attended its festival.

From this time it became a political institution, and took

ground with Thomas Jefferson.'"

J. D. Hammond,

History of Political Parties in the State of New York,

volume 1, chapter 18.

"The ideal patrons of the society were Columbus and Tammany,

the last a legendary Indian chief, once lord, it was said, of

the island of Manhattan, and now adopted as the patron saint

of America. The association was divided into thirteen tribes,

each tribe typifying a state, presided over by a sachem. There

were also the honorary posts of warrior and hunter, and the

council of sachems had at their head a grand sachem, a type

evidently of the President of the United States."

R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

volume 4, chapter 3.

"Shortly after Washington's inauguration, May 12, 1789, the

'Tammany Society or Columbian Order' was founded. It was

composed at first of the moderate men of both political

parties, and seems not to have been recognized as a party

institution until the time of Jefferson as President. William

Mooney was the first Grand Sachem; his successor in 1790 was

William Pitt Smith, and in 1791 Josiah Ogden Hoffman received

the honor. John Pintard was the first Sagamore. De Witt

Clinton was scribe of the council in 1791. It was strictly a

national society, based on the principles of patriotism, and

had for its object the perpetuation of a true love for our own

country. Aboriginal forms and ceremonies were adopted in its

incorporation."

Mrs. M. J. Lamb,

History of the City of New York,

volume 2, page 362, foot-note.

"One must distinguish between the 'Tammany Society or

Columbian Order' and the political organization called for

shortness 'Tammany Hall.' … The Tammany Society owns a large

building on Fourteenth Street, near Third Avenue, and it

leases rooms in this building to the 'Democratic Republican

General Committee of the City of New York,' otherwise and more

commonly known as 'Tammany Hall' or 'Tammany.' Tammany Hall

means, therefore, first, the building on Fourteenth Street

where the 'Democracy' have their headquarters; and secondly,

the political body officially known as the Democratic

Republican General Committee of the City of New York. …

{3062}

The city of New York is divided by law into thirty 'assembly

districts;' that is, thirty districts, each of which elects an

assemblyman to the state legislature. In each of these

assembly districts there is held annually an election of

members of the aforesaid Democratic Republican General

Committee. This committee is a very large one, consisting of

no less than five thousand men; and each assembly district is

allotted a certain number of members, based on the number of

Democratic votes which it cast in the last preceding

presidential election. Thus the number of the General

Committeemen elected in each assembly district varies from

sixty to two hundred and seventy. There is intended to be one

General Committeeman for every fifty Democratic electors in

the district. In each assembly district there is also elected

a district leader, the head of Tammany Hall for that district.

He is always a member of the General Committee, and these

thirty men, one leader from each assembly district, form the

executive committee of Tammany Hall. 'By this committee,' says

a Tammany official, 'all the internal affairs of the

organization are directed, its candidates for offices are

selected, and the plans for every campaign are matured.' The

General Committee meets every month, five hundred members

constituting a quorum; and in October of each year it sits as

a county convention, to nominate candidates for the ensuing

election. There is also a sub-committee on organization,

containing one thousand members, which meets once a month.

This committee takes charge of the conduct of elections. There

is, besides, a finance committee, appointed by the chairman of

the General Committee, and there are several minor committees,

unnecessary to mention. The chairman of the finance committee

is at present Mr. Richard Croker. Such are the general

committees of Tammany Hall. … Each assembly district is

divided by law into numerous election districts, or, as they

are called in some cities, voting precincts,—each election

district containing about four hundred voters. The election

districts are looked after as follows: Every assembly district

has a district committee, composed of the members of the

General Committee elected from that district, and of certain

additional members chosen for the purpose. The district

committee appoints in each of the election districts included

in that particular assembly district a captain. This man is

the local boss. He has from ten to twenty-five aids, and he is

responsible for the vote of his election district. There are

about eleven hundred election districts in New York, and

consequently there are about eleven hundred captains, or local

bosses, each one being responsible to the (assembly) district

committee by which he was appointed. Every captain is held to

a strict account. If the Tammany vote in his election district

falls off without due cause, he is forthwith removed, and

another appointed in his place. Usually, the captain is an

actual resident in his district; but occasionally, being

selected from a distant part of the city, he acquires a

fictitious residence in the district. Very frequently the

captain is a liquor dealer, who has a clientele of customers,

dependents, and hangers-on, whom he 'swings,' or controls. He

is paid, of course, for his services; he has some money to

distribute, and a little patronage, such as places in the

street-cleaning department, or perhaps a minor clerkship. The

captain of a district has a personal acquaintance with all its

voters; and on the eve of an election he is able to tell how

every man in his district is going to vote. He makes his

report; and from the eleven hundred reports of the election

district captains the Tammany leaders can predict with

accuracy what will be the vote of the city."

H. C. Merwin,

Tammany Hall

(Atlantic, February, 1894).

ALSO IN:

R. Home,

The Story of Tammany

(Harper's Monthly, volume 44, pages 685,835).

TAMULS, The.

See TURANIAN RACES.

TAMWORTH MANIFESTO, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1887.

TANAGRA, Battle of (B. C. 457).

See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

TANAIM, The.

A name assumed by the Jewish Rabbins who especially devoted

themselves to the interpretation of the Mischna.

H. H. Milman,

History of the Jews,

book 19.

TANAIS, The.

The name anciently given to the Russian river now called the

Don,—which latter name signifies simply 'water.'

TANCRED, King of Naples and Sicily, A. D. 1189-1194.

TANCRED'S CRUSADE.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;

and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099, and 1099-1144.

TANEY, Roger B.,

and President Jackson's removal of the Deposits.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.

The Dred Scott Decision.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.

TANFANA, Feast and massacre of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 14-16.

TANIS.

See ZOAN.

TANISTRY, Law of.

"These chieftainships [in ancient Ireland], and perhaps even

the kingdoms themselves, though not partible, followed a very

different rule of succession than that of primogeniture. They

were subject to the law of tanistry, of which the principle is

defined to be that the demesne lands and dignity of

chieftainship, descended to the eldest and most worthy of the

same blood; these epithets not being used, we may suppose,

synonymously, but in order to indicate that the preference

given to seniority was to be controlled by a due regard to

desert. No better mode, it is evident, of providing for a

perpetual supply of those civil quarrels, in which the Irish

are supposed to place so much of their enjoyment, could have

been devised."

H. Hallam,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 18 (volume 3).

See, also, TUATH.

TANNENBURG, Battle of (1410).

See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

TANOAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TAÑOAN FAMILY.

TANTALIDÆ, The.

See ARGOS.

TAOUISM.

See CHINA: THE RELIGIONS.

TAPÆ, Battles at.

See DACIA: A. D. 102-106.

TAPIO BISCKE, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

TAPPANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

TAPROBANE.

The name by which the island of Ceylon was known to the

ancients. Hipparchus advanced the opinion that it was not

merely a large island, but the beginning of another world.

E. H. Bunbury,

History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 23, section 2 (volume 2).

{3063}

TAPURIANS, The.

"To the west of the Hyrcanians, between Elburz and the

Caspian, lay the Tapurians, whose name has survived in the

modern Taberistan, and further yet, on the sea-coast, and at

the mouth of the Mardus (now Safidrud), were the Mardians."

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 8, chapter 1 (volume 5).

TARA, The Hill, the Feis, and the Psalter of.

The Feis Teavrach, or Feis of Tara, in Irish history, was a

triennial assembly on the royal hill of Tara, in Meath, which

is claimed to have been instituted by a certain King Ollamh

Fodhla, at so remote a period as 1,300 years before Christ.

"All the chieftains or heads of septs, bards, historians, and

military leaders throughout the country were regularly

summoned, and were required to attend under the penalty of

being treated as the king's enemies. The meeting was held in a

large oblong hall, and the first three days were spent in

enjoying the hospitality of the king, who entertained the

entire assembly during its sittings. The bards give long and

glowing accounts of the magnificence displayed on these

occasions, of the formalities employed, and of the business

transacted. Tables were arranged along the centre of the hall,

and on the walls at either side were suspended the banners or

arms of the chiefs, so that each chief on entering might take

his seat under his own escutcheon. Orders were issued by sound

of trumpet, and all the forms were characterized by great

solemnity. What may have been the authority of this assembly,

or whether it had any power to enact laws, is not clear; but

it would appear that one of its principal functions was the

inspection of the national records, the writers of which were

obliged to the strictest accuracy under the weightiest

penalties."

M. Haverty,

History of Ireland,

page 24.

The result of the examination and correction of the historical

records of the kingdom were "entered in the great national

register called the Psalter of Tara, which is supposed to have

been destroyed at the period of the Norman invasion. … It is

supposed that part of the contents of the Psalter of Cashel,

which contains much of the fabulous history of the Irish, was

copied from it."

T. Wright,

History of Ireland,

book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

TARANTEENS,

TARENTINES,

TARRATINES.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ABNAKIS, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;

also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

TARAS.

See TARENTUM.

TARASCANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TARASCANS.

TARBELLI, The.

See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

TARENTINE WAR, The.

See Rome: B. C. 282-275.

TARENTUM.

Tarentum (or Taras), the most important of the ancient Greek

cities in Italy, "lay at the northern corner of the great gulf

which still bears its name. It had an excellent harbour,

almost land-locked. On its eastern horn stood the city. Its

form was triangular; one side being washed by the open sea,

the other by the waters of the harbour, while the base or land

side was protected by a line of strong fortifications. Thus

advantageously posted for commerce the city grew apace. She

possessed an opulent middle class; and the poorer citizens

found an easy subsistence in the abundant supply of fish which

the gulf afforded. These native fishermen were always ready to

man the navy of the state. But they made indifferent soldiers.

Therefore when any peril of war threatened the state, it was

the practice of the government to hire foreign captains,

soldiers of fortune, who were often kings or princes, to bring

an army for their defence. … The origin of Lacedæmonian

Tarentum is veiled in fable. The warriors of Sparta (so runs

the well-known legend) went forth to the second Messenian war

under a vow not to see their homes till they had conquered the

enemy. They were long absent, and their wives sought paramours

among the slaves and others who had not gone out to war. When

the warriors returned, they found a large body of youth grown

up from this adulterous intercourse. These youths (the

Parthenii as they were called), disdaining subjection, quitted

their native land under the command of Phalantus, one of their

own body, and founded the colony of Tarentum."

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1).

See, also, SIRIS.

TARENTUM: B. C. 282-275.

Alliance with Pyrrhus and war with Rome.

See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

TARENTUM: B. C. 212.

Betrayed to Hannibal.

See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

TARENTUM, Treaty of.

The treaty in which Octavius and Antony extended their

triumvirate to a second term of five years; negotiated at

Tarentum, B. C. 37.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 27.

TARGOWITZ, Confederates of.

See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.

TARIFA: A. D. 1291.

Taken by the Christians from the Moors.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

----------TARIFF LEGISLATION AND CONVENTIONS: Start--------

TARIFF: (The Netherlands): 15th Century.

Early Free Trade and Reciprocity.

In the Netherlands, at the close of a short war with the

English, in 1437, "the import of raw wool was entirely

relieved from the payment of even the ordinary customs. … And

this was then their notion of protection,—to be allowed to buy

what they liked where they liked, to live at peace with their

neighbours, and to be let alone. Four hundred years have

passed and gone since the Netherlands persuaded their rulers

to take off all duty on raw wool, and to permit half-finished

clothes to be brought into their country in order that they

might be dyed and taken out again duty free; yet we live in

the midst of tariffs whose aim it is to hinder the importation

of the raw material by prohibitory duties and to prevent

competition in every kind of fabric by so-called protecting

ones! And in England, also, at the period in question, the

suicidal spirit of commercial envy had seized hold of the

government, and in every parliament some fresh evidence was

afforded of the jealousy with which foreign skill and

competition were viewed.

{3064}

But the Dutch held on the tenour of their discerning and

sagacious way without waiting for reciprocity or resenting its

reverse. If the English would not admit their cloths, that was

no reason why they should cheat themselves of the advantage of

English and Irish wool. If not cloths, there was doubtless

something else that they would buy from them. Among other

articles, there was salt, which they had acquired a peculiar

skill in refining; and there was an extensive carrying trade

in the produce of the Northern countries, and in various

costly luxuries, which the English obtained from remoter

regions generally through them. In 1496, when Philip (father

of the Emperor Charles V.) assumed the government of the

Netherlands, as Duke of Brabant, he "presented to the senates

of the leading cities the draught of a commercial treaty with

England, conceived in a wise and liberal spirit, and eminently

fitted to advance the real welfare of both countries. Their

assent was gladly given. … Nor did they over-estimate the

value of the new compact, which long went by the name of 'The

Grand Treaty of Commerce.' Its provisions were, in all

respects, reciprocal, and enabled every kind of merchandise to

be freely imported from either country by the citizens of the

other. The entire liberty of fishing on each other's coast was

confirmed; measures were prescribed for the suppression of

piracy; and property saved from wrecks, when none of the crew

survived, 'was vested in the local authorities in trust for

the proper owners, should they appear to claim it within a

year and a day. … The industrial policy of the Dutch was

founded on ideas wholly and essentially different from that of

the kingdoms around them. 'The freedom of traffic had ever

been greater with them than amongst any of their neighbours;'

and its different results began to appear. Not only were

strangers of every race and creed sure of an asylum in

Holland, but of a welcome; and singular pains were taken to

induce those whose skill enabled them to contribute to the

wealth of the state to settle permanently in the great towns."

W. T. McCullagh,

Industrial History of Free Nations,

volume 2, pages 110-111, 150-151, 266-267.

TARIFF: (Venice): 15-17th Centuries.

Beginning of systematic exclusion and monopoly.

See VENICE: 15-17TH CENTURIES.

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1651-1672.

The Navigation Laws and their effect on the American colonies.

See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1651;

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.

TARIFF: (France): A. D. 1664-1667.

The System of Colbert.

Colbert, the great minister of Louis XIV., was the first among

statesmen who had an economic system, "settled, complete and

consistent in all its parts; and it is to the eternal honor of

his name that he made it triumph in spite of obstacles of

every kind. Although this system was far from being

irreproachable in all its parts, it was an immense progress at

the time of its appearance; and we have had nothing since then

which can be compared with it, for breadth and penetration. …

It was … the need of restoring order in the finances which

gave rise to the attempts at amelioration made by Colbert.

This illustrious minister soon comprehended that the surest

way to increase public fortune was to favor private fortune,

and to open to production the broadest and freest ways. … One

of the first acts of his ministry, the reestablishment of the

taxes on a uniform basis, is an homage rendered to true

principles; and one cannot doubt that all the others would

have been in conformity with this glorious precedent, if the

science of wealth had been, at that time, as advanced as it is

to-day. Colbert would certainly have carried out in France

what Mr. Huskisson had begun in England at the time of his

sudden death. … The edict of September, 1664, reduced the

import and export duties on merchandise to suitable limits,

and suppressed the most onerous. 'It is our intention,' said

the king, 'to make known to all our governors and intendants

in what consideration we hold at present everything that may

concern commerce. … As the most solid and most essential means

for the reestablishment of commerce are the diminution and the

regulation of the duties which are levied on all commodities,

we have arranged to reduce all these duties to one single

import and one export duty, and also to diminish these

considerably, in order to encourage navigation, reestablish

the ancient manufactures, banish idleness.' … At the same time

Colbert prohibited the seizure for the tailles (villein-tax)

[see TAILLE AND GABELLE] of beds, clothes, bread, horses and

cattle serving for labor; or the tools by which artisans and

manual laborers gained their livelihood. The register of the

survey of lands was revised, so that property should be taxed

only in proportion to its value and the actual extent of the

land. The great highways of the kingdom and all the rivers

were then guarded by armies of receivers of tolls, who stopped

merchandise on its passage and burdened its transportation

with a multitude of abusive charges, to say nothing of the

delays and exactions of every kind. An edict was issued

ordering the investigation of these degrading charges; and

most of them were abolished or reduced to just limits. … The

lease of Customs duties being about to expire, Colbert

improved this occasion to revise the tariff; and although this

fatal measure has since been considered as the finest monument

of his administration, we think we should present it in its

true aspect, which seems to us to have been invariably

misapprehended. Colbert's aim in revising the customs was to

make them a means of protection for national manufactures, in

the place of a simple financial resource, as they formerly

were. Most articles of foreign manufacture had duties imposed

upon them, so as to secure to similar French merchandise the

home market. At the same time, Colbert spared neither

sacrifices nor encouragement to give activity to the

manufacturing spirit in our country. He caused the most

skilful workmen of every kind to come from abroad; and he

subjected manufactures to a severe discipline, that they

should not lose their vigilance, relying on the tariffs. Heavy

fines were inflicted on the manufacturers of an article

recognized as inferior in quality to what it should be. For

the first offence, the products of the delinquents were

attached to a stake, with a carcan and the name of the

manufacturer; in case of a second offence, the manufacturer

himself was fastened to it. These draconian rigors would have

led to results entirely contrary to those Colbert expected, if

his enlightened solicitude had not tempered by other measures

what was cruel in them.

{3065}

Thus, he appointed inspectors of the manufactures, who often

directed the workmen into the best way, and brought them

information of the newest processes, purchased from foreign

manufacturers, or secretly obtained at great expense. Colbert

was far from attaching to the customs the idea of exclusive

and blind protection that has ever been attributed to them

since his ministry. He knew very well that these tariffs would

engender reprisals, and that, while encouraging manufactures,

they would seriously hinder commerce. Moreover, all his

efforts tended to weaken their evil effects. His instructions

to consuls and ambassadors testify strongly to his

prepossessions in this regard. … The more one studies the

administrative acts of this great minister, the more one is

convinced of his lofty sense of justice; and of the liberal

tendencies of his system, which has hitherto been generally

extolled as hostile to the principle of commercial liberty. In

vain the Italians have hailed it by the name of 'Colbertism,'

to designate the exclusive system invented by themselves and

honored by the Spanish: Colbert never approved the sacrifice

of the greater part of his fellow citizens to a few privileged

ones, nor the creation of endless monopolies for the profit of

certain branches of industry. We may reproach him with having

been excessively inclined to make regulations, but not with

having enfeoffed France to a few spinners of wool and cotton.

He had himself summed up in a few words his system in the

memorial he presented to the king: 'To reduce export duties on

provisions and manufactures of the kingdom; to diminish import

duties on everything which is of use in manufactures; and to

repel the products of foreign manufactures, by raising the

duties.' Such was the spirit of his first tariff, published in

September, 1664. He had especially aimed at facilitating the

supply of raw materials in France, and promoting the interests

of her home trade by the abolition of provincial barriers, and

by the establishment of lines of customs-houses at the extreme

frontiers. … The only reproach that can be justly made against

him is the abuse of the protective instrument he had just

created, by increasing in the tariff of 1667 the exclusive

measures directed against foreign manufactures in that of

1664. It was no longer then a question of manufactures, but of

war, namely, with Holland; and this war broke out in 1672. …

From the same epoch date the first wars of commercial

reprisals between France and England, hostilities which were

to cost both nations so much blood and so many tears.

Manufactures were then seen to prosper and agriculture to

languish in France under the influence of this system."

J. A. Blanqui,

History of Political Economy in Europe,

chapter 26.

ALSO IN,

H. Martin,

History of France: The Age of Louis XIV.,

volume 1, chapter 2.

J. B. Perkins,

France under the Regency,

chapter 4.

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1683.

TARIFF: (Pennsylvania): A. D. 1785.

Beginning of "Protection" in Pennsylvania.

"Before the Revolution Pennsylvania had always been slow to

impose burdens on trade. While Massachusetts, New York and

South Carolina were raising considerable sums from imposts,

Pennsylvania commerce was free from restrictions. In 1780,

however, the need of revenue overcame the predilection of the

Quakers for free trade and they decided 'that considerable

sums can be raised by a small impost on goods and merchandise

imported into this state without burdening commerce.'

Accordingly, low duties were laid on wines, liquors, molasses,

sugar, cocoa and tea, with 1 per cent. on all other imports.

In 1782 the duties were doubled and the revenue was

appropriated to the defence of commerce on the Delaware river

and bay. This was done at the request of the merchants who

wished to have their interests protected and 'signified their

willingness to submit to a further impost on the importation

of goods for that purpose.' When peace came, however, the

merchants at once represented it as detrimental to the

interests of the state to continue the duties, and they were

repealed. In 1784 low duties were again imposed, and later in

the same year increased. Early in 1785 more careful provisions

were made for their collection. September 20, came the

important act 'to encourage and protect the manufactures of

this state by laying additional duties on certain manufactures

which interfere with them.' … More than forty of the articles

which Pennsylvania had begun to make were taxed at high

specific rates. Coaches and carriages, paid £10 to £20;

clocks, 30s.; scythes, 15s. per dozen; beer, ale and porter,

6d. per gallon; soap or candles, 1d. per pound; shoes and

boots, 1s. to 6s. per pair; cordage and ropes, 8s. 4d. per

hundred weight; and so on. The ten per cent. schedule included

manufactures of iron and steel, hats, clothing, books and

papers, whips, canes, musical instruments and jewelry. … The

Pennsylvania act is of importance because it shows the nature

of commodities which the country was then producing, as well

as because it formed the basis of the tariff of 1789."

W. Hill,

First Stages of the Tariff Policy of the United States,

pages 53-54.

The preamble of the Pennsylvania act of 1785 set forth its

reasons as follows: "Whereas, divers useful and beneficial

arts and manufactures have been gradually introduced into

Pennsylvania, and the same have at length risen to a very

considerable extent and perfection, insomuch that in the late

war between the United States of America and Great Britain,

when the importation of European goods was much interrupted,

and often very difficult and uncertain, the artizans and

mechanics of this state were able to supply in the hours of

need, not only large quantities of weapons and other

implements, but also ammunition and clothing, without which

the war could not have been carried on, whereby their

oppressed country was greatly assisted and relieved. And

whereas, although the fabrics and manufactures of Europe, and

other foreign parts, imported into this country in times of

peace, may be afforded at cheaper rates than they can be made

here, yet good policy and a regard to the wellbeing of divers

useful and industrious citizens, who are employed in the

making of like goods, in this state, demand of us that

moderate duties be laid on certain fabrics and manufactures

imported, which do most interfere with, and which (if no

relief be given) will undermine and destroy the useful

manufactures of the like kind in this country, for this

purpose. Be it enacted" &c.

Pennsylvania Laws, 1785.

The duties enacted, which were additional to the then existing

impost of 2½ per cent., were generally specific, but ad valorem

on some commodities as on British steel, 10 per cent.; earthen

ware, the same; glass and glass-ware, 2½ per cent.; linens the

same. Looked at in the light of recent American tariffs, they

would hardly be recognized as "protective" in their character;

but the protective purpose was plainly enough declared.

{3066}

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1789-1791.

The first tariff enactment.

Hamilton's Report on Manufactures.

The "American System" proposed.

"The immediate necessity of raising some ready money led to

the passage of a tariff bill at the first session of Congress.

It was prepared and carried through the House chiefly by

Madison; and its contents, no less than the general tone of

the debate in which it was discussed, showed a decided leaning

towards the protective system. But this legislation was

temporary, and was at the time known to be so. The permanent

system of the country was left for subsequent and more

leisurely development. When at last Congress felt able to give

the subject due attention, it applied as usual to Hamilton to

furnish information and opinions. A topic so important and so

congenial to his tastes called forth his best exertions. A

series of extensive investigations conducted by every feasible

kind of inquiry and research, both in foreign parts and in the

United States, furnished the material for his reflections. He

took abundant time to digest as well as to collect the great

mass of information thus acquired, and it was not until nearly

two years had elapsed since the order for the report was

passed that he sent in the document to the House of

Representatives. … The inferences and arguments constituted as

able a presentation of the protectionist theory as has ever

been made. … It is, however, an incorrect construction of that

report to regard it as a vindication of the general or

abstract doctrine of protection. Hamilton was very far from

assuming any such position; protection always and everywhere

was not his theory; protection was not his ideal principle of

commercial regulation. … So far from entertaining any

predilection for protection in the abstract, it would seem

that in a perfect commercial world he would have expected to

find free trade the prevalent custom. … If free trade were the

rule of the whole commercial world, Hamilton was not prepared

to say that the United States would find it for her interest

to be singular. But such were not the premises from which he

had to draw a conclusion. … The report of Hamilton determined

the policy of the country. For good or for evil protection was

resorted to, with the avowed purpose of encouraging domestic

manufacturing as well as of raising a revenue. … The

principles upon which Hamilton based his tariff were not quite

those of pure protection, but constituted what was known as

the 'American System'; a system which has been believed in by

former generations with a warmth of conviction not easy to

withstand."

J. T. Morse, Jr.,

Life of Alexander Hamilton,

chapter 11.

Hamilton's celebrated report opens with an elaborate argument

to prove the desirability of manufacturing industries in the

country, and then proceeds: "A full view having now been taken

of the inducements to the promotion of manufactures in the

United States, accompanied with an examination of the

principal objections which are commonly urged in opposition,

it is proper, in the next place, to consider the means by

which it may be effected, as introductory to a specification

of the objects which in the present state of things appear the

most fit to be encouraged, and of the particular measures

which it may be advisable to adopt in respect to each. In

order to a better judgment of the means proper to be resorted

to by the United States, it will be of use to advert to those

which have been employed with success in other countries. The

principle of these are:

I. Protecting duties, or duties on those foreign articles

which are the rivals of the domestic ones intended to be

encouraged. Duties of this nature evidently amount to a

virtual bounty on the domestic fabrics, since by enhancing the

charges on foreign articles they enable the national

manufacturers to undersell all their foreign competitors. The

propriety of this species of encouragement need not be dwelt

upon, as it is not only a clear result from the numerous

topics which have been suggested, but is sanctioned by the

laws of the United States in a variety of instances; it has

the additional recommendation of being a resource of revenue.

Indeed, all the duties imposed on imported articles, though

with an exclusive view to revenue, have the effect in

contemplation; and, except where they fall on raw materials,

wear a beneficent aspect towards the manufacturers of the

country.

II. Prohibitions of rival articles, or duties equivalent to

prohibitions. This is another and an efficacious mean of

encouraging manufactures; but in general it is only fit to be

employed when a manufacture has made such a progress, and is

in so many hands, as to insure a due competition and an

adequate supply on reasonable terms. Of duties equivalent to

prohibitions there are examples in the laws of the United

States; and there are other cases to which the principle may

be advantageously extended, but they are not numerous.

Considering a monopoly of the domestic market to its own

manufacturers as the reigning policy of manufacturing nations,

a similar policy on the part of the United States, in every

proper instance, is dictated, it might almost be said, by the

principles of distributive justice; certainly by the duty of

endeavoring to secure to their own citizens a reciprocity of

advantages.

III. Prohibitions of the exportation of materials of

manufactures. The desire of securing a cheap and plentiful

supply for the national workmen; and, where the article is

either peculiar to the country, or of peculiar quality there,

the jealousy of enabling foreign workmen to rival those of the

nation with its own materials, are the leading motives to this

species of regulation. It ought not to be affirmed that it is

in no instance proper, but it is certainly one which ought to

be adopted with great circumspection and only in very plain

cases.

IV. Pecuniary bounties. This has been found one of the most

efficacious means of encouraging manufactures, and it is, in

some views, the best, though it has not yet been practiced

upon the government of the United States,—unless the allowance

on the exportation of dried and pickled fish and salted meat

could be considered as a bounty—and though it is less favored

by public opinion than some other modes. Its advantages are

these:

1. It is a species of encouragement more positive and direct

than any other, and for that very reason has a more immediate

tendency to stimulate and uphold new enterprises, increasing

the chances of profit, and diminishing the risks of loss in

the first attempts.

{3067}

2. It avoids the inconvenience of a temporary augmentation of

price, which is incident to some other modes, or it produces

it to a less degree, either by making no addition to the

charges on the rival foreign article, as in the case of

protecting duties, or by making a smaller addition. The first

happens when the fund for the bounty is derived from a

different object (which may or may not increase the price of

some other article according to the nature of that object);

the second when the fund is derived from the same or a similar

object of foreign manufacture. One per cent. duty on the

foreign article, converted into a bounty on the domestic, will

have an equal effect with a duty of 2% exclusive of such

bounty; and the price of the foreign commodity is liable to be

raised in the one case in the proportion of 1%, in the other

in that of 2%. Indeed, the bounty when drawn from another

source, is calculated to promote a reduction of price,

because, without laying any new charge on the foreign article,

it serves to introduce a competition with it, and to increase

the total quantity of the article in the market.

3. Bounties have not, like high protecting duties, a tendency

to produce scarcity. An increase of price is not always the

immediate, though where the progress of a domestic manufacture

does not counteract a rise, it is commonly the ultimate effect

of an additional duty. In the interval between the laying of

the duty and a proportional increase of price, it may

discourage importation by interfering with the profits to be

expected from the sale of the article.

4. Bounties are sometimes not only the best, but the only

proper expedient for uniting the encouragement of a new object

of agriculture with that of a new object of manufacture. It is

the interest of the farmer to have the production of the raw

material promoted by counteracting the interference of the

foreign material of the same kind. It is the interest of the

manufacturer to have the material abundant and cheap. If prior

to the domestic production of the material in sufficient

quantity to supply the manufacturer on good terms, a duty be

laid upon the importation of it from abroad, with a view to

promote the raising of it at home, the interest both of the

farmer and manufacturer will be disserved. By either

destroying the requisite supply, or raising the price of the

article beyond what can be afforded to be given for it by the

conductor of an infant manufacture, it is abandoned or fails;

and there being no domestic manufactories to create a demand

for the raw material which is raised by the farmer, it is in

vain that the competition of the like foreign article may have

been destroyed. It cannot escape notice that a duty upon the

importation of an article can no otherwise aid the domestic

production of it than by giving the latter greater advantages

in the home market. It can have no influence upon the

advantageous sale of the article produced in foreign markets,

no tendency, therefore, to promote its exportation. The true

way to conciliate these two interests is to lay a duty on

foreign manufactures of the material, the growth of which is

desired to be encouraged, and to apply the produce of that

duty by way of bounty either upon the production of the

material itself, or upon its manufacture at home, or upon

both. In this disposition of the thing the manufacturer

commences his enterprise under every advantage which is

attainable as to quantity or price of the raw material. And

the farmer, if the bounty be immediately to him, is enabled by

it to enter into a successful competition with the foreign

material. … There is a degree of prejudice against bounties,

from an appearance of giving away the public money without an

immediate consideration, and from a supposition that they

serve to enrich particular classes at the expense of the

community. But neither of these sources of dislike will bear a

serious examination. There is no purpose to which public money

can be more beneficially applied than to the acquisition of a

new and useful branch of industry, no consideration more

valuable than a permanent addition to the general stock of

productive labor. As to the second source of objection, it

equally lies against other modes of encouragement, which are

admitted to be eligible. As often as a duty upon a foreign

article makes an addition to its price, it causes an extra

expense to the community for the benefit of the domestic

manufacturer. A bounty does no more. But it is the interest of

the society in each case to submit to a temporary expense,

which is more than compensated by an increase of industry and

wealth, by an augmentation of resources and independence, and

by the circumstance of eventual cheapness, which has been

noticed in another place. It would deserve attention, however,

in the employment of this species of encouragement in the

United States, as a reason for moderating the degree of it in

the instances in which it might be deemed eligible, that the

great distance of this country from Europe imposes very heavy

charges on all the fabrics which are brought from thence,

amounting from 15% to 30% on their value according to their

bulk. …

V. Premiums. These are of a nature allied to bounties, though

distinguishable from them in some important features. Bounties

are applicable to the whole quantity of an article produced or

manufactured or exported, and involve a correspondent expense.

Premiums serve to reward some particular excellence or

superiority, some extraordinary exertion or skill, and are

dispensed only in a small number of cases. But their effect is

to stimulate general effort. …

VI. The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty.

The policy of that exemption, as a general rule, particularly

in reference to new establishments, is obvious. …

VII. Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the

materials of manufactures. It has already been observed as a

general rule, that duties on those materials ought, with

certain exceptions, to be forborne. Of these exceptions, three

cases occur which may serve as examples. One where the

material is itself an object of general or extensive

consumption, and a fit and productive source of revenue.

Another where a manufacture of a simpler kind, the competition

of which with a like domestic article is desired to be

restrained, partakes of the nature of a raw material from

being capable by a further process to be converted into a

manufacture of a different kind, the introduction or growth of

which is desired to be encouraged. A third where the material

itself is the production of the country, and in sufficient

abundance to furnish a cheap and plentiful supply to the

national manufacturers. … Where duties on the materials of

manufactures are not laid for the purpose of preventing a

competition with some domestic production, the same reasons

which recommend, as a general rule, the exemption of those

materials from duties, would recommend, as a like general

rule, the allowance of drawbacks in favor of the manufacturer.

…

{3068}

VIII. The encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at

home, and of the introduction into the United States of such

as may have been made in other countries; particularly those

which relate to machinery. This is among the most useful and

unexceptionable of the aids which can be given to

manufactures. The usual means of that encouragement are

pecuniary rewards, and, for a time, exclusive privileges. …

IX. Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured

commodities. This is not among the least important of the

means by which the prosperity of manufactures may be promoted.

It is indeed in many cases one of the most essential.

Contributing to prevent frauds upon consumers at home and

exporters to foreign countries, to improve the quality and

preserve the character of the national manufactures; it cannot

fail to aid the expeditious and advantageous sale of them, and

to serve as a guard against successful competition from other

quarters. …

X. The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to

place—is a point of considerable moment to trade in general

and to manufactures in particular, by rendering more easy the

purchase of raw materials and provisions, and the payment for

manufactured supplies. A general circulation of bank paper,

which is to be expected from the institution lately

established, will be a most valuable means to this end. …

XI. The facilitating of the transportation of commodities.

Improvements favoring this object intimately concern all the

domestic interests of a community; but they may, without

impropriety, be mentioned as having an important relation to

manufactures. …

The foregoing are the principal of the means by which the

growth of manufactures is ordinarily promoted. It is, however,

not merely necessary that the measures of government which

have a direct view to manufactures should be calculated to

assist and protect them; but that those which only

collaterally affect them, in the general course of the

administration, should be guarded from any peculiar tendency

to injure them. There are certain species of taxes which are

apt to be oppressive to different parts of the community, and,

among other ill effects, have a very unfriendly aspect towards

manufactures. All poll or capitation taxes are of this nature.

They either proceed according to a fixed rate, which operates

unequally and injuriously to the industrious poor; or they

vest a discretion in certain officers to make estimates and

assessments, which are necessarily vague, conjectural, and

liable to abuse. … All such taxes (including all taxes on

occupations) which proceed according to the amount of capital

supposed to be employed in a business, or of profits supposed

to be made in it, are unavoidably hurtful to industry."

A. Hamilton,

Report on Manufactures

(Works, volume 3).

ALSO IN:

State Papers and Speeches on the Tariff.

R. W. Thompson,

History of Protective Tariff Laws,

chapters 6-7.

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1815-1828.

The Corn Laws and Provision Laws.

The sliding-scale.

During the Napoleonic wars in Europe there was a prolonged

period of scarcity, approaching to famine, in Great Britain.

There were scant harvests at home and supplies from abroad

were cut off by the "Continental system" of Napoleon. "In 1801

wheat was 115 shillings and 11 pence per quarter; from 1801 to

1818 the price averaged 84s.; whilst in the 20 years ending

1874, it averaged only 52s. per quarter. … The cry of

starvation was everywhere heard amongst the working classes,

and tradesmen of all kinds suffered severely; whilst the only

well-to-do people were the Farmers and the Landlords. As soon

as the war was over, and our ports were opened for the

reception of foreign grain, prices came down rapidly. Then the

Landlords took alarm, and appealed to Parliament to resist the

importation of foreign grain, which they asserted, would be

the ruin of the English Farmers. They insisted that in this

country, the costs of cultivation were extremely heavy, as

compared with those of foreign producers of grain, and that

therefore the British Farmer must receive protection in order

to prevent his ruin. Hence a Parliament, composed mostly of

Landlords, proceeded, in 1815, to enact the Corn Law, which

excluded foreign wheat, except at high rates of duty, until

the market price should reach 80s. per quarter; and other

kinds of grain, until there was a proportionate elevation in

prices. The discussions in Parliament on this question made a

great impression, and led to a wide-spread sympathy, and to

the belief that there was need of a measure, which, according

to its advocates, would preserve our Agriculture from ruin,

and be at the same time a provision against famine. But by

many thoughtful and patriotic people this law was viewed with

intense dislike, and was characterised as an atrocious fraud.

The fact was, that … when rents ought either to have been

lowered, or the methods of cultivation improved, the Corn Law

was passed by the Landlords in order to keep out foreign corn

and to maintain high rents; and many of the common people saw,

or thought they saw, what would be the effect; for whilst the

legislature was engaged in the discussion of the question, the

people of London became riotous, and the walls were chalked

with invectives such as 'Bread or Blood,' 'Guy Fawkes for

ever,' etc. A loaf, steeped in blood, was placed on Carlton

House, (now the Tory Club House.) The houses of some of the

most unpopular of the promoters of the measure were attacked

by the mob. At Lord Eldon's house the iron railings were torn

up, whilst every pane of glass and many articles of furniture

were broken and destroyed, and it was facetiously remarked

that at last his lordship kept open house. The military were

called out, and two persons were killed; the Houses of

Parliament were guarded by soldiers, and, indeed, the whole of

London appeared to be in possession of the Army. In various

parts of the country similar disturbances prevailed. … Large

popular meetings were held at Spa Fields, in London, public

meetings were also held at Birmingham, and in many other parts

of the kingdom. … In some of the towns and populous

localities, the operatives having in view a large aggregate

meeting to be held on St. Peter's field in Manchester,

submitted themselves to marching discipline. … Regardless,

however, of the public demonstrations of dislike to the Corn

and Provision Laws, the Legislature persisted in upholding the

most stringent provisions thereof until the year 1828, when

the duties on the importation of grain were adjusted by a

sliding scale, in accordance with the average prices in the

English market.

{3069}

The following abstract may serve to denote the provisions of

the amended Law;—When the average price of wheat was 36

shillings the duty was 50 shillings 8 pence per qr.; when 46s.

the duty was 40s. 8d. per. qr.; when 56s. it was 30s. 8d. per

qr.; when 62s. it was 24s. 8d. per qr.; when 72s. it was 2s.

8d. per qr.; and when 73s. it was 1s. per qr. It was soon

found that as a means of protection to the British Farmer, the

operation of the sliding scale of duties was scarcely less

effective, by deterring imports of grain, than the previous

law, which absolutely excluded wheat until it reached 80s. per

quarter. The Act certainly provided that foreign grain might

at any time be imported, and be held in bond till the duty was

paid; a provision under which it was expected to be stored

until the price should be high, and the duty low; but the

expenses attendant upon warehousing and preserving it from

injury by keeping, were usually looked upon as an undesirable

or even dangerous investment of a merchant's capital. …

Agricultural protection, as exhibited by the Corn Law, would,

however, have been very incomplete without the addition of the

Provision Laws. By these Laws the importation of Foreign

Cattle and foreign meat were strictly prohibited. Butter and

Lard were indeed allowed to be imported, but they were not to

be used as food, and in order to provide against any

infraction of the law, the officers at the Custom Houses were

employed to 'spoil' these articles on their arrival, by

smearing them with a tarred stick. They could then be used

only as grease for wheels, or for the smearing of sheep. With

bread purposely made dear, with the import of cattle and of

flesh meat prohibited, and with lard and butter wilfully

reduced from articles of food to grease for wheels, there is

no difficulty in accounting for the frequent murmurs of

discontent, and for the starvation among the poorer classes in

every part of the Kingdom. Soup kitchens were opened almost

every winter, and coals and clothing gratuitously distributed

in many places; but such palliatives were regarded with

derision by all who understood the true causes of the evil.

Such help was scorned, and a cry for justice was raised;

scarcity was said to be created by Act of Parliament, in order

to be mitigated by philanthropy."

H. Ashworth,

Recollections of Richard Cobden,

chapter 1.

ALSO IN

D. Ricardo,

On Protection to Agriculture

(Works, pages 459-498).

J. E. T. Rogers,

The Economic Interpretation of History,

chapters 17-18.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1816-1824.

The beginning of the protective policy (the "American System").

"The return of peace at the beginning of 1815 brought the

manufacturers face to face with a serious danger. War had been

their harvest time. Favored by double duties and abnormal

conditions their industry had attained a marvelous though not

always safe development. … By limitation, the double duties

were to expire one year after the conclusion of peace, and

unless Congress intervened promptly and effectually their

individual ruin was certain. … As new industries sprang up,

petitions were promptly laid before Congress praying for new

duties, for the permanence of the war duties, and for certain

prohibitions. … In laying before Congress the treaty of peace,

February, 1815, Madison called attention to the 'unparalleled

maturity' attained by manufactures, and 'anxiously recommended

this source of national independence and wealth to the prompt

and constant guardianship of Congress.' … To Dallas, Secretary

of the Treasury, the manufacturers had already turned. Six

days after the treaty of peace was ratified, the House,

February 23, 1815, called upon Dallas to report a general

tariff bill at the next session of Congress. … In his annual

report in December, 1815, Dallas had proposed the extension of

the double duties until June 30, 1816, in order to give time

for the elaboration of a new tariff bill; and after some

discussion Congress agreed to this plan. February 13 he

transmitted his reply to the resolutions of the previous

February, closing with a carefully prepared schedule of new

tariff rates. This, after being worked over in the Ways and

Means Committee, was embodied in a bill and introduced into

the House March 12, by Lowndes of South Carolina. Debate began

March 20, and continued till April 8, when the bill was

finally passed by a vote of 88 to 54. April 20 it passed the

Senate with some amendments, and April 27 received the

approval of Madison. … The features of Dallas' proposed tariff

were the enlarging of the ad valorem list from three groups at

12½, 15, and 20 per cent to eight groups at 7½, 15, 20, 22,

28, 30, and 33 1/3 per cent; the increase of specific duties

by about 42 per cent; and, most important of all, in the

article of coarse cottons, the insertion of a minimum, by

which, as far as the custom-house was concerned, no quality

was to be regarded as costing less than 25 cents per square

yard. Except in the case of coarse cottons the new rates on

articles which it was desired to protect fell slightly below

the double rates of the war. Three positions were brought out

in debate—two extremes, seeking the formulation of economic

reasons for and against the policy of protection, and a middle

party, composed mainly of men indifferent to manufacturing as

such, but accepting the establishment of manufactures as one

of the chief results of the war. … The two extremes, however,

were far from taking the positions assumed later by extreme

protectionism and extreme laissez-faire. … Only a few articles

occasioned any discussion, and these were items like sugar,

cottons, and woolens, which had been reduced in the Ways and

Means Committee from the rates proposed by Dallas. Dallas had

fixed the duty on cottons at 33 1/3 per cent, which was

reduced to 30 per cent in Lowndes' bill. Clay moved to restore

the original rate. … Later Webster proposed a sliding scale on

cottons, the rate to be 30 per cent for two years, then 25 per

cent for two more, and then 20 per cent. Clay moved to amend

by making the first period three years and the second one

year. … Lowndes assented to the motion. … Dallas proposed 28

per cent on woolens. The committee reduced this to 25 per

cent, and following the example set in the case of cottons,

Lowndes moved that after two years the rate be fixed at 20 per

cent. … After some debate the first period was made three

years, and Lowndes' amendment agreed to. The tariff of 1816

was a substantial victory for the manufacturers. … But … in

its working out the tariff of 1816 proved a bitter

disappointment to the manufacturing interest. The causes,

however, were widely varied. …

{3070}

Yet it would be easy to exaggerate the distresses of the

country. The years from 1816 to 1820 especially, were years of

depression and hard times, but the steady growth of the

country was hardly interrupted. In the main the tariff did not

fail of its legitimate object. For the most part the new

manufactures were conserved. … More and more there was a

growing impatience with the tariff of 1816, and a tendency to

lay the bad times upon its shoulders. … March 22, 1820,

Baldwin of Pennsylvania, chairman of the newly created

Committee on Manufactures, introduced a tariff bill embodying

the general demand of the protected interests. … The bill

passed the House by a vote of 90 to 69; it was defeated in the

Senate by one vote."

O. L. Elliott,

The Tariff Controversy, 1789-1833

(Leland Stanford Junior University Monographs No.1),

pages 163-211.

"The revision of the Tariff, with a view to the protection of

home industry, and to the establishment of what was then

called, 'The American System,' was one of the large subjects

before Congress at the session of 1823-24, and was the regular

commencement of the heated debates on that question which

afterwards ripened into a serious difficulty between the

federal government and some of the southern States. … Revenue

the object, protection the incident, had been the rule in the

earlier tariffs: now that rule was sought to be reversed, and

to make protection the object of the law, and revenue the

incident. … Mr. Clay, the leader in the proposed revision, and

the champion of the American System, expressly placed the

proposed augmentation of duties on this ground. … Mr. Webster

was the leading speaker on the other side, and disputed the

universality of the distress which had been described;

claiming exemption from it in New England; denied the assumed

cause for it where it did exist, and attributed it to over

expansion and collapse of the paper system, as in Great

Britain, after the long suspension of the Bank of England;

denied the necessity for increased protection to manufactures,

and its inadequacy, if granted, to the relief of the country

where distress prevailed. … The bill was carried in the House,

after a protracted contest of ten weeks, by the lean majority

of five—107 to 102-only two members absent, and the voting so

zealous that several members were brought in upon their sick

couches. In the Senate the bill encountered a strenuous

resistance. … The bill … was carried by the small majority of

four votes—25 to 21. … An increased protection to the products

of several States, as lead in Missouri and Illinois, hemp in

Kentucky, iron in Pennsylvania, wool in Ohio and New York,

commanded many votes for the bill; and the impending

presidential election had its influence in its favor. Two of

the candidates, Messrs. Adams and Clay, were avowedly for it;

General Jackson, who voted for the bill, was for it, as

tending to give a home supply of the articles necessary in

time of war, and as raising revenue to pay the public debt."

T. H. Benton,

Thirty Years' View,

volume 1, chapter 13.

ALSO IN

A. B. Hart,

Formation of the Union,

sections 122 and 132 (chapters 11-12).

A. Walker,

Science of Wealth,

page 116.

F. W. Taussig,

Tariff History of the United States,

pages 68-76.

A. S. Bolles,

Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860,

book 3, chapter 3.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1828.

The "Bill of Abominations."

New England changes front.

"In 1828 came another tariff bill, so bad and so extreme in

many respects that it was called the 'bill of abominations.'

It originated in the agitation of the woollen manufacturers

which had started the year before, and for this bill Mr.

Webster spoke and voted. He changed his ground on this

important question absolutely and entirely, and made no

pretence of doing anything else. The speech which he made on

this occasion is a celebrated one, but it is so solely on

account of the startling change of position which it

announced. … A few lines from the speech give the marrow of

the whole matter. Mr. Webster said: 'New England, sir, has not

been a leader in this policy. … The opinion of New England up

to 1824 was founded in the conviction that, on the whole, it

was wisest and best, both for herself and others, that

manufactures should make haste slowly. … When, at the

commencement of the late war, duties were doubled, we were

told that we should find a mitigation of the weight of

taxation in the new aid and succor which would be thus

afforded to our own manufacturing labor. Like arguments were

urged, and prevailed, but not by the aid of New England votes,

when the tariff was afterwards arranged at the close of the

war in 1816. Finally, after a winter's deliberation, the act

of 1824 received the sanction of both Houses of Congress and

settled the policy of the country. … What, then, was New

England to do? Was she to hold out forever against the course

of the government, and see herself losing on one side and yet

make no effort to sustain herself on the other? No, sir.

Nothing was left to New England but to conform herself to the

will of others. Nothing was left to her but to consider that

the government had fixed and determined its own policy, and

that policy was protection.' … Opinion in New England changed

for good and sufficient business reasons, and Mr. Webster

changed with it. Free trade had commended itself to him as an

abstract principle, and he had sustained and defended it as in

the interest of commercial New England. But when the weight of

interest in New England shifted from free trade to protection

Mr. Webster followed, it."

H. C. Lodge,

Daniel Webster,

chapter 6.

"There was force in Webster's assertion, in reply to Hayne,

that New England, after protesting against the tariff as long

as she could, had conformed to a policy forced upon the

country by others, and had embarked her capital in

manufacturing. October 23, 1826, the Boston woollen

manufacturers petitioned Congress for more protection. … This

appeal of the woollen manufacturers brought out new demands

from other quarters. Especially the wool-growers came forward.

… May 14, 1827, the Pennsylvania Society for the Promotion of

Manufactures and the Mechanic Arts called a convention of wool

growers and manufacturers. The convention met at Harrisburg,

July 30, 1827. It was found necessary to enlarge the scope of

the convention in order to make allies of interests which

would otherwise become hostile. The convention went on the

plan of favoring protection on everything which asked for it.

The result was that iron, steel, glass, wool, woollens, hemp,

and flax were recommended for protection. Louisiana was not

represented, and so sugar was left out.

{3071}

It was voted to discourage the importation of foreign spirits

and the distillation of spirits from foreign products, by way

of protection to Western whiskey. … When the 20th Congress

met, the tariff was the absorbing question. Popular interest

had become engaged in it, and parties were to form on it, but

it perplexed the politicians greatly. … The act which resulted

from the scramble of selfish special interests was an economic

monstrosity. … May 19, 1828, the bill became a law. The duty

on wool costing less than 10 cents per pound was 15 per cent.,

on other wool 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. That on woollens

was 40 per cent. for a year, then 45 per cent., there being

four minima, 50 cents, $1.00, $2.50, $4.00. All which cost

over $4.00 were to be taxed 45 per cent. for a year, then 50

per cent. … The process of rolling iron had not yet been

introduced into this country. It was argued that rolled iron

was not as good as forged, and this was made the ground for

raising the tax on rolled iron from $30.00 to $37.00 per ton,

while the tax on forged iron was raised from $18.00 to $22.40.

Rolled iron was cheaper and was available for a great number

of uses. The tax, in this case, 'countervailed' an improvement

in the arts, and robbed the American people of their share in

the advantage of a new industrial achievement. The tax on

steel was raised from $20.00 to $30.00 per ton; that on hemp

from $35.00 to $45.00 per ton; that on molasses from 5 cents

to 10 cents per gallon; that on flax from nothing to $35.00

per ton. The tax on sugar, salt, and glass remained unchanged,

and that on tea also, save by a differential tonnage duty.

Coffee was classified and the tax reduced. The tax on wine, by

a separate act, was reduced one half or more. This was the

'tariff of abominations,' so called on account of the number

of especially monstrous provisions which it contained."

W. G. Sumner,

Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,

chapter 9.

"The tariff of 1828 … was the work of politicians and

manufacturers; and was commenced for the benefit of the

woollen interest, and upon a bill chiefly designed to favor

that branch of manufacturing industry. But, like all other

bills of the kind, it required help from other interests to

get itself along."

T. H. Benton,

Thirty Years' View,

volume 1, chapters 34.

J. Schouler,

History of the United States,

chapter 12, section 2 (volume 3).

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1832.

Clay's delusive act to diminish revenue.

President Jackson, in his message of December, 1831, "invited

attention to the fact that the public debt would be

extinguished before the expiration of his term, and that,

therefore, 'a modification of the tariff, which shall produce

a reduction of the revenue to the wants of the government,'

was very advisable. He added that, in justice to the interests

of the merchant as well as the manufacturer, the reduction

should be prospective, and that the duties should be adjusted

with a view 'to the counteraction of foreign policy, so far as

it may be injurious to our national interests.' This meant a

revenue tariff with incidental retaliation. He had thus

arrived at a sensible plan to avoid the accumulation of a

surplus. Clay took the matter in hand in the Senate, or rather

in Congress. … He recognized the necessity of reducing the

revenue, but he would reduce the revenue without reducing

protective duties. The 'American System' should not suffer. It

must, therefore, not be done in the manner proposed by

Jackson. He insisted upon confining the reduction to duties on

articles not coming into competition with American products. …

Instead of abolishing protective duties he would rather reduce

the revenue by making some of them prohibitory. … When

objection was made that this would be a defiance of the South,

of the President, and of the whole administration party, he

replied, as Adams reports, that 'to preserve, maintain and

strengthen the American System, he would defy the South, the

President and the devil.' He introduced a resolution in the

Senate, 'that the existing duties upon articles imported from

foreign countries, and not coming into competition with

similar articles made or produced within the United States,

ought to be forthwith abolished, except the duties upon wines

and silks, and that those ought to be reduced; and that the

Committee on Finance be instructed to report a bill

accordingly.'" After long debate Clay's" tariff resolution was

adopted, and in June, 1832, a bill substantially in accord

with it passed both houses, known as the tariff act of 1832.

It reduced or abolished the duties on many of the unprotected

articles, but left the protective system without material

change. As a reduction of the revenue it effected very little.

… The reduction proposed by Clay, according to his own

estimate, was not over seven millions; the reduction really

effected by the new tariff law scarcely exceeded three

millions. Clay had saved the American System at the expense of

the very object contemplated by the measure. It was extremely

short-sighted statesmanship. The surplus was as threatening as

ever, and the dissatisfaction in the South grew from day to

day."

C. Schurz,

Life of Henry Clay,

chapter 13 (volume 1).

ALSO IN

H. Clay,

Life, Correspondence and Speeches

(Colton edition), volume 5, pages 416-428.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1833.

The Southern opposition to protection.

Nullification in South Carolina.

The compromise tariff.

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

TARIFF: (Germany): A. D. 1833.

The Zollverein.

"The German Customs Union (Deutsche Zollverein) is an

association of states, having for its declared object to

secure freedom of trade and commerce between the contracting

states, and a common interest in the customs revenue. The

terms of the union are expressed in the treaty between Prussia

and the other states, dated 22d March, 1833, which may be

regarded as the basis of the association. The states now

[1844] forming the union are Prussia, Bavaria, Wurtemberg,

Saxony, Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, Baden, Nassau, the

Thuringian states, Frankfort, Brunswick, Lippe-Schaumburg, and

Luxemburg. The population of these, with the exception of the

three last mentioned states, was, in 1839, 26,858,886.

Including these three states, which have since joined the

union, the present population cannot be less than twenty-seven

millions and a half. The German powers which have not joined

the union are Austria, with twelve millions of German

subjects, and Hanover, Oldenburg, Holstein, the two

Mecklenburgs, and the Hanse Towns, whose united population is

about three millions more.

{3072}

The inhabitants of Germany are, therefore, divided in the

proportions of twenty-seven and a half within, to fifteen

without, the sphere of the Zollverein. The treaty provides in

the thirty-eighth article, for the admission of other German

states, and the thirty-ninth article for the making of

treaties with foreign states, but these latter are not

admissible into the union. … The declared principle of the

league—namely, the commercial and financial union of the

German states—is not only one to which no foreign power has

any right to object, but is excellent in itself; and is, in

fact, the establishment of free trade among the associated

states. … But it is not merely to its avowed principle that

the league owes its successful accomplishment. There are other

motives which have entered largely into the causes of its

existence. In the first place, it has given practical effect

to that vehement desire for national unity which so generally

pervades the German mind. … Then, it so happened that this

general desire for union fell in exactly with the policy of

Prussia—a power which has not failed to seize so favourable an

opportunity of extending her political influence, and

occupying a position which, though of nominal equality, has in

reality secured her predominance among the German states. To

these inducements we regret to be obliged to add

another—namely, the prevalent opinion in Germany that their

manufacturing industry ought to be protected against foreign

competition, and that the tariff of the Zollverein ought to be

used as an instrument for the exclusion of foreign

manufactures from the German market. … Although the Congress

of Vienna had established a new Germanic confederation,

(Deutsche Bund) and a federative diet charged with the

maintenance of peace at home and abroad, yet it was soon

perceived and felt that the kind of union obtained by means of

this confederation was more formal than real. … The late King

of Prussia was one of the first to perceive, that, in order to

unite Germany in reality, something more cogent than the

federative diet was indispensable. He found his own power

rather weakened than strengthened by the addition of the

Rhenish provinces, so long as they remained separated, not

only by distance, but by the customs-barriers of intervening

states, from his ancient territories. He accordingly effected,

in 1829, a convention with those states, by which he became

the farmer of their customs-revenues, and so removed the

barriers between Eastern and Western Prussia. Some years,

however, previous to this, the Prussian Government had deemed

it expedient to comply with the demands of the manufacturers

(especially those in the Rhenish provinces) for protection

against foreign goods, which, since the peace, had begun to

make their appearance; and on the 26th May, 1818, a new

Prussian Tariff had been issued, which was designed to afford

a moderate protection to the home industry, and which may be

regarded as the groundwork of the present Tariff of the

Zollverein. … But the proceedings of Prussia were considered

in a hostile light by the manufacturers of the South. They

formed a counteracting association in 1819 which numbered from

five to six thousand members, had its headquarters in

Nuremberg, and agents in all the principal towns, and

published a weekly newspaper devoted to the cause. They

addressed the Diet, the German courts, and the Congress at

Vienna in 1820, in favor of a general customs-union. They so

far succeeded that, in 1826, the small Thuringian States,

occupying the central portion of Germany, with one or two

others, formed themselves into a customs-union, under the name

of the Mittel-Verein; and within the two succeeding years a

more important union was accomplished, consisting of Bavaria

and Wurtemberg, with their small enclosed states; the Tariff

of which union is stated to have been as high, or very nearly

so, as that of Prussia. Thus Germany contained three separate

customs-associations, with separate Tariffs, and it became

obviously desirable to unite these conflicting interests.

Prussia made overtures to the other unions, but was for a long

time unsuccessful; they objecting principally to the high

scale of Prussian duties on colonial produce. At last,

however, all obstacles were removed, (principally, as Dr. List

states, through the exertions of Baron von Cotta, the eminent

publisher, and proprietor of the Allgemeine Zeitung,) and on

the 22d of March, 1833, the treaty was signed by which, for

the first time, Germany was knit together in anything like a

binding national confederation. Between that date and the

present, the league has been enlarged by the accession of

other states; but, as we have already mentioned, Hanover and

some other northern states have hitherto refused to join it.

Hanover formed a distinct union with three neighbouring

states, viz.: Brunswick, Lippe-Schaumburg, and Oldenburg,

which assumed the title of the North-western League; but the

two former having subsequently seceded from it and joined the

Zollverein, the North-western League has been reduced to

Hanover and Oldenburg only. The Hanse towns, Mecklenburg, and

Holstein, are not yet members of any customs-union. The

revenues of the Zollverein are divided among the contracting

states according to the population of each state

respectively."

Edinburgh Review,

January, 1844

(volume 79, page 108).

ALSO IN

G. Krause,

The Growth of German Unity,

chapter 10.

F. List.

National System of Political Economy,

book 4, chapter 4.

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1836-1839.

Beginning of the Anti-Corn-Law agitation.

"Cobden was in no sense the original projector of an organized

body for throwing off the burden of the corn duties. In 1836

an Anti-Corn-Law Association had been formed in London; its

principal members were the parliamentary radicals, Grote,

Molesworth, Joseph Hume, and Mr. Roebuck. But this group,

notwithstanding their acuteness, their logical penetration,

and the soundness of their ideas, were in that, as in so many

other matters, stricken with impotence. Their gifts of

reasoning were admirable, but they had no gifts for popular

organization. … It was not until a body of men in Manchester

were moved to take the matter in hand, that any serious

attempt was made to inform and arouse the country. The price

of wheat had risen to seventy-seven shillings in the August of

1838; there was every prospect of a wet harvesting; the

revenue was declining; deficit was becoming a familiar word;

pauperism was increasing; and the manufacturing population of

Lancashire were finding it impossible to support themselves,

because the landlords, and the legislation of a generation of

landlords before them, insisted on keeping the first necessity

of life at an artificially high rate. …

{3073}

In October, 1838, a band of seven men met at a hotel in

Manchester, and formed a new Anti-Corn Law Association. They

were speedily joined by others, including Cobden, who from

this moment began to take a prominent part in all counsel and

action. That critical moment had arrived, which comes in the

history of every successful movement, when a section arises

within the party, which refuses from that day forward either

to postpone or to compromise. The feeling among the older men

was to stop short in their demands at some modification of the

existing duty. … The more energetic members protested against

these faltering voices. … The meeting was adjourned, to the

great chagrin of the President, and when the members assembled

a week later, Cobden drew from his pocket a draft petition

which he and his allies had prepared in the interval, and

which after a discussion of many hours was adopted by an

almost unanimous vote. The preamble laid all the stress on the

alleged facts of foreign competition, in words which never

fail to be heard in times of bad trade. It recited how the

existing laws prevented the British manufacturer from

exchanging the produce of his labour for the corn of other

countries, and so enabled his foreign rivals to purchase their

food at one half of the price at which it was sold in the

English market; and finally the prayer of the petition called

for the repeal of all laws relating to the importation of

foreign corn and other foreign articles of subsistence, and

implored the House to carry out to the fullest extent, both as

affects manufactures and agriculture, the true and peaceful

principles of free-trade. In the following month, January,

1839, the Anti-Com-Law Association showed that it was in

earnest in the intention to agitate, by proceeding to raise a

subscription of an effective sum of money. Cobden threw out

one of those expressions which catch men's minds in moments

when they are already ripe for action. 'Let us,' he said,

'invest part of our property, in order to save the rest from

confiscation.' Within a month £6,000 had been raised, the

first instalment of many scores of thousands still to come. A

great banquet was given to some of the parliamentary

supporters of Free Trade; more money was subscribed,

convictions became clearer and purpose waxed more resolute. On

the day after the banquet, at a meeting of delegates from

other towns, Cobden brought forward a scheme for united action

among the various associations throughout the country. This

was the germ of what ultimately became the League."

J. Morley,

Life of Richard Cobden,

chapter 6 (volume 1).

ALSO IN

W. Robertson,

Life and Times of John Bright,

chapters 8 and 11-14.

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1842.

Peel's modification of the Corn Laws.

His sliding-scale.

His Tariff reductions.

The first great step towards Free-Trade.

The Whig administration under Lord Melbourne gave way in

August, in 1841, to one formed by Sir Robert Peel. On the

opening of the session in February, 1842, "The Queen's Speech

recommended Parliament to consider the state of the laws

affecting the importation of corn and other commodities. It

announced the beginning of a revolution which few persons in

England thought possible, although it was to be completed in

little more than ten years. On the 9th of February Peel moved

that the House should resolve itself into a Committee to

consider the Corn Laws. His speech, which lasted nearly three

hours, was necessarily dull, and his proposal was equally

offensive to the country gentlemen and to the Anti-Corn Law

League. It amounted merely to an improvement of the

sliding-scale which had been devised by the Duke of

Wellington's Cabinet [See above: A. D. 1815-1828], and was

based on the axiom that the British farmer, taking one year

with another, could not make a profit by growing corn if

foreign corn were admitted at a price of less than 70s. a

quarter. By a calculation of prices extending over a long term

of years, Peel had satisfied himself that a price of 56s. a

quarter would remunerate the British farmer. He proposed to

modify the sliding-scale accordingly. … Peel retained the

minimum duty of 1s. when corn was selling at 73s. the quarter;

he fixed a maximum duty of 20s. when corn was selling at from

50s. to 51s. the quarter, and he so altered the graduation in

the increase of duty as to diminish the inducement to hold

grain back when it became dear. … So general was the

dissatisfaction with Peel's Corn Law that Russell ventured

once more to place before the House his alternative of a fixed

8s. duty. He was defeated by a majority of upwards of 120

votes. Two days later Mr. Villiers made his annual motion for

the total repeal of the Corn Laws, and was beaten by more than

four votes to one. The murmurs of Peel's own supporters were

easily overborne, and the Bill was carried through the House

of Commons after a month spent in debates. As soon as it had

passed, and the estimates for the army and navy had been

voted, Peel produced what was really his Budget, nominally Mr.

Goulburn's. … In every one of the last five years there had

been a deficit. … Peel therefore resolved to impose an income

tax." He also raised the duty on Irish spirits and on exports

of coal, besides making some changes in the stamp duties.

"With these and with the income tax he calculated that he

would have a surplus of £1,900,000. Peel was thus able to

propose a reduction of the tariff upon uniform and

comprehensive principles. He proposed to limit import duties

to a maximum of 5 per cent. upon the value of raw materials,

of 12 per cent. upon the value of goods partly manufactured,

and of 20 per cent. upon the value of goods wholly

manufactured. Out of the 1,200 articles then comprised in the

tariff, 750 were more or less affected by the application of

these rules, yet so trivial was the revenue raised from most

of them that the total loss was computed at only £270,000 a

year. Peel reduced the duty on coffee; he reduced the duty on

foreign and almost entirely abolished the duty on Canadian

timber. Cattle and pigs, meat of all descriptions, cheese and

butter, which had hitherto been subject to a prohibitory duty,

he proposed to admit at a comparatively low rate. He also

diminished the duty upon stage coaches. So extensive a change

in our system of national finance had never before been

effected at one stroke. … Immense was the excitement caused by

the statement of the Budget. … Every part of Peel's scheme was

debated with the utmost energy. … He procured the ratification

of all his measures subject to some slight amendments, and at

the cost of a whole session spent in discussing them. Little

or nothing else was accomplished by Parliament in this year.

Peel had returned to power as the Champion of protection. His

first great achievement was the extension of the freedom of

trade."

F. G. Montague,

Life of Sir Robert Peel,

chapter 8.

{3074}

"Notwithstanding the objections which free traders might

raise, the Budget of 1842 proved the first great advance in

the direction of free trade. It did not remove the shackles

under which trade was struggling, but it relaxed the

fastenings and lightened the load."

S. Walpole,

History of England from 1815,

chapter 18 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

S. Walpole,

Life of Sir Robert Peel,

volume 3, chapter 5.

J. Morley,

Life of Richard Cobden,

volume 1, chapter 11.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1842.

An Act to provide a necessary increase of revenue,

with incidental protection.

"There had been a lull in tariff legislation for ten years.

The free-trade party had been ascendant; and amendment of the

law, save in the slight ways mentioned, had been impossible.

During the decade, a financial tornado had swept over the

country; the United States bank had ceased to be; the

experiment of keeping the government deposits with the State

banks had been tried, and had failed; the government had kept

them several years without authority, but finally a bill had

been passed which authorized keeping them in that manner. The

time had now nearly come for reducing the duties [by the

gradual scaling down provided for in the Compromise tariff act

of 1833] to their lowest point. Manufactures were drying up at

the root. A material augmentation of the national revenue from

some source had become necessary. … Whatever difference of

opinion existed respecting the necessity of additional

protection to manufacturers, some expedient, it was

universally conceded, must be adopted to increase the public

revenue. As no one favored direct taxation, a revision of the

tariff was the only mode of enriching the treasury. … The

committee on manufactures did not report to the House until

the last of March, 1842. … The leading provisions of the bill

reported by the committee were the following:

1. A general ad valorem duty of 30 per cent, with few

exceptions, where the duty was on that principle.

2. A discrimination was made for the security of certain

interests requiring it by specific duties, in some instances

below, in others above, the rate of the general ad valorem

duty.

3. As a general principle, the duty on the articles subject to

discrimination was made at the rate at which it was in 1840,

after the deduction of four-tenths of the excess on 20 per

cent by the Act of 1833. …

The subject was discussed at great length by the House,

although the time was drawing near for making the last

reduction under the compromise law of [1833]. Something must

be done. Accordingly, Fillmore, chairman of the committee of

ways and means, reported a bill to extend the existing tariff

laws until the 1st day of August, 1842, which was immediately

passed by the House; but the Senate amended the bill by adding

a proviso that nothing therein contained should suspend the

operation of the Distribution law,—a law passed at the extra

session of the preceding year, distributing the proceeds of

the sales of the public lands among the States. … In the

debate on this bill the proviso became a prominent topic of

discussion. The distribution Act contained a proviso, that, if

at any time the duties under the compromise tariff should be

raised, the distribution should cease, and be suspended until

the cause of the suspension were removed. … Those who were in

favor of high protective duties desired the removal of the

proviso of the distribution Act in order that the tariff might

be raised without interfering with distribution. The House

having rejected an amendment proposing to strike out the

proviso which prohibited the suspension of the distribution

law, the bill was passed by the House, and afterward by the

Senate, but vetoed by the President. Another tariff bill was

introduced by Mr. Fillmore, drawn by the Secretary of the

Treasury,—to which, however, the committee added a proviso

that the … proceeds of the public lands should be distributed,

notwithstanding the increase of duties,—which passed both

Houses after a short debate. This contained a revision of a

considerable number of duties, and was also vetoed by the

President. Impelled by the necessity of providing additional

revenue, a bill was rapidly pushed through Congress, similar

to that previously passed, with the omission of the proviso

requiring distribution, and further modified by admitting free

of duty tea and coffee growing east of the Cape of Good Hope,

imported in American vessels. This bill was approved by the

President. A separate bill was then passed, repealing the

proviso of the distribution Act, and allowing the distribution

to take place, notwithstanding the increase of duties; but the

bill was retained by the President and defeated. Thus ended a

long and bitter controversy, in which public sentiment

expanded, and hardened against the chief Executive of the

nation. … That tariff remained without change during the next

four years."

A. S. Bolles,

Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860,

book 3, chapter 6.

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1845-1846.

The Repeal of the Corn Laws.

Dissolution of the League.

"The Anti-Corn-Law agitation was one of those movements which,

being founded on right principles, and in harmony with the

interest of the masses, was sure to gather fresh strength by

any event affecting the supply of food. It was popular to

attempt to reverse a policy which aimed almost exclusively to

benefit one class of society. … The economic theorists had the

mass of the people with them. Their gatherings were becoming

more and more enthusiastic. And even amidst Conservative

landowners there were not a few enlightened and liberal minds

who had already, silently at least, espoused the new ideas. No

change certainly could be expected to be made so long as bread

was cheap and labour abundant. But when a deficient harvest

and a blight in the potato crop crippled the resources of the

people and raised grain to famine prices, the voice of the

League acquired greater power and influence. Hitherto they had

received hundreds of pounds. Now, thousands were sent in to

support the agitation. A quarter of a million was readily

contributed. Nor were the contributors Lancashire mill-owners

exclusively. Among them were merchants and bankers, men of

heart and men of mind, the poor labourer and the peer of the

realm. The fervid oratory of Bright, the demonstrative and

argumentative reasoning of Cobden, the more popular appeals of

Fox, Rawlins, and other platform speakers, filled the

newspaper press, and were eagerly read.

{3075}

And when Parliament dissolved in August 1845, even Sir Robert

Peel showed some slight symptoms of a conviction that the days

of the corn laws were numbered. Every day, in truth, brought

home to his mind a stronger need for action, and as the

ravages of the potato disease progressed, he saw that all

further resistance would be absolutely dangerous. A cabinet

council was held on October 31 of that year to consult as to

what was to be done, and at an adjourned meeting on November 5

Sir Robert Peel intimated his intention to issue an order in

council remitting the duty on grain in bond to one shilling,

and opening the ports for the admission of all species of

grain at a smaller rate of duty until a day to be named in the

order; to call Parliament together on the 27th inst., in order

to ask for an indemnity, and a sanction of the order by law;

and to submit to Parliament immediately after the recess a

modification of the existing law, including the admission at a

nominal duty of Indian corn and of British colonial corn. A

serious difference of opinion, however, was found to exist in

the cabinet on the question brought before them, the only

ministers supporting such measures being the Earl of Aberdeen,

Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert. Nor was it easy to

induce the other members to listen to reason. And though at a

subsequent meeting, held on November 28, Sir Robert Peel so

far secured a majority in his favour, it was evident that the

cabinet was too divided to justify him in bringing forward his

measures, and he decided upon resigning office. His resolution

to that effect having been communicated to the Queen, her

Majesty summoned Lord John Russell to form a cabinet, and, to

smooth his path, Sir Robert Peel, with characteristic

frankness, sent a memorandum to her Majesty embodying a

promise to give him his support. But Lord John Russell failed

in his efforts, and the Queen had no alternative but to recall

Sir Robert Peel, and give him full power to carry out his

measures. It was under such circumstances that Parliament was

called for January 22, 1846, and on January 27 the Government

plan was propounded before a crowded House. It was not an

immediate repeal of the corn laws that Sir Robert Peel

recommended. He proposed a temporary protection for three

years, till February 1, 1849, imposing a scale during that

time ranging from 4s. when the price of wheat should be 50s.

per quarter and upward, and 10s. when the price should be

under 48s. per quarter, providing, however, that after that

period all grain should be admitted at the uniform duty of 1s.

per quarter. The measure, as might have been expected, was

received in a very different manner by the political parties

in both Houses of Parliament. There was treason in the

Conservative camp, it was said, and keen and bitter was the

opposition offered to the chief of the party. For twelve

nights speaker after speaker indulged in personal

recriminations. They recalled to Sir Robert Peel's memory the

speeches he had made in defence of the corn laws. And as to

his assertion that he had changed his mind, they denied his

right to do so. … The passing of the measure was, however,

more than certain, and after a debate of twelve nights'

duration on Mr. Miles's amendment, the Government obtained a

majority of 97, 337 having voted for the motion and 240

against it. And from that evening the corn law may be said to

have expired. Not a day too soon, certainly, when we consider

the straitened resources of the country as regards the first

article of food, caused not only by the bad crop of grain, but

by the serious loss of the potato crop, especially in

Ireland."

L. Levi,

History of British Commerce,

part 4, chapter 4.

"On the 2nd of July the League was 'conditionally dissolved,'

by the unanimous vote of a great meeting of the leaders at

Manchester. … Mr. Cobden here joyfully closed his seven years'

task, which he had prosecuted at the expense of health,

fortune, domestic comfort, and the sacrifice of his own tastes

in every way. … Mr. Cobden had sacrificed at least £20,000 in

the cause. The country now, at the call of the other chief

Leaguers, presented him with above £80,000—not only for the

purpose of acknowledging his sacrifices, but also to set him

free for life for the political service of his country."

H. Martineau,

History of the Thirty Years' Peace,

book 6, chapter 15 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

W. C. Taylor,

Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,

volume 3, chapters 8-10.

J. Morley,

Life of Richard Cobden,

volume 1, chapters 15-16.

M. M. Trumbull,

The Free Trade Struggle in England.

A. Bisset,

Notes on the Anti-Corn Law Struggle.

Debate upon the Corn Laws in Session 1846.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1846-1861.

Lowered duties and the disputed effects.

"In 1846 was passed what we will call the 'Walker tariff,'

from Robert J. Walker, then Secretary of the Treasury. It

reduced the duties on imports down to about the standard of

the 'Compromise' of 1833. It discriminated, however, as the

Compromise did not, between goods that could be produced at

home and those that could not. It approached, in short, more

nearly than any other, in its principles and details, to the

Hamilton tariff, although the general rate of duties was

higher. From that time up to 1857 there was a regular and

large increase in the amount of dutiable goods imported,

bringing in a larger revenue to the government. The surplus in

the treasury accumulated, and large sums were expended by the

government in buying up its own bonds at a high premium, for

the sake of emptying the treasury. Under these circumstances

the 'tariff of 1857' was passed, decidedly lowering the rates

of duties and largely increasing the free list. The financial

crisis of that year diminished the imports, and the revenue

fell off $22,000,000. It rallied, however, the next two years,

but owing to the large increase of the free list, not quite up

to the old point."

A. L. Perry,

Elements of Political Economy,

page 464.

"The free-traders consider the tariff of 1846 to be a

conclusive proof of the beneficial effect of low duties. They

challenge a comparison of the years of its operation, between

1846 and 1857, with any other equal period in the history of

the country. Manufacturing, they say, was not forced by a

hot-house process to produce high-priced goods for popular

consumption, but was gradually encouraged and developed on a

healthful and self-sustaining basis, not to be shaken as a

reed in the wind by every change in the financial world.

Commerce, as they point out, made great advances, and our

carrying trade grew so rapidly that in ten years from the day

the tariff of 1846 was passed our tonnage exceeded the tonnage

of England. The free-traders refer with especial emphasis to

what they term the symmetrical development of all the great

interests of the country under this liberal tariff.

{3076}

Manufactures were not stimulated at the expense of the

commercial interest. Both were developed in harmony, while

agriculture, the indispensable basis of all, was never more

flourishing. The farmers and planters at no other period of

our history were in receipt of such good prices, steadily paid

to them in gold coin, for their surplus product, which they

could send to the domestic market over our own railways and to

the foreign market in our own ships. Assertions as to the

progress of manufactures in the period under discussion are

denied by the protectionists. While admitting the general

correctness of the free-trader's statements as to the

prosperous condition of the country, they call attention to

the fact that directly after the enactment of the tariff of

1846 the great famine occurred in Ireland, followed in the

ensuing years by short crops in Europe. The prosperity which

came to the American agriculturist was therefore from causes

beyond the sea and not at home,—causes which were transient,

indeed almost accidental. Moreover an exceptional condition of

affairs existed in the United States in consequence of our

large acquisition of territory from Mexico at the close of the

war and the subsequent and almost immediate discovery of gold

in California. A new and extended field of trade was thus

opened in which we had the monopoly, and an enormous surplus

of money was speedily created from the products of the rich

mines on the Pacific coast. At the same time Europe was in

convulsion from the revolutions of 1848, and production was

materially hindered over a large part of the Continent. This

disturbance had scarcely subsided when three leading nations

of Europe, England, France, and Russia, engaged in the

wasteful and expensive war of the Crimea. The struggle began

in 1853 and ended in 1856, and during those years it increased

consumption and decreased production abroad, and totally

closed the grain-fields of Russia from any competition with

the United States. The protectionists therefore hold that the

boasted prosperity of the country under the tariff of 1846 was

abnormal in origin and in character. … The protectionists

maintain that from 1846 to 1857 the United States would have

enjoyed prosperity under any form of tariff, but that the

moment the exceptional conditions in Europe and in America

came to an end, the country was plunged headlong into a

disaster [the financial crisis of 1857] from which the

conservative force of a protective tariff would in large part

have saved it. … The free-traders, as an answer to this

arraignment of their tariff policy, seek to charge

responsibility for the financial disasters to the hasty and

inconsiderate changes made in the tariff in 1857, for which

both parties were in large degree if not indeed equally

answerable."

J. G. Blaine,

Twenty Years of Congress,

volume 1, chapter 9.

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1846-1879.

Total abandonment of Protection and Navigation Laws.

The perfected tariff of Free Trade.

"With the fall of the principle of the protection in corn may

be said to have practically fallen the principle of protection

in this country altogether. That principle was a little

complicated in regard to the sugar duties and to the

navigation laws. The sugar produced in the West Indian

colonies was allowed to enter this country at rates of duty

much lower than those imposed upon the sugar grown in foreign

lands. The abolition of slavery in our colonies had made

labour there somewhat costly and difficult to obtain

continuously, and the impression was that if the duties on

foreign sugar were reduced, it would tend to enable those

countries which still maintained the slave trade to compete at

great advantage with the sugar grown in our colonies by that

free labour to establish which England had but just paid so

large a pecuniary fine. Therefore, the question of Free Trade

became involved with that of free labour; at least, so it

seemed to the eyes of many a man who was not inclined to

support the protective principle in itself. When it was put to

him, whether he was willing to push the Free Trade principle

so far as to allow countries growing sugar by slave labour to

drive our free grown sugar out of the market, he was often

inclined to give way before this mode of putting the question,

and to imagine that there really was a collision between Free

Trade and free labour. Therefore a certain sentimental plea

came in to aid the Protectionists in regard to the sugar

duties. Many of the old anti-slavery party found themselves

deceived by this fallacy, and inclined to join the agitation

against the reduction of the duty on foreign sugar. On the

other hand, it was made tolerably clear that the labour was

not so scarce or so dear in the colonies as had been

represented, and that colonial sugar grown by free labour

really suffered from no inconvenience except the fact that it

was still manufactured on the most crude, old fashioned, and

uneconomical methods. Besides, the time had gone by when the

majority of the English people could be convinced that a

lesson on the beauty of freedom was to be conveyed to foreign

sugar-growers and slave-owners by the means of a tax upon the

products of their plantations. Therefore, after a long and

somewhat eager struggle, the principle of Free Trade was

allowed to prevail in regard to sugar. The duties on sugar

were made equal. The growth of the sugar plantations was

admitted on the same terms into this country, without any

reference either to the soil from which it had sprung or to

the conditions under which it was grown."

J. McCarthy,

The Epoch of Reform,

chapter 12.

"The contest on the Navigation Laws [finally repealed in

1849-see NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1849] was the last pitched

battle fought by the Protectionist party. Their resistance

grew fainter and fainter, and a few occasional skirmishes just

reminded the world that such a party still existed. Three

years afterwards their leaders came into power. In February,

1852, the Earl of Derby became Prime Minister, and Mr.

Disraeli Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of the House

of Commons. The Free-traders, alarmed at the possibility of

some at·tempt to reverse the policy of commercial freedom

which had been adopted, took the earliest opportunity of

questioning those Ministers in Parliament on the subject. The

discreet reply was that the Government did not intend to

propose any return to the policy of protection during the

present Session, nor at any future time, unless a great

majority of members favourable to that policy should be

returned to Parliament. But far from this proving to be the

case, the general election which immediately ensued reinstated

a Liberal Government, and the work of stripping off the few

rags of protection that still hung on went rapidly forward.

{3077}

On the 18th of April, 1853, Mr. Gladstone, as Chancellor of

the Exchequer, made his financial statement in an able and

luminous speech. Such was the admirable order in which he

marshalled his topics, and the transparent lucidity with which

he treated them, that although his address occupied five hours

in the delivery, and although it bristled with figures and

statistics, he never for a moment lost the attention or

fatigued the minds of his hearers. Mr. Gladstone's financial

scheme included, among other reforms, the reduction or total

remission of imposts on 133 articles. In this way, our tariff

underwent rapid simplification. Each subsequent year was

marked by a similar elimination of protective impediments to

free commercial intercourse with other countries. In 1860,

butter, cheese, &c., were admitted duty free; in 1869, the

small nominal duty that had been left on corn was abolished;

in 1874, sugar was relieved from the remnant of duty that had

survived from previous reductions. It would be superfluous, as

well as tedious, to enter upon a detailed reference to the

various minor reforms through which we advanced towards, and

finally reached, our present free-trade tariff. In fact, all

the great battles had been fought and won by the close of the

year 1849, and the struggle was then virtually over. … Is our

present tariff one from which every shred and vestige of

protection have been discarded? Is it truly and thoroughly a

free-trade tariff? That these questions must be answered in

the affirmative it is easy to prove in the most conclusive

manner. We raise about £20,000,000 of our annual revenue by

means of customs' duties on the foreign commodities which we

import, and this fact is sometimes adduced by the advocates

for protection, without any explanation, leaving their readers

to infer that ours is not, as it really is, a free-trade

tariff. That such an inference is totally erroneous will

presently be made manifest beyond all question. We now levy

import duties on only fifteen articles. Subjoined is a list of

them, and to each is appended the amount of duty levied on it

during the financial year ending 1st of April, 1879.

Not produced in England:

Tobacco, £8,589,681;

Tea, 4,169,233;

Wine, 1,469,710;

Dried Fruit, 509,234;

Coffee, 212,002;

Chicory, 66,739;

Chocolate and Cocoa, 44,671;

Total, £15,061,270.

Produced also in England:

Spirits, £5,336,058;

Plate (Silver and Gold). 5,853;

Beer, 3,814;

Vinegar, 671;

Playing Cards, 522;

Pickles. 17;

Malt. 6;

Spruce, 3;

Total, £5,346,944.

Total of both £20,408,214. It will be seen by the above

figures that £15,000,000, or three-fourths of the total sum

levied, is levied on articles which we do not and cannot

produce in England. It is clear, therefore, that this portion

of the import duties cannot by any possibility be said to

afford the slightest protection to native industry.' Every

shilling's worth which we consume of those articles comes from

abroad, and every shilling extra that the consumer pays for

them in consequence of the duty goes to the revenue. So much

for that portion of the £20,400,000 import duties. As to the

£5,336,000 levied on foreign spirits, it consists of import

duties which are only the exact counterpart of the excise

duties, levied internally on the produce of the British

distillers. The foreign article is placed on precisely the

same footing as the native article. Both have to pay the same

duty of about 10s. per gallon on spirits of the same strength.

It would of course be an absurd stultification to admit

foreign spirits duty-free while the English producer was

burdened with a tax of 10s. per gallon; but by making the

excise duty and the customs' duty precisely the same, equality

is established, and no protection or preference whatever is

enjoyed by the native distiller. The excise duty levied in the

aforesaid year ending April, 1879, on spirits the produce of

British distilleries, was no less than £14,855,000. The

trifling amounts raised on plate, beer, vinegar, &c., are

explained in the same way. They also act as a mere

counterpoise to the excise duties levied on the British

producers of the same articles, and thus afford to the latter

no protection whatever against foreign competition. It is

evident, therefore, that our tariff does not retain within it

one solitary shred of protection."

A. Mongredien,

History of the Free Trade Movement in England,

chapter 13.

ALSO IN:

H. Hall,

History of the Customs Revenue of England.

S. Dowell,

History of Taxation and Taxes in England.

TARIFF: (France): A. D. 1853-1860.

Moderation of Protective duties.

The Cobden-Chevalier Commercial Treaty.

After the fall of Napoleon and the restoration of the Bourbons

in France, the protective system was pushed to so great an

extreme that it became in some instances avowedly prohibitive.

"The first serious attempt to alter this very severe

restrictive system was reserved for the Second Empire. The

English reforms of Peel proved the possibility of removing

most of the barriers to commerce that legislation had set up,

and consequently Napoleon III. entered with moderation on the

work of revision. Between 1853 and 1855 the duties on coal,

iron, steel, and wool were lowered, as also those on cattle,

corn, and various raw materials, the requirements for

ship-building being allowed in free. The legislative body was,

however, with difficulty brought to consent to these measures.

A more extensive proposal—made in 1856—to remove all

prohibitions on imports, while retaining protective duties of

30% on woollen and 35% on cotton goods, had to be withdrawn,

in consequence of the strong opposition that it excited. The

interest of the consumers was in the popular opinion entirely

subordinate to that of the iron-masters, cotton-spinners, and

agriculturists—one of the many instances which shows that the

long continuance of high duties does not facilitate the

introduction of free competition. It was under such

discouraging circumstances that the famous Commercial Treaty

of 1860 with England was negotiated. This important measure

(the work of Chevalier and Cobden, but owing a good deal of

its success to the efforts of the Emperor and M. Rouher),

though only a finishing step in English tariff reform,

inaugurated a new era in France."

C. F. Bastable,

The Commerce of Nations,

chapter 8.

"By the treaty of commerce of 1860, France engaged to abolish

all prohibitions, and to admit certain articles of British

produce and manufacture at duties not exceeding 30 per cent.

ad valorem, to be further reduced to duties not exceeding 25

per cent. from the 1st October, 1864. Britain, on the other

hand, bound herself to abolish the duties on French silks and

other manufactured goods, and to reduce the duties on French

wines and brandies.

{3078}

As regards coals, France engaged to reduce the import duty,

and both contracting parties engaged not to prohibit

exportation of coal, and to levy no duty upon such exports.

Whilst both contracting parties engaged to confer on the other

any favour, privilege, or reduction in the tariff of duties on

imports on the articles mentioned in the treaty which the said

power might concede to any third power; and also not to

enforce, one against another, any prohibition of importation

or exportation which should not at the same time be applicable

to all other nations. The sum and substance of the treaty was,

that France engaged to act more liberally for the future than

she had done for the past, and England made another step in

the way of liberalising her tariff, and placing all her

manufactures under the wholesome and invigorating influence of

free competition. Nor was the treaty allowed to remain limited

to France and England, for forthwith after its conclusion both

France and England entered into similar treaties with other

nations. And inasmuch as under existing treaties other nations

were bound to give to England as good treatment as they gave

to the most favoured nations, the restrictions theretofore in

existence in countries not originally parties to the French

treaty were everywhere greatly reduced, and thereby its

benefits extended rapidly over the greater part of Europe."

L. Levi,

Statistical Results of the Recent Treaties of Commerce

(Journal of the Statistical Society,

volume 40, 1877), page 3.

TARIFF: (Germany): A. D. 1853-1892.

Progress towards Free Trade arrested by Prince Bismarck.

Protection measures of 1878-1887.

"Up to the revolutionary period of 1848-50, the policy of the

German Zollverein or Custom's Union was a pronounced

protectionism. The general liberalization, so to speak, of

political life in Western Europe through the events of the

years mentioned and the larger sympathy they engendered

between nations produced, however, a strong movement in

Germany and German-Austria in favor of greater freedom of

commercial exchange between these two countries. It resulted

in the conclusion, for the term of twelve years, of the treaty

of 1853 between the Zollverein and Austria, as the first of

the international compacts for the promotion of commercial

intercourse that formed so prominent a feature of European

history during the following twenty years. The treaty was a

first, but long step towards free exchange, providing, as it

did, for uniform duties on imports from other countries, for a

considerable free list and for largely reduced duties between

the contracting countries. It also contained stipulations for

its renewal on the basis of entire free trade. … A very

influential association was formed, with free trade as the

avowed ulterior object. Its leaders, who were also the

champions of political liberalism, represented intellects of

the highest order. They included the well-known economists

Prince Smith, Mittermaier, Rau, Faucher, Michaelis, Wirth,

Schulze and Braun. An 'Economic Congress' was held annually,

the proceedings of which attracted the greatest attention, and

exercised a growing influence upon the policy of the

governments composing the Zollverein. … The beneficial results

of the treaty of 1853 were so obvious and instantaneous that

the Zollverein and Austria would have no doubt sought to bring

about improved commercial relations with other nations by the

same means, but for the disturbance of the peace of Europe by

the Crimean war, and the conflict of 1859 between France,

Italy and Austria. The bitter feelings, caused by the latter

war against the two first named countries wherever the German

tongue was spoken, rendered the negotiation of commercial

treaties with them out of the question for a time. The great

achievement of Richard Cobden and Michel Chevalier, the famous

treaty of 1860 between Great Britain and France, changed this

reluctance at once into eagerness to secure the same

advantages that those two countries had insured to each other.

The enlightened and far-seeing despot occupying the throne of

France, being once won over to the cause of free exchange by

Cobden's ardor and persistence and clear and convincing

arguments, against the views of the majority of his ministers

and with probably 90 per cent. of his subjects strongly

opposed to the abandonment of protectionism, determined, with

the zeal of a new convert, to make the most of his new

departure. He was very willing, therefore, to meet the

advances of the Zollverein, so that in the spring of 1862,

after a whole year's negotiation, a formal treaty was

consummated between it and the French Empire. It was a very

broad measure. … It comprised a copyright and trade-mark

convention, provisions for liberal modifications of the

respective navigation laws and a commercial treaty proper. The

latter provided for the free admission of raw materials, for

the abolition of transit and export duties and for equalizing

import duties as nearly as possible, and also contained a

'most favored nation' clause. … In pursuance of the terms of

the treaty of 1853 with Austria, negotiations had been

commenced early in the sixties with reference to its renewal

upon the basis of the removal of all custom-barriers between

the two countries. Austria was naturally against the

conclusion of a treaty between the Zollverein and France with

herself left out, and opposed its consummation with all the

means at her command. … After long negotiations, accompanied

by much excitement in Germany, a compromise was reached in

1864, under which the Zollverein was renewed for twelve years,

that is till 1877, and the French treaty ratified on condition

that a new treaty should be made with Austria. This was done

in 1865, but the new convention did not provide for the

complete commercial union, contemplated under that of 1853. It

was only a compact between two independent nations, but on

more liberal lines than the old treaty, and certainly

constituting a yet nearer approach to free trade. … In other

directions the Zollverein lost no time in following the

example of Napoleon by entering successively in 1865 and 1866

into commercial treaties with Belgium, Italy, Great Britain

and Switzerland, which were simple conventions, by which the

contracting parties granted to each other the position of the

most favored nation, or formal tariff regulating treaties

after the model of that between the Zollverein and France.

These additional treaties were no more than the latter the

work of Bismarck. … The general upheaval in Germany arising

from the war between Prussia and Austria and her North and

South-German Allies, while temporarily delaying the farther

progress of tariff reform, subsequently accelerated its

forward march. …

{3079}

A special treaty for the reform of the constitution, so to

speak, of the Zollverein was concluded in July, 1867, between

the North-German Federation, the new political constellation

Prussia had formed out of all Germany north of the Main, after

destroying the old Diet, and Bavaria, Wuertemberg, Baden and

Hesse, under the provisions of which the tariff and revenue

policy of all Germany was to be managed by the

'Zollparlament,' consisting of an upper house, made up of

representatives of the governments, and of a lower house of

representatives of the people elected by universal suffrage on

a population basis. Thus tariff reform was actually the chain

that bound up, as it were, the material interests of all

Germans outside of Austria for the first time, as those of one

nation. Negotiations for a new commercial treaty with the dual

monarchy of Austria-Hungary—into which Austria had changed in

consequence of the events of 1866—commenced immediately after

the restoration of peace, and were brought to a satisfactory

conclusion in March, 1868. The treaty was to run nine years,

and provided for still lower duties than under the old treaty,

the principal reductions being on all agricultural products,

wines and iron. … The Franco-German war put an end to the

treaty of 1862 between France and the Zollverein. As a

substitute for the commercial part of it, article II of the

treaty of peace of 1871 provided simply that France and

Germany should be bound for an indefinite period to allow each

other the most favorable tariff rates either of them had

granted or might grant to Great Britain, Belgium, Holland,

Switzerland, Austria-Hungary and Russia. … A large majority of

the members of the first Reichstag [under the newly created

Empire] favored further legislation in the direction of free

trade, and the work of tariff reform was vigorously taken in

hand, as soon as the constitution and the essential organic

laws of the Empire had been framed. … In the session of 1873

the National Liberals brought in a motion asking the

Government to present measures for the abolition of all duties

on raw and manufactured iron, salt and other articles. The

Government responded very readily. … Prince Bismarck was no

less pronounced for a strict revenue tariff than any of the

other government speakers. Up to the end of 1875, there was

not the slightest indication of a change of views on his part

upon this general subject. … The climax of the free trade

movement in Germany can be said to have been reached about the

time last stated. But a few months later, suspicious signs of

a new inspiration on the part of the Prince became manifest.

Rumors of dissensions between him and Minister Delbrück began

to circulate, and gradually gained strength. In May, 1876, all

Germany was startled by the announcement that the latter and

his principal co-workers had resigned. Soon it was known that

their retirement was due to a disagreement with the Prince

over tariff reform matters. A crisis had evidently set in that

was a great puzzle at first to everybody. Gradually it became

clear that the cause of it was really a sudden abandonment of

the past policy by the Prince. The new course, upon which the

mighty helmsman was starting the ship of state, was signalized

in various ways, but the full extent of his change of front

was disclosed only in a communication addressed by him to the

Federal Council, under date of December 15, 1878. It was a

most extraordinary document. It condemned boldly all that had

been done by the government under his own eyes and with his

full consent in relation to tariff reform ever since the

Franco-German treaty of 1862. … As the principal reason for

the new departure, he assigned the necessity of reforming the

public finances in order to increase the revenues of the

Government. The will of the Chancellor had become the law for

the federal council, and, accordingly, the tariff-committee

began the work of devising a general protective tariff in hot

haste. It was submitted to the Reichstag by the Prince in May,

1879. … Thus Germany was started on the downward plain of

protectionism, on which it continued for twelve years. Beyond

all question, the Chancellor was solely responsible for it. …

The tariff bill of 1879 met with vigorous opposition under the

lead of ex-Minister Delbrück, but was passed by the large

majority of 217 to 117 —showing the readiness with which the

'bon plaisir' of the master had made converts to his new

faith. It was a sweeping measure, establishing large duties on

cereals, iron, lumber and petroleum, increasing existing

duties on textile goods, coffee, wines, rice, tea, and a great

number of other minor articles and also on cattle. The

protectionist current came to a temporary stop from 1880-1883,

inasmuch as in the new Reichstag, elected in 1881, the

protection and anti-protection parties were so evenly balanced

that the Government failed to carry its proposals for still

higher duties. The elections of 1884, in which the Government

brought every influence to bear against the opposition,

resulted, however, in the return of a protectionist majority.

Accordingly, there followed in 1885 a new screwing up of

duties, tripling those on grain, doubling those on lumber, and

raising most others. In 1887 the duties on grain were even

again increased. But now the insatiateness of protection and

especially the duties put on the necessaries of life produced

a strong reaction, as evidenced by the largely increased

membership of the opposition parties in the present Reichstag.

… The Imperial Government, shortly after the retirement of

Prince Bismarck had untied its hands, entered upon

negotiations with Austria-Hungary, Italy, Switzerland and

Belgium, which resulted in … reciprocity treaties."

H. Villard,

German Tariff Policy

(Yale Review, May, 1892).

ALSO IN:

W. H. Dawson,

Bismarck and State Socialism.

TARIFF: (United States and Canada): A. D. 1854-1866.

The Reciprocity Treaty.

The Treaty commonly known in America as the Canadian

Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, between the governments of Great

Britain and the United States, was concluded on the 5th of

June, 1854, and ratifications were exchanged on the 9th of

September following. The negotiators were the Earl of Elgin

and Kincardine, on the part of the British Government, and

William L. Marcy, Secretary of State of the United States,

acting for the latter.

{3080}

By the first article of the treaty it was agreed that, "in

addition to the liberty secured to the United States fishermen

by the … convention of October 20, 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 to take fish of every kind,

except shell-fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the

bays, harbors, and creeks of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova

Scotia, 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 coasts and

shores of those colonies and the islands thereof, 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 coast 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 fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are hereby

reserved exclusively for British fishermen." The same article

provided for the appointment of commissioners and an

arbitrator or umpire to settle any disputes that might arise

"as to the places to which the reservation of exclusive right

to British fishermen contained in this article, and that of

fishermen of the United States contained in the next

succeeding article, apply." By the second article of the

treaty British subjects received privileges on the eastern

sea-coasts and shores of the United States north of the 36th

parallel of north latitude, identical with those given by the

first article to citizens of the United States on the coasts

and shores mentioned above. Article 3 was as follows: "It is

agreed that the articles enumerated in the schedule hereunto

annexed, being the growth and produce of the aforesaid British

colonies or of the United States, shall be admitted into each

country respectively free of duty: Schedule: Grain, flour, and

breadstuffs, of all kinds. Animals of all kinds. Fresh,

smoked, and salted meats. Cotton-wool, seeds, and vegetables.

Undried fruits, dried fruits. Fish of all kinds. Products of

fish, and of all other creatures living in the water. Poultry,

eggs. Hides, furs, skins, or tails, undressed. Stone or

marble, in its crude or unwrought state. Slate. Butter,

cheese, tallow. Lard, horns, manures. Ores of metals, of all

kinds. Coal. Pitch, tar, turpentine, ashes. Timber and lumber

of all kinds, round, hewed, and sawed, unmanufactured in whole

or in part. Firewood. Plants, shrubs, and trees. Pelts, wool.

Fish-oil. Rice, broom-corn, and bark. Gypsum, ground or

unground. Hewn, or wrought, or unwrought burr or grindstones.

Dye-stuffs. Flax, hemp, and tow, unmanufactured.

Unmanufactured tobacco. Rags." Article 4 secured to the

citizens and inhabitants of the United States the right to

navigate the River St. Lawrence and the canals in Canada

between the ocean and the great lakes, subject to the same

tolls and charges that might be exacted from Her Majesty's

subjects, but the British Government retained the right to

suspend this privilege, on due notice given, in which case the

Government of the United States might suspend the operations

of Article 3. Reciprocally, British subjects were given the

right to navigate Lake Michigan, and the Government of the

United States engaged itself to urge the State governments to

open the several State canals to British subjects on terms of

equality. It was further agreed that no export or other duty

should be levied on lumber or timber floated down the river

St. John to the sea, "when the same is shipped to the United

States from the province of New Brunswick." Article 5 provided

that the treaty should take effect whenever the necessary laws

were passed by the Imperial Parliament, the Provincial

Parliaments, and the Congress of the United States, and that

it should "remain in force for ten years from the date at

which it may come into operation, and further until the

expiration of twelve months after either of the high

contracting parties shall give notice to the other of its wish

to terminate the same." Article 6 extended the provisions of

the treaty to the island of Newfoundland, so far as

applicable, provided the Imperial Parliament, the Parliament

of Newfoundland and the Congress of the United States should

embrace the island in their laws for carrying the treaty into

effect; but not otherwise.

Treaties and Conventions between the

United States and other Powers,

edition of 1889, pages 448-452.

The Treaty was abrogated in 1866, the United States having

given the required notice in 1865.

F. E. Haynes,

The Reciprocity Treaty with Canada of 1854

(American Economic Association Publications,

volume 7, number 6).

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1861-1864.

The Morrill Tariff and the War Tariffs.

"In 1861 the Morrill tariff act began a change toward a higher

range of duties and a stronger application of protection. The

Morrill act is often spoken of as if it were the basis of the

present protective system. But this is by no means the case.

The tariff act of 1861 was passed by the House of

Representatives in the session of 1859-60, the session

preceding the election of President Lincoln. It was passed,

undoubtedly, with the intention of attracting to the

Republican party, at the approaching Presidential election,

votes in Pennsylvania and other States that had protectionist

leanings. In the Senate the tariff bill was not taken up in

the same session in which it was passed in the House. Its

consideration was postponed, and it was not until the next

session—that of 1860-61—that it received the assent of the

Senate and became law. It is clear that the Morrill tariff was

carried in the House before any serious expectation of war was

entertained; and it was accepted by the Senate in the session

of 1861 without material change. It therefore forms no part of

the financial legislation of the war, which gave rise in time

to a series of measures that entirely superseded the Morrill

tariff. Indeed, Mr. Morrill and the other supporters of the

act of 1861 declared that their intention was simply to

restore the rates of 1846. The important change which they

proposed to make from the provisions of the tariff of 1846 was

to substitute specific for ad-valorem duties. … The specific

duties … established were in many cases considerably above the

ad-valorem duties of 1846. The most important direct changes

made by the act of 1861 were in the increased duties on iron

and on wool, by which it was hoped to attach to the Republican

party Pennsylvania and some of the Western States. Most of the

manufacturing States at this time still stood aloof from the

movement toward higher rates. … Mr. Rice, of Massachusetts,

said in 1860: 'The manufacturer asks no additional protection.

He has learned, among other things, that the greatest evil,

next to a ruinous competition from foreign sources, is an

excessive protection, which stimulates a like ruinous and

irresponsible competition at home'.

Congressional Globe, 1859-60, page 1867.

{3081}

Mr. Sherman said: … 'The manufacturers have asked over and

over again to be let alone. The tariff of 1857 is the

manufacturers' bill; but the present bill is more beneficial

to the agricultural interest than the tariff of 1857.'

Congressional Globe, 1859-60, p. 2053.

C. F. Hunter's speech,

Congressional Globe, 1859-60, p. 3010.

In later years Mr. Morrill himself said that the tariff of

1861 'was not asked for, and but coldly welcomed, by

manufacturers, who always and justly fear instability.' …

Congressional Globe, 1869-70, p. 3295.

Hardly had the Morrill tariff been passed when Fort Sumter was

fired on. The Civil War began. The need of additional revenue

for carrying on the great struggle was immediately felt; and

as early as the extra session of the summer of 1861,

additional customs duties were imposed. In the next regular

session, in December, 1861, a still further increase of duties

was made. From that time till 1865 no session, indeed hardly a

month of any session, passed in which some increase of duties

on imports was not made. … The great acts, of 1862 and 1864

are typical of the whole course of the war measures; and the

latter is of particular importance, because it became the

foundation of the existing tariff system. … The three revenue

acts of June 30, 1864, practically form one measure, and that

probably the greatest measure of taxation which the world has

seen. The first of the acts provided for an enormous extension

of the internal-tax system; the second for a corresponding

increase of the duties on imports; the third authorized a loan

of $400,000,000. … Like the tariff act of 1862, that of 1864

was introduced, explained, amended, and passed under the

management of Mr. Morrill, who was chairman of the Committee

on Ways and Means. That gentleman again stated, as he had done

in 1862, that the passage of the tariff act was rendered

necessary in order to put domestic producers in the same

situation, so far as foreign competition was concerned, as if

the internal taxes had not been raised. This was one great

object of the new tariff. … But it explains only in part the

measure which in fact was proposed and passed. The tariff of

1864 was a characteristic result of that veritable furor of

taxation which had become fixed in the minds of the men who

were then managing the national finances. Mr. Morrill, and

those who with him made our revenue laws, seem to have had but

one principle: to tax every possible article indiscriminately,

and to tax it at the highest rates that anyone had the courage

to suggest. They carried this method out to its fullest extent

in the tariff act of 1864, as well as in the tax act of that

year. At the same time these statesmen were protectionists. …

Every domestic producer who came before Congress got what he

wanted in the way of duties. Protection ran riot; and this,

moreover, not merely for the time being. The whole tone of the

public mind toward the question of import duties became

distorted. … The average rate on dutiable commodities, which

had been 37.2 per cent. under the act of 1862, became 47.06

per cent. under that of 1864. … In regard to the duties as

they stood before 1883, it is literally true, in regard to

almost all protected articles, that the tariff act of 1864

remained in force for twenty years without reductions."

F. W. Taussig,

Tariff History of the United States,

pages 158-169, with foot-note.

Under the Morrill Tariff, which went into effect April 1,

1861, the imposts which had averaged about 19 per cent. on

dutiable articles were raised to 36 per cent.

J. G. Blaine,

Twenty Years of Congress,

volume 1, page 400.

TARIFF: (Australia): A. D. 1862-1892.

Contrasted policy of Victoria and New South Wales.

Both New South Wales and Victoria "are young countries, and

are inhabited by men of the same race, speech, and training:

capital and labour oscillate freely between them: both use

substantially the same methods and forms of government: while

against the larger territory of New South Wales may be set the

superior climate and easier development of its southern

neighbour. Whatever may be the balance of the natural

advantages, whether of climate or population, is on the side

of Victoria, whose compact, fertile, and well watered

territory gained for it, on its first discovery, the

well-deserved title of Australia Felix. The striking and

ultimate point of difference between the two countries is

their fiscal policy. Since 1866 Victoria has lived under a

system of gradually increasing Protection, while the policy of

New South Wales has been, in the main, one of Free Trade.

According to all Protectionist theory Victoria should be

prosperous and New South Wales distressed; there should be

variety and growth in the one country, stagnation in the

other. At least the progress of Victoria ought to have been

more rapid than that of New South Wales, because she has added

to the natural advantages which she already enjoyed, the

artificial benefits which are claimed for a Protective tariff.

If, in fact, neither of these conclusions is correct, and,

while both countries have been phenomenally prosperous, New

South Wales has prospered the most, one of two conclusions is

inevitable—namely, either that certain special influences have

caused the more rapid progress of New South Wales which were

not felt in Victoria, or that Protection has retarded instead

of assisted the development of Victoria's natural superiority.

Writers of all schools admit that activity in certain

departments of national life is a fair indication of

prosperity and progress. It is, for instance, generally

allowed that an increase in population, a development of

agricultural and manufacturing industry, a growth of foreign

commerce, an increase in shipping, or an improvement in the

public revenue, are all signs of health and well-being; and

that a concurrence of such symptoms over a lengthened period

indicates an increase in material wealth. Accepting these

tests of progress, our comparison proceeds thus: first, we

examine the position of the two Colonies as regards

population, foreign commerce, shipping, agriculture,

manufactures, and revenue, at the time when both of them

adhered to Free Trade; from which we find that, according to

all these indications of prosperity, Victoria was then very

much the better off: In 1866 she outnumbered New South Wales

in population by 200,000 souls: her foreign commerce was

larger by £8,300,000: she had a greater area of land under

cultivation: her manufactures were well established, while

those of New South Wales were few and insignificant: she was

ahead in shipping, and her revenue was greater by one-third.

Passing next to the years which follow 1866, we observe that

New South Wales gradually bettered her position in every

province of national activity, and that, as the fetters of

Protection became tighter, Victoria receded in the race.

{3082}

She gave way first in the department of foreign commerce, next

in population, shipping, and revenue, until, in 1887, she

maintained her old superiority in agriculture alone. From this

accumulation of facts—and not from any one of them we infer

that the rate of progress in New South Wales under Free Trade

has been greater than that of Victoria under Protection."

B. R. Wise,

Industrial Freedom,

appendix 3.

TARIFF: (Europe): A. D. 1871-1892.

Protectionist reaction on the Continent.

High Tariff in France.

"The Franco-German War (1870-1) and the overthrow of Napoleon

III. at once arrested the free-trade policy, which had little

support in the national mind, and was hardly understood

outside the small circle of French economists. The need of

fresh revenue was imperative, and M. Thiers, the most

prominent of French statesmen, was notoriously protectionist

in his leanings. Pure revenue duties on colonial and Eastern

commodities were first tried; the sugar duty was increased

30%; that on coffee was trebled; tea, cocoa, wines and

spirits, were all subjected to greatly increased charges. As

the yield thus obtained did not suffice, proposals for the

taxation of raw materials were brought forward but rejected by

the legislature in 1871, when M. Thiers tendered his

resignation. To avoid this result the measure was passed, not

however to come into operation until compensating productive

duties had been placed on imported manufactures. The existing

commercial treaties were a further obstacle to changes in

policy, and accordingly negotiations were opened with England

and Belgium, in order that the new duties might be applied to

their products. As was justifiable under the circumstances,

the former country required that if imported raw products were

to be taxed, the like articles produced in France should pay

an equivalent tax, and therefore, as the shortest way of

escape, the French Government gave notice for the termination

of the treaties (in the technical language of international

law 'denounced' them), and new conventions were agreed on; but

as this arrangement was just as unsatisfactory in the opinion

of the French Chambers, the old treaties were in 1873 restored

to force until 1877, and thus the larger part of the raw

materials escaped the new taxation. The protectionist tendency

was, too, manifested in the departure from the open system

introduced in 1866 in respect to shipping. A law of 1872

imposed differential duties on goods imported in foreign

vessels. … The advance of the sentiment in favour of a return

to the restrictive system was even more decidedly indicated in

1881. Bounties were then granted for the encouragement of

French shipping, and extra taxes imposed on indirect imports

of non-European and some European goods. In 1889 the carrying

trade between France and Algiers was reserved for native

ships. The revision of the general tariff was a more serious

task, undertaken with a view to influencing the new treaties

that the termination of the old engagements made necessary.

The tariff of 1881 (to come into force in 1882) made several

increases and substituted many specific for ad valorem duties.

Raw materials escaped taxation; half-manufactured articles

were placed under moderate duties. The nominal corn duties

were diminished by a fraction, but the duties on live stock

and fresh meat were considerably increased. … A new

'conventional tariff' speedily followed in a series of fresh

treaties with European countries. … The duties on whole or

partially-manufactured goods remained substantially unchanged

by the new treaties, which do not, in fact, vary so much from

the general tariff as was previously the case. The number of

articles included in the conventions had been reduced, and all

countries outside Europe came under the general code. The

reaction against the liberal policy of 1860 was thus as yet

very slight, and did not seriously affect manufactures. The

agricultural depression was the primary cause of the

legislation of 1885, which placed a duty of 3 francs per

quintal on wheat, 7 francs on flour, 2 francs on rye and

barley, and one franc on oats, with additional duties on

indirect importation. Cattle, sheep, and pigs came under

increases of from 50% to 100%. … Not satisfied with their

partial success, the advocates of high duties have made

further efforts. Maize, hitherto free, as being chiefly used

by farmers for feeding purposes, is now liable to duty, and

the tariff proposed in the present year (1891) raises the

rates on most articles from an average of 10% to 15% to one of

30% and 40%. … Germany did not quite as speedily come under

the influence of the economic reaction as France. … Italian

commercial policy also altered for the worse. From the

formation of the kingdom till 1875, as the various commercial

treaties and the general tariff of 1861 show, it was liberal

and tending towards freedom. About the latter date the forces

that we have indicated above as operating generally throughout

Europe, commenced to affect Italy. The public expenditure had

largely increased, and additional revenue was urgently

required. Agriculture was so depressed that, though the

country is pre-eminently agricultural, alarm was excited by

the supposed danger of foreign competition. The result was

that on the general revision of duties in 1877 much higher

rates were imposed on the principal imports. … Depression both

in agriculture and elaborative industries continued and

strengthened the protectionist party, who succeeded in

securing the abandonment of all the commercial treaties, and

the enactment of a new tariff in 1887. … The first effect of

the new system of high taxation with no conventional

privileges was to lead to a war of tariffs between France and

Italy. … Austria may be added to the list of countries in

which the protectionist reaction has been effectively shown. …

In Russia the revival (or perhaps it would be more correct to

say continued existence), of protection is decisively marked.

… Spain and Portugal had long been strongholds of

protectionist ideas. … Holland and Belgium have as yet [1891]

adhered to the system of moderate duties."

C. F. Bastable,

The Commerce of Nations,

chapter 9.

A new tariff system was elaborated by the French Chambers,

with infinite labor and discussion, during the year 1891, and

adopted early in the following year, being known as the "Loi

du 11 .Janvier, 1892." This tariff makes a great advance in

duties on most imports, with a concession of lower rates to

nations according reciprocal favors to French productions. Raw

materials in general are admitted free of duties. The

commercial treaties of France are undergoing modification.

{3083}

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1883.

Revision of the Tariff.

In 1882, "Congress appointed a Tariff Commission 'to take into

consideration, and to thoroughly investigate, all the various

questions relating to the agricultural, commercial,

mercantile, manufacturing, mining, and industrial interests of

the United States, so far as the same may be necessary to the

establishment of a judicious tariff, or a revision of the

existing tariff upon a scale of justice to all interests.'

Several things it was expected would be accomplished by

revising the tariff, and the measure received the assent of

nearly all the members of Congress. The free-traders expected

to get lower duties, the protectionists expected to concede

them in some cases, and in others to get such modifications as

would remove existing ambiguities and strengthen themselves

against foreign competition. The protective force of the

existing tariff had been weakened in several important

manufactures by rulings of the treasury department. … The

composition of the commission was as satisfactory to the

manufacturing class as displeasing to free-traders. … Early in

their deliberations, the commission became convinced that a

substantial reduction of the tariff duties was demanded, not

by a mere indiscriminate popular clamor, but by the best

conservative opinion of the country, including that which had

in former times been most strenuous for the preservation of

the national industrial defences. Such a reduction of the

existing tariff the commission regarded not only as a due

recognition of public sentiment, and a measure of justice to

consumers, but one conducive to the general industrial

prosperity, and which, though it might be temporarily

inconvenient, would be ultimately beneficial to the special

interests affected by such reduction. No rates of defensive

duties, except for establishing new industries, which more

than equalized the conditions of labor and capital with those

of foreign competitors, could be justified. Excessive duties,

or those above such standard of equalization, were positively

injurious to the interest which they were supposed to benefit.

They encouraged the investment of capital in manufacturing

enterprise by rash and unskilled speculators, to be followed

by disaster to the adventurers and their employees, and a

plethora of commodities which deranged the operations of

skilled and prudent enterprise. … 'It would seem that the

rates of duties under the existing tariff—fixed, for the most

part, during the war under the evident necessity at that time

of stimulating to its utmost extent all domestic

production—might be adapted, through reduction, to the present

condition of peace requiring no such extraordinary stimulus.

And in the mechanical and manufacturing industries, especially

those which have been long established, it would seem that the

improvements in machinery and processes made within the last

twenty years, and the high scale of productiveness which had

become a characteristic of their establishments, would permit

our manufacturers to compete with their foreign rivals under a

substantial reduction of existing duties.' Entertaining these

views, the commission sought to present a scheme of tariff

duties in which substantial reduction was the distinguishing

feature. … The attempt to modify the tariff brought into bold

relief the numerous conflicting interests, and the difficulty

and delicacy of the undertaking. As our industries become more

heterogeneous, the tariff also grows more complex, and the

difficulty of doing justice to all is increased. For example,

the wool manufacturers to succeed best must have free wool and

dye-stuffs; on the other hand, both these interests desired

protection. The manufacturers of the higher forms of iron must

have free materials to succeed best; on the other hand, the

ore producers, the pig-iron manufacturers, and every

succeeding class desired a tariff on their products. It was

not easy for these interests to agree, and some of them did

not. The iron-ore producers desired a tariff of 85 cents a ton

on ore; the steel-rail makers were opposed to the granting of

more than 50; the manufacturers of fence wire were opposed to

an increase of duty on wire rods used for making wire, and

favored a reduction; the manufacturers of rods in this country

were desirous of getting an increase; the manufacturers of

floor oil-cloths desired a reduction or abolition of the duty

on the articles used by them; the soap manufacturers desired

the putting of caustic soda on the free list, which the

American manufacturers of it opposed; some of the woolen

manufacturers were desirous that protection should be granted

to the manufacturers of dye-stuffs, and some were not; the

manufacturers of tanned foreign goat and sheep skins desired

the removal of the tariff on such skins; those who tanned

them, and who were much less numerous, were equally tenacious

in maintaining the tariff on the raw skins, and the same

conflict arose between other interests. The method of

determining how much protection their several interests

needed, and of adjusting differences between them, has always

been of the crudest kind. … Although not all of the

recommendations of the commission were adopted, most of them

were. Those which pertained to the simplification of the law

were adopted with only slight changes. The bill reported by

the commission contained, not including the free list, 631

articles and classifications. … Less than 25 articles, mainly

in the cotton, woolen goods, and the iron and steel schedules,

were matters of contention. The rates on 409 of the 631

articles mentioned in the tariff recommended by the commission

were adopted, and between 50 and 60 more articles have

substantially the same rates, though levied under different

clauses. Of the 170 changes, 98 were fixed at lower rates than

those proposed by the commission, 46 at higher, and 26 have

been classed as doubtful."

A. S. Bolles,

Financial History of the United States, 1861-1885,

book 2, chapter 7.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1884-1888.

Attempts at Tariff Reform.

The Morrison Bills and the Hewett Bill.

President Cleveland's Message.

The Mills Bill and its defeat.

The slight concessions made in the protectionist

tariff-revision of 1883 did not at all satisfy the opinion in

the country demanding greater industrial freedom, and the

question of tariff-reform became more important than before in

American politics. The Democratic Party, identified by all its

early traditions, with the opposition to a policy of

"protection," won the election of 1884, placing Mr. Cleveland

in the Presidency and gaining control of the House of

Representatives in the 49th Congress. But it had drifted from

its old anchorage on the tariff question, and was slow in

pulling back. A large minority in the party had accepted and

become supporters of the doctrine which was hateful to their

fathers as an economic heresy.

{3084}

The majority of the Democrats in the House, however, made

strenuous efforts to accomplish something in the way of

reducing duties most complained of. Their first undertaking

was led by Mr. Morrison of Illinois, who introduced a bill

which "proposed an average reduction of 20 per cent., but with

so many exceptions that it was estimated the average reduction

on dutiable articles would be about 17 per cent. The rates

under the Morrill Act of 1861 were to form the minimum limit.

An extensive addition to the free list was proposed, including

the following articles: ores of iron, copper, lead, and

nickel, coal, lumber, wood, hay, bristles, lime, sponges,

indigo, coal tar and dyewoods." In the Committee of Ways and

Means the bill underwent considerable changes, the articles in

the free list being reduced to salt, coal, lumber and wood. It

was reported to the House March 11, and remained under debate

until May 6, when it was killed by a motion to strike out the

enacting clause, on which 118 Republicans and 41 Democrats

voted aye, against 4 Republicans and 151 Democrats voting nay.

The 4 Republicans supporting the bill were all from Minnesota;

of the 41 Democrats opposing it 12 were from Pennsylvania, 10

from Ohio, 6 from New York, 4 from California and 3 from New

Jersey. "The Morrison 'horizontal bill' having been thus

killed, Mr. Hewett, a New York Democrat, and a member of the

Ways and Means Committee, on May 12 introduced a new tariff

bill, providing for a reduction of 10 to 20 per cent. on a

considerable number of articles and placing several others on

the free list." The bill was reported favorably to the House,

but action upon it was not reached before the adjournment.

During the same session, a bill to restore the duties of 1867

on raw wool was defeated in the House; an amendment to the

shipping bill, permitting a free importation of iron and steel

steamships for employment in the foreign trade, passed the

House and was, defeated in the Senate; and a bill reducing the

duty on works of art from 20 to 10 per cent. was defeated in

the House. In the next Congress, the Forty-ninth, Mr. Morrison

led a new undertaking to diminish the protective duties which

were producing an enormous surplus of revenue. The bill which

he introduced (February 15, 1886) received radical changes in

the Ways and Means Committee, "inasmuch as it was clearly seen

that the opposition from the metal and coal interests was

sufficiently strong to destroy all chance of consideration in

the House. Accordingly, it was found preferable to make the

duties on wool and woolens the special point for assault." But

the bill modified on this new line,—lowering duties on woolens

to 35 per cent. ad valorem, and placing wool in the free list,

with lumber, wood, fish, salt, flax, hemp and jute,—was

refused consideration by a vote of 157 to 140 in the House, on

the 17th of June. Again there were 35 members of his own party

arrayed against Mr. Morrison. At the second session of the

same Congress, December 18, 1886, Mr. Morrison repeated his

attempt with no better success.

O. H. Perry,

Proposed Tariff Legislation since 1883

(Quarterly Journal of Economics, October, 1887).

The assembling of the 50th Congress, on the 6th of December,

1887, was signalized by a message from President Cleveland

which produced an extraordinary effect, decisively lifting the

tariff question into precedence over all other issues in

national politics, and compelling the Democratic Party to

array its lines distinctly and unequivocally against the

upholders of "protection" as an economic policy. He emphasized

the "paramount importance of the subject" impressively by

passing by every other matter of public concern, and devoting

his message exclusively to a consideration of the "'state of

the Union' as shown in the present condition of our Treasury

and our general fiscal situation." The condition of the

Treasury to which the President called attention was one of

unexampled plethora. "On the 30th day of June, 1885, the

excess of revenues over public expenditures, after complying

with the annual requirement of the Sinking-Fund Act, was

$17,859,735.84; during the year ended June 30, 1886, such

excess amounted to $49,405,545.20; and during the year ended

June 30, 1887, it reached the sum of $55,567,849.54." "Our

scheme of taxation," said the President, "by means of which

this needless surplus is taken from the people and put into

the public treasury, consists of a tariff or duty levied upon

importations from abroad, and internal-revenue taxes levied

upon the consumption of tobacco and spirituous and malt

liquors. It must be conceded that none of the things subjected

to internal-revenue taxation are, strictly speaking,

necessaries; there appears to be no just complaint of this

taxation by the consumers of these articles, and there seems

to be nothing so well able to bear the burden without hardship

to any portion of the people. But our present tariff laws, the

vicious, inequitable, and illogical source of unnecessary

taxation, ought to be at once revised and amended. These laws,

as their primary and plain effect, raise the price to

consumers of all articles imported and subject to duty, by

precisely the sum paid for such duties. Thus the amount of the

duty measures the tax paid by those who purchase for use these

imported articles. Many of these things, however, are raised

or manufactured in our own country, and the duties now levied

upon foreign goods and products are called protection to these

home manufactures, because they render it possible for those

of our people who are manufacturers to make these taxed

articles and sell them for a price equal to that demanded for

the imported goods that have paid customs duty. So it happens

that while comparatively a few use the imported articles,

millions of our people, who never use and never saw any of the

foreign products, purchase and use things of the same kind

made in this country, and pay therefor nearly or quite the

same enhanced price which the duty adds to the imported

articles. Those who buy imports pay the duty charged thereon

into the public treasury, but the majority of our citizens,

who buy domestic articles of the same class, pay a sum at

least approximately equal to this duty to the home

manufacturer. … The difficulty attending a wise and fair

revision of our tariff-laws is not underestimated. It will

require on the part of Congress great labor and care, and

especially a broad and national contemplation of the subject,

and a patriotic disregard of such local and selfish claims as

are unreasonable and reckless of the welfare of the entire

country. Under our present laws more than 4,000 articles are

subject to duty.

{3085}

Many of these do not in any way compete with our own

manufactures, and many are hardly worth attention as subjects

of revenue. A considerable reduction can be made in the

aggregate by adding them to the free list. The taxation of

luxuries presents no features of hardship; but the necessaries

of life used and consumed by all the people, the duty upon

which adds to the cost of living in every home, should be

greatly cheapened. The radical reduction of the duties imposed

upon raw material used in manufactures, or its free

importation, is of course an important factor in any effort to

reduce the price of these necessaries. … It is not apparent

how such a change can have any injurious effect upon our

manufacturers. On the contrary, it would appear to give them a

better chance in foreign markets with the manufacturers of

other countries, who cheapen their wares by free material.

Thus our people might have an opportunity of extending their

sales beyond the limits of home consumption—saving them from

the depression, interruption in business, and loss caused by a

glutted domestic market, and affording their employes more

certain and steady labor, with its resulting quiet and

contentment. The question thus imperatively presented for

solution should be approached in a spirit higher than

partisanship. … But the obligation to declared party policy

and principle is not wanting to urge prompt and effective

action. Both of the great political parties now represented in

the Government have, by repeated and authoritative

declarations, condemned the condition of our laws which

permits the collection from the people of unnecessary revenue,

and have, in the most solemn manner, promised its correction.

… Our progress toward a wise conclusion will not be improved

by dwelling upon the theories of protection and free trade.

This savors too much of bandying epithets. It is a condition

which confronts us—not a theory. Relief from this condition

may involve a slight reduction of the advantages which we

award our home productions, but the entire withdrawal of such

advantages should not be contemplated. The question of free

trade is absolutely irrelevant."—The President's emphatic

utterance rallied his party and inspired a more united effort

in the House to modify and simplify the tariff. Under the

chairmanship of Mr. Mills, of Texas, a bill was framed by the

Committee of Ways and Means and reported to the House on the

2d of April, 1888. "We have gone as far as we could," said the

Committee in reporting the bill, "and done what we could, in

the present condition of things, to place our manufactures

upon a firm and unshaken foundation, where they would have

advantages over all the manufacturers of the world. Our

manufacturers, having the advantage of all others in the

intelligence, skill, and productive capacity of their labor,

need only to be placed on the same footing with their rivals

in having their materials at the same cost in the open markets

of the world. In starting on this policy, we have transferred

many articles from the dutiable to the free list. The revenues

now received on these articles amount to $22,189,595.48.

Three-fourths of this amount is collected on articles that

enter into manufactures, of which wool and tin-plates are the

most important. … The repeal of all duties on wool enables us

to reduce the duties on the manufactures of wool

$12,332,211.65. The largest reduction we have made is in the

woolen schedule, and this reduction was only made possible by

placing wool on the free list. There is no greater reason for

a duty on wool than there is for a duty on any other raw

material. A duty on wool makes it necessary to impose a higher

duty on the goods made from wool, and the consumer has to pay

a double tax. If we leave wool untaxed the consumer has to pay

a tax only on the manufactured goods. … In the woolen schedule

we have substituted ad valorem for specific duties. The

specific duty is the favorite of those who are to be benefited

by high rates, who are protected against competition, and

protected in combinations against the consumer of their

products. There is a persistent pressure by manufacturers for

the specific duty, because it conceals from the people the

amount of taxes they are compelled to pay to the manufacturer.

The specific duty always discriminates in favor of the costly

article and against the cheaper one. … This discrimination is

peculiarly oppressive in woolen and cotton goods, which are

necessaries of life to all classes of people." The ad valorem

duty on woolen goods proposed by the committee in accordance

with these views, ranged from 30 to 45 per cent., existing

rates being reckoned as equivalent to about from 40 to 90 per

cent. ad valorem. Duties on cottons were fixed at 35 to 40 per

cent. On steel rails the bill proposed a reduction from $17

per ton to $11. It lowered the duty on pig-iron to $6 per ton.

It diminished the tariff on common earthenware from 60 to 35

per cent.; on china and decorated earthenware from 60 to 45

per cent.; on window-glass from 93 and 106 to 62 and 68 per

cent. It put tin plates on the free list, along with hemp,

flax, lumber, timber, salt, and other materials of manufacture

and articles in common use. These were the more important

modifications contemplated in what became known as "the Mills

Bill." After vigorous debate, it was passed by the Democrats

of the House with a nearness to unanimity which showed a

remarkable change in the sentiment of their party on the

subject. Only four Democratic representatives were found

voting in opposition to the measure. In the Senate, where the

Republicans were in the majority, the measure was wrecked, as

a matter of course. The protectionists of that body

substituted a bill which revised the tariff in the contrary

direction, generally raising duties instead of lowering them.

Thus the issue was made in the elections of 1888.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1890.

The McKinley Act.

"In the campaign of 1888 the tariff question was the issue

squarely presented. … The victory of the Republicans … and the

election of President Harrison were the results. … The

election was won by a narrow margin, and was affected by

certain factors which stood apart from the main issue. The

independent voters had been disappointed with some phases of

President Cleveland's administration of the civil service, and

many who had voted for him in 1884 did not do so in 1888. … On

the whole, however, the Republicans held their own, and even

made gains, throughout the country, on the tariff issue; and

they might fairly consider the result a popular verdict in

favor of the system of protection. But their opposition to the

policy of lower duties, emphasized by President Cleveland, had

led them not only to champion the existing system, but to

advocate its further extension, by an increase of duties in

various directions. …

{3086}

Accordingly when the Congress then elected met for the session

of 1889-90, the Republican majority in the House proceeded to

pass a measure which finally became the tariff act of 1890.

This measure may fairly be said to be the direct result of Mr.

Cleveland's tariff message of 1887. The Republicans, in

resisting the doctrine of that message, were led by logical

necessity to the opposite doctrine of higher duties. …

Notwithstanding grave misgivings on the part of some of their

leaders, especially those from the northwest, the act known

popularly as the McKinley bill was pushed through."

F. W. Taussig,

Tariff History of the United States,

chapter 5.

The bill was reported to the House of Representatives by the

Chairman of its Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. McKinley, on

the 16th of April, 1890. "We have not been so much concerned,"

said the majority of the Committee in their report, "about the

prices of the articles we consume as we have been to encourage

a system of home production which shall give fair remuneration

to domestic producers and fair wages to American workmen, and

by increased production and home competition insure fair

prices to consumers. … The aim has been to impose duties upon

such foreign products as compete with our own, whether of the

soil or the shop, and to enlarge the free list wherever this

can be done without injury to any American industry, or

wherever an existing home industry can be helped without

detriment to another industry which is equally worthy of the

protecting care of the Government. … We have recommended no

duty above the point of difference between the normal cost of

production here, including labor, and the cost of like

production in the countries which seek our markets, nor have

we hesitated to give this quantum of duty even though it

involved an increase over present rates and showed an advance

of percentages and ad valorem equivalents." On the changes

proposed to be made in the rates of duty on wool and on the

manufactures of wool—the subject of most debate in the whole

measure—the majority reported as follows; "By the census of

1880, in every county in the United States except 34, sheep

were raised. In 1883 the number of sheep in the United States

was over 50,000,000, and the number of persons owning flocks

was in excess of a million. This large number of flock-masters

was, to a considerable extent, withdrawn from the business of

raising grain and other farm products, to which they must

return if wool-growing cannot be profitably pursued. The

enormous growth of this industry was stimulated by the wool

tariff of 1867, and was in a prosperous condition prior to the

act of 1883. Since then the industry has diminished in

alarming proportions, and the business has neither been

satisfactory nor profitable. … By the proposed bill the duties

on first and second class wools are made at 11 and 12 cents a

pound, as against 10 and 12 under existing law. On third-class

wool, costing 12 cents or less, the duty is raised from 2½

cents a pound to 3½ cents, and upon wool of the third class,

costing above 12 cents, the duty recommended is an advance

from 5 to 8 cents per pound. … There seems to be no doubt that

with the protection afforded by the increased duties

recommended in the bill the farmers of the United States will

be able at an early day to supply substantially all of the

home demand, and the great benefit such production will be to

the agricultural interests of the country cannot be estimated.

The production of 600,000,000 pounds of wool would require

about 100,000,000 sheep, or an addition of more than 100 per

cent to the present number. … The increase in the duty on

clothing wool and substitutes for wool to protect the wool

growers of this country, and the well-understood fact that the

tariff of 1883, and the construction given to the worsted

clause, reduced the duties on many grades of woollen goods to

a point that invited increasing importations, to the serious

injury of our woollen manufacturers and wool growers,

necessitate raising the duties on woollen yarn, cloth and

dress goods to a point which will insure the holding of our

home market for these manufactures to a much greater extent

than is now possible. The necessity of this increase is

apparent in view of the fact already stated that during the

last fiscal year there were imports of manufactures of wool of

the foreign value of $52,681,482, as shown by the undervalued

invoices, and the real value in our market of nearly

$90,000,000—fully one-fourth of our entire home

consumption—equivalent to an import of at least 160,000,000

pounds of wool in the form of manufactured goods. In revising

the woollen-goods schedule so as to afford adequate protection

to our woollen manufacturers and wool growers we have

continued the system of compound duties which have proved to

be so essential in any tariff which protects wool, providing

first for a specific compensatory pound or square yard duty,

equivalent to the duty which would be paid on the wool if

imported, for the benefit of the wool grower, and an ad

valorem duty of from 30 to 50 per cent, according to the

proportion of labor required in the manufacture of the several

classes of goods, as a protection to the manufacturer against

foreign competition, and 10 per cent additional upon ready

made clothing for the protection of the clothing

manufacturers. … In computing the equivalent ad valorem duty

on manufactures of woollens, the combinations of both the

specific duty, which is simply compensatory for the duty on

the wool used, of which the wool grower receives the benefit,

and the duty which protects the manufacturers, makes the

average resultant rate of the woollen-goods schedule proposed

91.78 per cent."

Report of the Committee on Ways and Means.

"Substantially as reported from the Committee on Ways and

Means, it [the McKinley Bill] passed the House, after two

weeks' debate, May 21 [1890]. The vote was a strictly party

one, except that two Republicans voted in the negative. June

19 the bill was reported from the Senate Committee on Finance

with a very large number of amendments, mainly in the way of a

lessening of rates. After debating the project during nearly

the whole of August and a week in September, the Senate passed

it by a strict party vote, September 10. The differences

between the houses then went to a conference committee. The

bill as reported by this committee, September 26, was adopted

by the House and Senate on the 27th and 30th respectively and

approved by the President October 1. On the final vote three

Republicans in each house declined to follow their party. The

law went into effect October 6.

{3087}

Prominent features of the new schedules are as follows:

steel rails reduced one-tenth of a cent per lb.;

tin plates increased from one cent to two and two-tenths cents

per lb., with the proviso that they shall be put on the free

list at the end of six years if by that time the domestic

product shall not have reached an aggregate equal to one-third

of the importations;

unmanufactured copper substantially reduced;

bar, block and pig tin, hitherto on the free list, receives a

duty of four cents per lb. to take effect July 1, 1893,

provided that it be restored to the free list if by July 1,

1895, the mines of the United States shall not have produced

in one year 5,000 tons;

a bounty of one and three-fourths and two cents per lb. upon

beet, sorghum, cane or maple sugar produced in the United

States between 1891 and 1905;

all imports of sugar free up to number 16, Dutch standard, in

color and all above that one-half cent per lb. (formerly from

three to three and a half cents), with one-tenth cent

additional if imported from a country that pays an export

bounty;

a heavy increase on cigar wrappers and cigars;

a general and heavy increase on agricultural products, e. g.

on beans, eggs, hay, hops, vegetables and straw;

a heavy increase on woolen goods, with a new classification of

raw wool designed to give more protection;

paintings and statuary reduced from 30 to 15 per cent.

The following (among other) additions are made to the free

list: beeswax, books and pamphlets printed exclusively in

languages other than English, blue clay, coal tar, currants

and dates, jute butts and various textile and fibrous grasses,

needles, nickel ore, flower and grass seeds and crude sulphur.

… Among the 464 points of difference between the two houses

which the conference committee had to adjust, some of the more

important were as follows: paintings and statuary, made free

by the House and kept at the old rate by the Senate, were

fixed at half the old rate; binding twine, made free by the

Senate in favor of Western grain-raisers but taxed by the

House to protect Eastern manufacturers, fixed at half the

House rate; the limit of free sugar fixed at number 16, as

voted by the House, instead of number 13, as passed by the

Senate, thus including in the free list the lower grades of

refined as well as all raw sugar. The question of reciprocity

with American nations was injected into the tariff discussion

by Secretary Blaine in June. In transmitting to Congress the

recommendation of the International American Conference for

improved commercial relations, the secretary dilated upon the

importance of securing the markets of central and South

America for our products, and suggested as a more speedy way

than treaties of reciprocity an amendment to the pending

tariff bill authorizing the President to open our ports to the

free entry of the products of any American nation which should

in turn admit free of taxation our leading agricultural and

manufactured products. In July Mr. Blaine took up the idea

again in a public correspondence with Senator Frye,

criticizing severely the removal of the tariff on sugar, as

that on coffee had been removed before, without exacting trade

concessions in return. He complained that there was not a

section or a line in the bill as it came from the House that

would open the market for another bushel of wheat or another

barrel of pork. The Senate Finance Committee acted upon the

suggestion of the secretary by introducing an amendment to the

bill authorizing and directing the President to suspend by

proclamation the free introduction of sugar, molasses, coffee,

tea and hides from any country which should impose on products

of the United States exactions which in view of the free

introduction of sugar etc. he should deem reciprocally unequal

and unreasonable. The rates at which the President is to

demand duties upon the commodities named are duly fixed. This

reciprocity provision passed the Senate and the conference

committee and became part of the law."

Political Science Quarterly:

Record of Events, December, 1890.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1894.

The Wilson Act.

Protected interests and the Senate.

Two years after the embodiment of the extremest doctrines of

protection in the McKinley Act, the tariff question was

submitted again to the people, as the dominant issue between

the Republican and Democratic parties, in the presidential and

congressional elections of 1892. The verdict of 1888 was then

reversed, and tariff reform carried the day. Mr. Cleveland was

again elected President, with a Democratic majority in both

houses of Congress apparently placed there to sustain his

policy. A serious financial situation was manifesting itself

in the country at the time he resumed the presidential office,

produced by the operation of the silver-purchase law of 1890

(see MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893), and by the

extravagance of congressional appropriations, depleting the

treasury. It became necessary, therefore, to give attention,

first, to the repeal of the mischievous silver law, which was

accomplished, November 1, 1893, at a special session of

Congress called by the President. That cleared the way for the

more serious work of tariff-revision, which was taken up under

discouraging circumstances of general depression and extensive

collapse in business, throughout the country. "The Democratic

members of the House committee on ways and means began during

the special session the preparation of a tariff bill. The

outcome of their labors was the Wilson Bill, which was laid

before the whole committee and made public November 27. On the

previous day the sugar schedule was given out, in order to

terminate the manipulation of the stock market through false

reports as to the committee's conclusions. The characteristic

features of the bill, as described in the statement of

Chairman Wilson which accompanied it, were as follows: First,

the adoption, wherever practicable, of ad valorem instead of

specific duties; second, 'the freeing from taxes of those

great materials of industry that lie at the basis of

production.' Specific duties were held to be objectionable,

first, as concealing the true weight of taxation, and second,

as bearing unjustly on consumers of commoner articles. Free

raw materials were held necessary to the stimulation of

industry and the extension of foreign trade. The schedules, as

reported, showed in addition to a very extensive increase in

the free list, reductions in rates, as compared with the

McKinley Bill, on all but a small number of items. The

important additions to the free list included iron ore,

lumber, coal and wool. Raw sugar was left free, as in the

existing law, but the rate on refined sugar was reduced from

one-half to one-fourth of a cent per pound, and the bounty was

repealed one-eighth per annum until extinguished.

{3088}

Some amendments were made in the administrative provisions of

the tariff law, designed to soften, as the committee said,

features of the McKinley Bill 'that would treat the business

of importing as an outlawry, not entitled to the protection of

the government.' It was estimated that the reduction of

revenue effected would be about $50,000,000, and the committee

set to work on an internal revenue bill to make good this

deficiency. On January 8 Mr. Wilson brought up the bill in the

House, and debate began under a rule calling for a vote on the

29th. During the consideration in committee a number of

changes were made in the schedules, the most important being

in respect to sugar, where the duty was taken off refined

sugars, and the repeal of the bounty was made immediate

instead of gradual. A clause was inserted, also, specifically

repealing the reciprocity provision of the McKinley Act. The

greatest general interest was excited, however, by the

progress of the internal revenue bill, the chief feature of

which was a proposition for an income tax. The bill, after

formulation by the Democratic members of the ways and means

committee, was brought before the full committee January 22.

Besides the income tax, the measure provided for a stamp duty

on playing cards, and raised the excise on distilled spirits

to one dollar per gallon. As to incomes, the committee's bill

… imposed a tax of two per cent on all incomes so far as they

were in excess of $4,000, after allowing deductions for taxes,

losses not covered by insurance and bad debts. Declarations of

income were required from all persons having over $3,500,

under heavy penalties for neglect, refusal or fraud in the

matter. As to corporations, the same rate was levied on all

interest on bonds and on all dividends and all surplus income

above dividends, excepting premiums returned to policy holders

by mutual life insurance companies, interest to depositors in

savings banks, and dividends of building loan associations. …

The income-tax measure was immediately and very vigorously

antagonized by a considerable number of Eastern Democrats,

headed by the New York Congressmen. It was adopted by the ways

and means committee mainly through Southern and Western votes.

On the 24th of January it was reported to the House. A

Democratic caucus on the following day resolved by a small

majority, against the wish of Mr. Wilson, to attach the

measure to the Tariff Bill. Accordingly, the rule regulating

the debate was modified to allow discussion of the amendment.

The final votes were then taken on February 1. The internal

revenue bill was added to the Wilson Bill by 182 to 50, 44

Democrats voting in the minority and most of the Republicans

not voting. The measure as amended was then adopted by 204 to

140, 16 Democrats and one Populist going with the Republicans

in the negative. In the hands of the Senate finance committee

the bill underwent a thorough revision, differences of opinion

in the Democratic majority leading to a careful discussion of

the measure in a party caucus. The measure as amended was laid

before the full committee March 8, and was introduced in the

Senate on the 20th. Changes in details were very numerous. The

most important consisted in taking sugar, iron ore and coal

off the free list and subjecting each to a small duty. Debate

on the bill was opened April 2. It was soon discovered,

however, that many Democratic senators were seriously

dissatisfied with the schedules affecting the industries of

their respective states, and at the end of April there was a

lull in the debate while the factions of the majority adjusted

their differences. A scheme of changes was finally agreed to

in caucus on May 3, and laid before the Senate by the finance

committee on the 8th. The most important features were a new

sugar schedule which had given great trouble, and very

numerous changes from ad valorem to specific duties, with a

net increase in rates."

Political Science Quarterly:

Record of Political Events, June, 1894.

Very soon after the tariff bill appeared in the Senate, it

became apparent that the more powerful protected "interests,"

and conspicuously the "sugar trust" had acquired control, by

some means, of several Democratic senators, who were acting

obviously in agreement to prevent an honest fulfillment of the

pledges of their party, and especially as concerned the free

opening of the country to raw materials. Public opinion of the

conduct of the senators in question may be judged from the

expressions of so dignified an organ of the business world as

the "Banker's Magazine," which said in its issue of July,

1894: "Indifference has largely supplanted the hopes of the

friends of tariff reform, as well as the fears of the honest

advocates of high protection; and disgust, on the part of the

people, has taken the place of trust in our Government, at the

exposures of the corruption of the Senate by the most

unconscionable and greedy Trusts in existence. Hence the

indifference of everybody but the Trusts, and their Senatorial

attorneys and dummies with 'retainers' or Trust stocks in

their pockets; as it is taken for granted that no interests,

but those rich and characterless enough to buy 'protection'

will be looked after. … Nothing will be regarded as finally

settled … if the Tariff Bill, as emasculated by the Senate,

becomes a law; and it may as well be killed by the House, if

the Senate refuse to recede; or, vetoed by the President, if

it goes to him in its present shape; and let the existing

status continue, until the country can get rid of its

purchasable Senators and fill their disgraced seats with

honest men who cannot be bought up like cattle at so much per

head. This is the growing sentiment of business men

generally."

H. A. Pierce,

A Review of Finance and Business

(Banker's Magazine, July, 1894).

First in committee, and still more in the Senate after the

committee had reported, the bill was radically changed in

character from that which the House sent up. The profits of

the sugar trust were still protected, and coal and iron ore

were dropped back from the free list into the schedules of

dutiable commodities. According to estimates made, the average

rate of duty in the Wilson Bill as it passed the House was

35.52 per cent., and in the bill which passed the Senate it

was 37 per cent., as against 49.58 per cent. in the McKinley

law. Hence, the general effect of the revision in the Senate,

even as manipulated by the senators suspected of corrupt

motives, was an extensive lowering of duties. Some very

important additions to the free list made by the Wilson Bill

were left untouched by the senators—such as wool, lumber and

salt.

{3089}

In view of the extent of the gains acquired, the supporters of

tariff-reform in the House, after prolonged attempts in

conference committee to break the strength of the combination

against free sugar, free coal and free iron ore, were

reluctantly prevailed upon to accept the Senate bill. It had

passed the Senate on the 3d of July. The struggle in

conference committee lasted until the 13th of August, when the

House passed the Senate bill unchanged. The President declined

to give his signature to the act, but allowed it to become a

law. Immediately after the passage of the bill, the House

adopted special enactments admitting raw sugar, coal, iron

ore, and barbed wire, free of duty; but these bills were not

acted on in the Senate.

----------TARIFF: End--------

TARLETON, Colonel, in the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); and 1780-1781.

TARPEIAN ROCK, The.

See CAPITOLINE HILL.

TARQUIN THE PROUD, The expulsion of.

See ROME: B. C. 510.

TARRACONENSIS.

See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.

TARRAGONA: A. D. 1641.

Occupation by the French.

Surrender to the Spaniards.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

TARRAGONA: A. D. 1644.

Siege by the French.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

TARSUS.

See CILICIA.

TARTAN.

The title of the chief commander —under the king—of the

Assyrian armies.

TARTAR DYNASTY OF CHINA, The.

See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.

TARTARS, OR TATARS.

"The Chinese used the name in a general sense, to include the

greater part of their northern neighbours, and it was in

imitation of them, probably, that the Europeans applied the

name to the various nomade hordes who controlled Central Asia

after the Mongol invasion. But the name properly belonged, and

is applied by Raschid and other Mongol historians, to certain

tribes living in the north-eastern corner of Mongolia, who, as

I believe, were partially, at least, of the Tungusic race, and

whose descendants are probably to be found among the Solons of

Northern Manchuria."

H. H. Howorth,

History of the Mongols,

part 1, page 25.

"The name of Tartars, or Tatars, has been variously applied.

It was long customary among geographical writers to give this

title to the Kalmucs and Mongoles, and even to use it as a

distinguishing name for those races of men who resemble the

Kalmucs in features, and who have been supposed, whether

correctly or not, to be allied to them in descent. Later

authors, more accurate in the application of terms, have

declared this to be an improper use of the name of Tartar, and

by them the appellation has been given exclusively to the

tribes of the Great Turkish race, and chiefly to the northern

division of it, viz. to the hordes spread through the Russian

empire and independent Tartary. … Whatever may be the true

origin of the name of Tartar, custom has appropriated it to

the race of men extensively spread through northern Asia, of

whom the Ottoman Turks are a branch. It would, perhaps, be

more strictly correct to call all these nations Turks, but the

customary appellation may be retained when its meaning is

determined."

J. C. Prichard,

Researches into the Physical History

of the Races of Mankind,

chapter 5, section 1 (volume 2).

"The populations in question [the remnants, in southern Russia

and Siberia, of the great Mongol empire of the Kiptchak],

belong to one of three great groups, stocks, or families—the

Turk, the Mongol, or the Tungus. When we speak of a Tartar, he

belongs to the first, whenever we speak of a Kalmuk, he

belongs to the second, of these divisions. It is necessary to

insist upon this; because, whatever may be the laxity with

which the term Tartar is used, it is, in Russian ethnology at

least, a misnomer when applied to a Mongol. It is still worse

to call a Turk a Kalmuk."

R. G. Latham,

The Nationalities of Europe,

volume 1, chapter 23.

"Tartars (more correctly Tatars, but Tartars is the form

generally current), a name given to nearly three million

inhabitants of the Russian empire, chiefly Moslem and of

Turkish origin. The majority—in European Russia—are remnants

of the Mongol invasion of the 13th century, while those who

inhabit Siberia are survivals of the once much more numerous

Turkish population of the Ural-Altaic region, mixed to some

extent with Finnish and Samoyedic stems, as also with Mongols.

… The ethnographical features of the present Tartar

inhabitants of European Russia, as well as their language,

show that they contain no admixture (or very little) of

Mongolian blood, but belong to the Turkish branch of the

Ural-Altaic stock, necessitating the conclusion that only

Batu, his warriors, and a limited number of his followers were

Mongolians, while the great bulk of the 13th-century invaders

were Turks."

P. A. Kropotkine,

Article "Tartars" Encyclopœdia Brittanica.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Howorth,

History of the Mongols,

part 2, division 1, page 37.

See TURKS;

and MONGOLS.

TARTESSUS.

"The territory round Gades, Carteia, and the other Phenician

settlements in this district [southwestern Spain] was known to

the Greeks in the sixth century B. C. by the name of

Tartessus, and regarded by them somewhat in the same light as

Mexico and Peru appeared to the Spaniards of the sixteenth

century."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 18.

This was the rich region known afterwards to the Romans as

Bætica, as Turdetania, and in modern times as Andalusia.

E. H. Bunbury,

History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 21, section 2.

ALSO IN:

J. Kenrick,

Phoenicia,

chapter 4, section 3.

TARUMI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

TARUSATES, The.

See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

TASHKEND OR TASHKENT, Russian capture of (1865).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

TASMANIA: Discovery and naming.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

TATARS.

See TARTARS.

TAUBERBISCHOFSHEIM, Battle of.

See GERM[ANY: A. D. 1866.

{3090}

TAUNTON: A. D. 1685.

The Welcome to Monmouth.

The Maids of Taunton and their flag.

"When Monmouth marched into Taunton [A. D. 1685] it was an

eminently prosperous place. … The townsmen had long leaned

towards Presbyterian divinity and Whig politics. In the great

civil war, Taunton had, through all vicissitudes, adhered to

the Parliament, had been twice closely besieged by Goring, and

had been twice defended with heroic valour by Robert Blake,

afterwards the renowned Admiral of the Commonwealth. Whole

streets had been burned down by the mortars and grenades of

the Cavaliers. … The children of the men who, forty years

before, had manned the ramparts of Taunton against the

Royalists, now welcomed Monmouth with transports of joy and

affection. Every door and window was adorned with wreaths of

flowers. No man appeared in the streets without wearing in his

hat a green bough, the badge of the popular cause. Damsels of

the best families in the town wove colours for the insurgents.

One flag in particular was embroidered gorgeously with emblems

of royal dignity, and was offered to Monmouth by a train of

young girls." After the suppression of Monmouth's rebellion,

and while the "bloody Assizes" of Jeffreys were in progress,

these little girls were hunted out and imprisoned, and the

queen's maids of honor were permitted to extort money from

their parents for the buying of their pardon and release.

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 5.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

TAURICA, TAURIC CHERSONESE.

The ancient Greek name of the Crimea, derived from the Tauri,

a savage people who once inhabited it; "perhaps," says Grote,

"a remnant of the expelled Cimmerians."

See BOSPHORUS, THE CITY, &c.;

and CIMMERIANS.

TAURIS, Naval battle near.

In the Roman civil war between Cæsar and his antagonists an

important naval battle was fought, B. C. 47, near the little

island of Tauris, on the Illyrian coast. Vatinius, who

commanded on the Cæsarian side, defeated Octavius, and drove

him out of the Adriatic.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 5, chapter 21.

TAVORA PLOT, The.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.

TAWACONIES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

TAXIARCH.

PHYLARCH.

"The tribe appears to have been the only military

classification known to Athens, and the taxiarch the only

tribe officer for infantry, as the phylarch was for cavalry,

under the general-in-chief."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 8.

ALSO IN:

G. F. Schömann,

Antiquities of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapter 3.

TAYLOR, General Zachary,

The Mexican campaign of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

Presidential election and administration.

Death.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

TCHERNAYA, Battle of the (1855).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

TCHINOVNIKS.

To keep the vast and complex bureaucratic machine of Russia in

motion "it is necessary to have a large and well-drilled army

of officials. These are drawn chiefly from the ranks of the

noblesse and the clergy, and form a peculiar social class

called Tchinovniks, or men with 'Tchins.' As the Tchin plays

an important part in Russia, not only in the official world,

but also to some extent in social life, it may be well to

explain its significance. All officers, civil and military,

are, according to a scheme invented by Peter the Great,

arranged in fourteen classes or ranks, and to each class or

rank a particular name is attached. … As a general rule a man

must begin at or near the bottom of the official ladder, and

he must remain on each step a certain specified time. The step

on which he is for the moment standing, or, in other words,

the official rank or Tchin which he possesses, determines what

offices he is competent to hold. Thus rank or Tchin is a

necessary condition for receiving an appointment, but it does

not designate any actual office, and the names of the

different ranks are extremely apt to mislead a foreigner."

D. M. "Wallace,

Russia,

chapter 13.

TCHOUPRIA, Battle of (1804).

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:

14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

TEA: Introduction into Europe.

"The Dutch East India Company were the first to introduce it

into Europe, and a small quantity came to England from Holland

in 1666. The East India Company thereafter ordered their agent

at Bantam to send home small quantities, which they wished to

introduce as presents, but its price was 60s. per lb., and it

was little thought of. Twenty years elapsed before the Company

first decided on importing tea, but by degrees it came into

general use. In 1712 the imports of tea were only 156,000

lbs.; in 1750 they reached 2,300,000 lbs.; in 1800, 24,000,000

lbs.; in 1830, 30,500,000 lbs., and in 1870, 141,000,000 lbs."

L. Levi,

History of British Commerce,

page 239.

TEA-PARTY, The Boston.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

TEA-ROOM PARTY, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

TEARLESS BATTLE, The (B. C. 368).

See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

TECPANECAS, The.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

TECTOSAGES.

See VOLCÆ.

TECUMSEH, and his Indian League.

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

and 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

TECUNA, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

TEGYRA, Battle of.

The first important victory won by the Thebans (B. C. 375), in

the war which broke the power of Sparta. It was fought in

Lokrian territory.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 38.

TEHUEL-CHE, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PATAGONIANS.

TEKKE TURCOMANS, Russian subjugation of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881.

TEL EL AMARNA TABLETS, The.

See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1500-1400.

TEL EL KEBIR, Battle of (1882).

See EGYPT: A. D. 1882-1883.

TELAMON, Battle of (B. C. 225).

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

TELINGAS, The.

See TURANIAN RACES.

TELL, William, The Legend of.

See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

TELMELCHES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

{3091}

TEMENIDÆ, The.

"The history of the Macedonian kingdom is the history of its

royal race. The members of this royal house called themselves

Temenidæ; i. e. they venerated as their original ancestor the

same Temenus who was accounted the founder of the Heraclide

dynasty in Peloponnesian Argos. Now, we remember the

disturbances at Argos during the regal period, the quarrel

between the Heraclidæ and the Dorian soldiery, and the flight

of a King Phidon to Tegea. It is therefore highly credible,

that during these troubles individual members of the royal

house emigrated, in order to seek a more favorable theatre for

their activity than was offered by the cribbed and confused

affairs of their home; and tradition points precisely to the

brother of this Phidon as the man who came to Macedonia from

the shores of Peloponnesus."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5).

TEMENITES.

One of the suburbs of the ancient city of Syracuse was

so-called from the ground sacred to Apollo Temenites which it

contained. It afterwards became a part of the city called

Neapolis.

TEMESVAR, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

TEMESVAR, Siege and capture of (1716).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

TEMPE, Vale of.

See THESSALY.

----------TEMPLARS: Start--------

TEMPLARS: A. D. 1118.

The founding of the Order.

"During the reign of Baldwin I. the kingdom [of Jerusalem] was

constantly harassed by the incursions of the Bedoween Arabs,

and pious pilgrims were exposed to great dangers in their

visits to the holy places. Nine valiant knights therefore, of

whom the two principal were Hugh de Payens and Godfrey of St.

Omer, vowed, in honour of the Sweet Mother of God (La douce

mère de Dieu) to unite the character of the soldier and the

monk, for the protection of pilgrims. In the presence of the

king and his barons, they took, in the year 1118, in the hands

of the patriarch, the three vows taken by the Hospitallers,

adding a fourth, that of combating the heathen, without

ceasing, in defence of pilgrims and of the Holy Land. The king

assigned them a part of his palace for their dwelling, and the

canons of the Temple gave them the open space between it and

the palace, whence they derived their appellation of Templars,

or Soldiers of the Temple. … Their garments were such as were

bestowed upon them by the charitable, and the seal of their

order, when they had attained to opulence—two knights mounted

on one horse—commemorated the time when a single war-horse had

to serve two knights of the Temple. When Baldwin II. was

released from captivity (1128), he sent envoys to Europe to

implore aid of the Christian powers. Among these were Hugh de

Payens, and some others of the brethren of the Temple. The

Templars appeared before the council of Troyes, and gave an

account of their order and its objects, which were highly

approved of by the fathers. The celebrated Bernard, abbot of

Clairvaux, took a lively interest in its welfare, and made

some improvements in its rule. A white mantle was assigned as

their habit, to which Pope Eugenius some years afterwards

added a plain red cross on the left breast; their banner was

formed of the black and white striped cloth named Bauséant,

which word became their battle-cry, and it bore the humble

inscription, 'Not unto us, O Lord, but unto thy name be

glory!' Hugh de Payens returned to Syria at the head of three

hundred knights of the noblest houses of the West, who had

become members of the order."

T. Keightley,

The Crusaders,

chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

J. A. Froude,

The Spanish Story of the Armada and other Essays,

chapter 4.

TEMPLARS: A. D. 1185-1313.

The Order in England and elsewhere.

"The Knights Templars first established the chief house of

their order in England, without Holborn Bars [London] on the

south side of the street, where Southampton House formerly

stood, adjoining to which Southampton Buildings were

afterwards erected. … This first house of the Temple,

established by Hugh de Payens himself, before his departure

from England, on his return to Palestine, was adapted to the

wants and necessities of the order in its infant state, when

the knights, instead of lingering in the preceptories of

Europe, proceeded at once to Palestine, and when all the

resources of the society were strictly and faithfully

forwarded to Jerusalem, to be expended in defence of the

faith; but when the order had greatly increased in numbers,

power, and wealth, and had somewhat departed from its original

purity and simplicity, we find that the superior and the

knights resident in London began to look abroad for a more

extensive and commodious place of habitation. They purchased a

large space of ground, extending from the White Friars

westward to Essex House without Temple Bar, and commenced the

erection of a convent on a scale of grandeur commensurate with

the dignity and importance of the chief house of the great

religio-military society of the Temple in Britain. It was

called the New Temple, to distinguish it from the original

establishment at Holborn, which came thenceforth to be known

by the name of the Old Temple. This New Temple was adapted for

the residence of numerous military monks and novices, serving

brothers, retainers, and domestics, … connected, by a range of

handsome cloisters, with the magnificent church, consecrated

by the patriarch. Alongside the river extended a spacious

pleasure ground. … The year of the consecration of the Temple

Church [A. D. 1185] Geoffrey, the superior of the order in

England, caused an inquisition to be made of the lands of the

Templars in this country. … The number of manors, farms,

churches, advowsons, demesne lands, villages, hamlets,

windmills, and water-mills, rents of assize, rights of common

and free warren, and the amount of all kinds of property

possessed by the Templars in England at the period of the

taking of this inquisition, are astonishing. … The annual

income of the order in Europe has been roughly estimated at

six millions sterling! According to Matthew Paris, the

Templars possessed nine thousand manors or lordships in

Christendom, besides a large revenue and immense riches

arising from the constant charitable bequests and donations of

sums of money from pious persons. … The Templars, in addition

to their amazing wealth, enjoyed vast privileges and

immunities."

C. G. Addison,

The Knights Templars,

chapter 3.

{3092}

When the order of the Templars was suppressed and its property

confiscated, the convent and church of the Temple in London were

granted by the king, first, in 1313, to Aymer de Valence, Earl

of Pembroke; afterwards, successively, to the Duke of

Lancaster and to Hugh le Despenser. "The Temple then came for

a short time into the hands of the Knights Hospitallers, and

during the reign of Edward III. it seems to have been occupied

by the lawyers, as tenants under the Hospitallers. When that

order was dissolved by Henry VIII., the property passed into

the hands of the Crown, the lawyers still holding possession

as tenants. This continued till the reign of James I., when a

petition was drawn up and presented to the king asking him to

assign the property to the legal body in permanence. This was

accordingly done by letters patent, in A. D. 1609, and the

Benchers of the Inner and Middle Temple received possession of

the buildings, on consideration of a small annual payment to

the Crown."

F. C. Woodhouse,

Military Religious Orders,

part 2, chapter 7.

"Many of the old retainers of the Temple became servants of

the new lawyers, who had ousted their masters. … The dining in

pairs, the expulsion from hall for misconduct, and the locking

out of chambers were old customs also kept up. The judges of

Common Pleas retained the title of knight, and the Fratres

Servientcs of the Templars arose again in the character of

learned serjeants-at-law, the coif of the modern serjeant

being the linen coif of the old Freres Serjens of the Temple."

W. Thornbury,

Old and New London,

volume 1, chapter 14.

ALSO IN:

C. G. Addison,

The Knights Templars

chapter 7.

TEMPLARS: A. D. 1299.

Their last campaign in Palestine.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1299.

TEMPLARS: A. D. 1307-1314.

The prosecution and destruction of the order.

"When the Holy Land fell completely into Mahomedan hands on

the loss of Acre in 1291 [see JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291] they [the

Templars] abandoned the hopeless task and settled in Cyprus.

By the end of the thirteenth century they had almost all

returned to Europe. They were peculiarly strong and wealthy in

France—the strength and wealth were alike dangerous to them.

In Paris they built their fortress, the Temple, over against

the King's palace of the Louvre; and in that stronghold the

King himself had once to take refuge from the angry Parisian

mob, exasperated by his heavy extortions. During the life and

death struggle with the Papacy, the order had not taken the

side of the Church against the sovereign; for their wealth had

held them down. Philip [Philip IV], however, knew no

gratitude, and they were doomed. A powerful and secret society

endangered the safety of the state: their wealth was a sore

temptation: there was no lack of rumours. Dark tales came out

respecting the habits of the order; tales exaggerated and

blackened by the diseased imagination of the age. Popular

proverbs, those ominous straws of public opinion, were heard

in different lands, hinting at dark vices and crimes.

Doubtless the vows of the order, imposed on unruly natures,

led to grievous sins against the first laws of moral life. And

there was more than this: there were strange rumours of

horrible infidelity and blasphemy; and men were prepared to

believe everything. So no one seemed to be amazed when, in

October, 1307, the King made a sudden coup d'etat, arrested

all the Templars in France on the same day, and seized their

goods. The Temple at Paris with the Grand Master fell into his

hands. Their property was presently placed in the custody of

the Pope's nuncios in France; the knights were kept in dark

and dismal prisons. Their trial was long and tedious. Two

hundred and thirty-one knights were examined, with all the

brutality that examination then meant; the Pope also took the

depositions of more than seventy. From these examinations what

can we learn? All means were used: some were tortured, others

threatened, others tempted with promises of immunity. They

made confession accordingly; and the ghastly catalogue of

their professed ill-doings may be read in the history of the

trial. Who shall say what truth there was in it all? Probably

little or none. Many confessed and then recanted their

confession. The golden image with eyes of glowing carbuncle

which they worshipped; the trampling and spitting on the

crucifix; the names of Galla and Baphomet; the hideous

practices of the initiation;—all these things pass before us,

in the dim uncertainty, like some horrible procession of the

vices in hell. What the truth was will never be known. … The

knights made a dignified defence in these last moments of

their history; they did not flinch either at the terrible

prospect before them, or through memory of the tortures which

they had undergone. Public opinion, in and out of France,

began to stir against the barbarous treatment they had

received; they were no longer proud and wealthy princes, but

suffering martyrs, showing bravery and a firm front against

the cruelties of the King and his lawyers. Marigni, Philip's

minister and friend, and the King himself, were embarrassed by

the number and firmness of their victims, by the sight of

Europe looking aghast, by the murmurs of the people. Marigni

suggested that men who had confessed and recanted might be

treated as relapsed heretics, such being the law of the

Inquisition, (what irony was here!) and accordingly in 1310 an

enclosure was made at Paris, within which fifty-nine Templars

perished miserably by fire. Others were burnt later at Senlis.

… The King and Pope worked on the feeble Council, until in

March 1312 the abolition of the order was formally decreed;

and its chief property, its lands and buildings, were given

over to the Knights of St. John, to be used for the recovery

of the Holy Land; 'which thing,' says the Supplementor to

William of Nangis, 'came not to pass, but rather the endowment

did but make them worse than before.' The chief part of the

spoil, as might be well believed, never left the King's hands.

One more tragedy, and then all was over. The four heads of the

order were still at Paris, prisoners —Jacques de Molai, Grand

Master; Guy of Auvergne, the Master of Normandy, and two more.

The Pope had reserved their fate in his own hands, and sent a

commission to Paris, who were enjoined once more to hear the

confession of these dignitaries, and then to condemn them to

perpetual captivity. But at the last moment the Grand Master

and Guy publicly retracted their forced confessions, and

declared themselves and the order guiltless of all the

abominable charges laid against them. Philip was filled with

devouring rage. Without further trial or judgment he ordered

them to be led that night to the island in the Seine; there

they were fastened to the stake and burnt."

G. W. Kitchin,

History of France,

volume 1, book 3, chapter 10, section 3.

{3093}

In England, a similar prosecution of the Templars, instigated

by the pope, was commenced in January, 1308, when the chiefs

of the order were seized and imprisoned and subjected to

examination with torture. The result was the dissolution of

the order and the confiscation of its property; but none of

the knights were executed, though some died in prison from the

effects of their barbarous treatment. "The property of the

Templars in England was placed under the charge of a

commission at the time that proceedings were commenced against

them, and the king very soon treated it as if it were his own,

giving away manors and convents at his pleasure. A great part

of the possessions of the Order was subsequently made over to

the Hospitallers. … Some of the surviving Templars retired to

monasteries, others returned to the world, and assumed secular

habits, for which they incurred the censures of the Pope. … In

Spain, Portugal, and Germany, proceedings were taken against

the Order; their property was confiscated, and in some cases

torture was used; but it is remarkable that it was only in

France, and those places where Philip's influence was

powerful, that any Templar was actually put to death."

F. C. Woodhouse,

Military Religious Orders,

part 2, chapters 6-7 and 5.

ALSO IN:

C. G. Addison,

The Knights Templars,

chapter 7.

J. Michelet,

History of France,

book 5, chapter 3.

H. H. Milman,

History of Latin Christianity,

book 12, chapters 1-2 (volume 5).

----------TEMPLARS: End--------

TEMPLE, The (London).

See TEMPLARS: A. D. 1185-1313.

TEMPLE OF CONCORD AT ROME, The.

After the long contest in Rome over the Licinian Laws, which

were adopted B. C. 367, M. Furius Camillus—the great

Camillus—being made Dictator for the fifth time, in his

eightieth year, brought about peace between the patricians and

plebeians, in commemoration of which he vowed a temple to

Concord. "Before he could dedicate it, the old hero died. The

temple, however, was built according to his design; its site,

now one of the best known among those of ancient Rome, can

still be traced with great certainty at the north-western

angle of the Forum, immediately under the Capitoline. The

building was restored with great magnificence by the Emperor

Tiberius; and it deserved to be so, for it commemorated one of

the greatest events of Roman history."

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 15 (volume 1).

TEMPLE OF DIANA.

See EPHESUS.

TEMPLE OF JANUS, The.

"The Temple of Janus was one of the earliest buildings of

Rome, founded, according to Livy (i. 19.) by Numa. It stood

near the Curia, on the northeast side of the Forum, at the

verge of a district called the Argiletum. … [it was] a small

'ædicula' or shrine, which towards the end of the Republic, or

perhaps earlier, was of bronze. It is shown with much

minuteness on a First Brass of Nero as a small cella, without

columns, but with richly ornamented frieze and cornice. Its

doors were closed on those rare occasions when Rome was at

peace with all the world. From the time of its traditional

founder, Numa, to that of Livy, it was only twice shut—once

after the first Punic War, and secondly after the victory of

Augustus at Actium. … It contained a very ancient statue,

probably by an Etruscan artist, of the double faced Janus

Bifrons, or Geminus. … The Temple of Janus gave its name to

this part of the edge of the Forum, and from the numerous

shops of the argentarii or bankers and money-lenders which

were there, the word Janus came to mean the usurers' quarter."

J. H. Middleton,

Ancient Rome in 1885,

chapter 5.

The Temple of Janus was closed, once more, by Vespasian, after

the destruction of Jerusalem and the ending of the war in

Judea, A. D. 71. "It had stood open since the German wars of

the first princeps [Augustus]; or, according to the

computation of the christian Orosius, from the birth of Christ

to the overthrow of the Jewish people: for the senate had

refused to sanction Nero's caprice in closing it on his

precarious accommodation with Parthia. Never before had this

solemn act addressed the feelings of the citizens so directly.

… The Peace of Vespasian was celebrated by a new bevy of poets

and historians not less loudly than the Peace of Augustus. A

new era of happiness and prosperity was not less passionately

predicted."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 60.

TEMPLE OF SOLOMON, The.

"As soon as David had given to his people the boon of a unique

capital, nothing could be more natural than the wish to add

sacredness to the glory of the capital by making it the centre

of the national worship. According to the Chronicles, David …

had made unheard-of preparations to build a house for God. But

it had been decreed unfit that the sanctuary should be built

by a man whose hands were red with the blood of many wars, and

he had received the promise that the great work should be

accomplished by his son. Into that work Solomon threw himself

with hearty zeal in the month Zif of the fourth year of his

reign, when his kingdom was consolidated. … He inherited the

friendship which David had enjoyed, with Hiram, King of Tyre.

… The friendliest overtures passed between the two kings in

letters, to which Josephus appeals as still extant. A

commercial treaty was made by which Solomon engaged to furnish

the Tyrian king with annual revenues of wheat, barley, and

oil, and Hiram put at Solomon's disposal the skilled labour of

an army of Sidonian wood-cutters and artisans. … Some writers

have tried to minimise Solomon's work as a builder, and have

spoken of the Temple as an exceedingly insignificant structure

which would not stand a moment's comparison with the smallest

and humblest of our own cathedrals. Insignificant in size it

certainly was, but we must not forget its costly splendour,

the remote age in which the work was achieved, and the truly

stupendous constructions which the design required. Mount

Moriah was selected as a site hallowed by the tradition of

Abraham's sacrifice, and more recently by David's vision of

the Angel of the Pestilence with his drawn sword on the

threshing-floor of the Jebusite Prince Araunah. But to utilise

this doubly consecrated area involved almost super-human

difficulties, which would have been avoided if the loftier but

less suitable height of the Mount of Olives could have been

chosen. The rugged summit had to be enlarged to a space of 500

yards square, and this level was supported by Cyclopean walls,

which have long been the wonder of the world. … The caverns,

quarries, water storages, and subterranean conduits hewn out

of the solid rock, over which Jerusalem is built, could only

have been constructed at the cost of immeasurable toil. … It

was perhaps from his Egyptian father-in-law that Solomon, to

his own cost, learnt the secret of forced labour which alone

rendered such undertakings possible. …

{3094}

Four classes were subject to it.

1. The lightest labour was required from the native freeborn

Israelites (ezrach). They were not regarded as bondsmen, … yet

30,000 of these were required in relays of 10,000 to work, one

month in every three, in the forest of Lebanon.

2. There were the strangers, or resident aliens (Gerim), such

as the Phœnicians and Giblites, who were Hiram's subjects and

worked for pay.

3. There were three classes of slaves—those taken in war, or

sold for debt, or home-born.

4. Lowest and most wretched of all, there were the vassal

Canaanites (Toshabim), from whom were drawn those 70,000

burden-bearers, and 80,000 quarry-men, the Helots of

Palestine, who were placed under the charge of 3,600 Israelite

officers.

The blotches of smoke are still visible on the walls and roofs

of the subterranean quarries where these poor serfs, in the

dim torchlight and suffocating air, 'laboured without reward,

perished without pity, and suffered without redress.' The sad

narrative reveals to us, and modern research confirms, that

the purple of Solomon had a very seamy side, and that an abyss

of misery heaved and moaned under the glittering surface of

his splendour. … Apart from the lavish costliness of its

materials the actual Temple was architecturally a poor and

commonplace structure. It was quite small —only 90 feet long,

35 feet broad, and 45 feet high. It was meant for the symbolic

habitation of God, not for the worship of great congregations.

… Of the external aspect of the building in Solomon's day we

know nothing. We cannot even tell whether it had one level

roof, or whether the Holy of Holies was like a lower chancel

at the end of it; nor whether the roof was flat or, as the

Rabbis say, ridged; nor whether the outer surface of the

three-storied chambers which surrounded it was of stone, or

planked with cedar, or overlaid with plinths of gold and

silver; nor whether, in any case, it was ornamented with

carvings or left blank; nor whether the cornices only were

decorated with open flowers like the Assyrian rosettes. Nor do

we know with certainty whether it was supported within by

pillars or not. … It required the toil of 300,000 men for

twenty years to build one of the pyramids. It took two hundred

years to build and four hundred to embellish the great Temple

of Artemis of the Ephesians. It took more than five centuries

to give to Westminster Abbey its present form. Solomon's

Temple only took seven and a half years to build; but … its

objects were wholly different from those of the great shrines

which we have mentioned. … Needing but little repair, it stood

for more than four centuries. Succeeded as it was by the

Temples of Zerubbabel and of Herod, it carried down till

seventy years after the Christian era the memory of the

Tabernacle in the wilderness, of which it preserved the

general outline, though it exactly doubled all the proportions

and admitted many innovations."

F. W. Farrar,

The First Book of Kings,

chapter 14 (Expositor's Bible).

TEN, The Council of.

See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

TEN THOUSAND, The Retreat of the.

See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL, The.

See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

TEN YEARS WAR, The.

The long conflict between Athens and her confederated enemies,

Sparta at the head, which is usually called the Peloponnesian

War, was divided into two periods by the Peace or Nicias. The

war in the first period, covering a decade, was known as the

Ten Years War; though the Peloponnesians called it the Attic

War.

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 4, chapter 2.

See ATHENS: B. C. 421.

TENANT RIGHT, The Ulster.

The Tenant League.

See IRELAND: A. D.1848-1852.

TENCHEBRAY, Battle of (1106).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

TENCTHERI, The.

See USIPETES.

TENEDOS.

See TROJA;

and ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

TENEZ, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

----------TENNESSEE: Start--------

TENNESSEE:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE, and CHEROKEES.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1629.

Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1663.

Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk,

Shaftesbury and others.

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1748.

First English exploration from Virginia.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1768.

The Treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.

Pretended cession of country south of the Ohio.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.

The first settlers in the eastern valley.

The Watauga commonwealth and its constitution.

"Soon after the successful ending of the last colonial

struggle with France, and the conquest of Canada, the British

king issued a proclamation forbidding the English colonists

from trespassing on Indian grounds, or moving west of the

mountains.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES: A. D. 1763.

But in 1768, at the treaty of Fort Stanwix, the Six Nations

agreed to surrender to the English all the lands lying between

the Ohio and the Tennessee.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

This treaty was at once seized upon by the backwoodsmen as

offering an excuse for settling beyond the mountains. However,

the Iroquois had ceded lands to which they had no more right

than a score or more other Indian tribes. … The great

hunting-grounds between the Ohio and the Tennessee formed a

debatable land, claimed by every tribe that could hold its own

against its rivals. The eastern part of what is now Tennessee

consists of a great hill-strewn, forest-clad valley, running

from northeast to southwest, bounded on one side by the

Cumberland, and on the other by the Great Smoky and Unaka

Mountains; the latter separating it from North Carolina. In

this valley arise and end the Clinch, the Holston, the

Watauga, the Nolichucky, the French Broad, and the other

streams, whose combined volume makes the Tennessee River. The

upper end of the valley lies in southwestern Virginia, the

headwaters of some of the rivers being well within that State;

and though the province was really part of North Carolina, it

was separated therefrom by high mountain chains, while from

Virginia it was easy to follow the watercourses down the

valley. Thus, as elsewhere among the mountains forming the

western frontier, the first movements of population went

parallel with, rather than across, the ranges.

{3095}

As in western Virginia the first settlers came, for the most

part, from Pennsylvania, so, in turn, in what was then western

North Carolina, and is now eastern Tennessee, the first

settlers came mainly from Virginia, and, indeed, in great

part, from this same Pennsylvanian stock. Of course, in each

case there was also a very considerable movement directly

westward. They were a sturdy race, enterprising and

intelligent, fond of the strong excitement inherent in the

adventurous frontier life. Their untamed and turbulent

passions, and the lawless freedom of their lives, made them a

population very productive of wild, headstrong characters;

yet, as a whole, they were a God-fearing race, as was but

natural in those who sprang from the loins of the Irish

Calvinists. Their preachers, all Presbyterians, followed close

behind the first settlers and shared their toil and dangers. …

In 1769, the year that Boon first went to Kentucky, the first

permanent settlers came to the banks of the Watauga, the

settlement being merely an enlargement of the Virginia

settlement, which had for a short time existed on the

head-waters of the Holston, especially near Wolf Hills. At

first the settlers thought they were still in the domain of

Virginia, for at that time the line marking her southern

boundary had not been run so far west. … But in 1771, one of

the new-comers, who was a practical surveyor, ran out the

Virginia boundary line some distance to the westward, and

discovered that the Watauga settlement came within the limits

of North Carolina. Hitherto the settlers had supposed that

they themselves were governed by the Virginian law, and that

their rights as against the Indians were guaranteed by the

Virginian government; but this discovery threw them back upon

their own resources. They suddenly found themselves obliged to

organize a civil government. … About the time that the Watauga

commonwealth was founded; the troubles in North Carolina came

to a head. Open war ensued between the adherents of the royal

governor, Tryon, on the one hand, and the Regulators, as the

insurgents styled themselves, on the other, the struggle

ending with the overthrow of the Regulators at the battle of

Alamance.

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

As a consequence of these troubles, many people from the back

counties of North Carolina crossed the mountains, and took up

their abode among the pioneers on the Watauga and upper

Holston; the beautiful valley of the Nolichucky soon receiving

its share of this stream of immigration. Among the first

comers were many members of the class of desperate adventurers

always to be found hanging round the outskirts of frontier

civilization. … But the bulk of the settlers were men of

sterling worth; fit to be the pioneer fathers of a mighty and

beautiful state. … Such were the settlers of the Watauga, the

founders of the commonwealth that grew into the State of

Tennessee, who early in 1772 decided that they must form some

kind of government that would put down wrong-doing and work

equity between man and man. Two of their number already

towered head and shoulders above the rest in importance and

merit especial mention; for they were destined for the next

thirty years to play the chief parts in the history of that

portion of the Southwest which largely through their own

efforts became the State of Tennessee. These two men, neither

of them yet thirty years of age, were John Sevier and James

Robertson. … With their characteristic capacity for

combination, so striking as existing together with the equally

characteristic capacity for individual self-help, the settlers

determined to organize a government of their own. They

promptly put their, resolution into effect early in the spring

of 1772, Robertson being apparently the leader in the

movement. They decided to adopt written articles of agreement,

by which their conduct should be governed; and these were

known as the Articles of the Watauga Association. They formed

a written constitution, the first ever adopted west of the

mountains, or by a community composed of American-born

freemen. It is this fact of the early independence and

self-government of the settlers along the head-waters of the

Tennessee that gives to their history its peculiar importance.

They were the first men of American birth to establish a free

and independent community on the continent. … The first step

taken by the Watauga settlers, when they had determined to

organize, was to meet in general convention, holding a kind of

folk-thing, akin to the New England town-meeting. They then

elected a representative assembly, a small parliament or

'witanagemot,' which met at Robertson's station. Apparently

the freemen of each little fort or palisaded village, each

block-house that was the centre of a group of detached cabins

and clearings, sent a member to this first frontier

legislature. It consisted of thirteen representatives, who

proceeded to elect from their number five—among them Sevier

and Robertson—to form a committee or court, which should carry

on the actual business of government, and should exercise both

judicial and executive functions. This court had a clerk and a

sheriff, or executive officer, who respectively recorded and

enforced their decrees. … In fact, the dwellers, in this

little outlying frontier commonwealth, exercised the rights of

full statehood for a number of years; establishing in true

American style a purely democratic government with

representative institutions."

T. Roosevelt,

The Winning of the West,

volume 1, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

E. Kirke (pseudonym J. R. Gilmore),

The Rear-Guard of the Revolution,

chapters 2-6.

J. Phelan,

History of Tennessee,

chapters 1-3.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.

Annexation to North Carolina.

Cession by that state to the Congress of the Confederation.

Consequent revolt.

Repeal of the act of cession.

"The Watauga people had hopes, when the articles of

association were adopted, of being able eventually to form an

independent government, governed as the older colonies were

governed, by royal governors. When the disagreements between

the colonies and the mother country arose, they modified their

views to the new order of things, and regarded themselves as a

distinct though as yet inchoate state. But their weakness …

rendered the protection of some more powerful state necessary

for their welfare. … They petitioned North Carolina for

annexation in 1776. Their petition was granted. … The

provincial congress of North Carolina met at Halifax in

November, 1776, and [Robertson, Sevier and two others] were

delegates from Washington District, Watauga settlement. …

{3096}

After the annexation of the Washington District the old form

of government was allowed to stand until the spring of 1777. …

In November of this year, 1777, the District of Washington

became Washington County. … From 1777 until the disturbances

of eight years later, the history of Tennessee was a part of

the history of North Carolina. … The part played by the

inhabitants of Tennessee in the war for independence was

active, and in one instance [at King's Mountain] decisive.

Their operations were chiefly of a desultory, guerrilla kind,

under the leadership of Sevier … and Shelby." Sevier was also

the leader in wars with the Indians, which were carried on

with unsparing fierceness on both sides. "In the April session

of 1784, the General Assembly of North Carolina, in accordance

with the recommendation of Congress itself, as well as with

the dictates of a far-seeing and enlightened statesmanship,

imitated the example of Virginia and New York, and ceded to

the United States all the territory which is now the State of

Tennessee.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1781-1786.

This of course included all the settlements. The condition of

the cession was its acceptance by Congress within two years.

Until Congress should have accepted the ceded territory, the

jurisdiction of North Carolina over it was to remain in every

respect the same as heretofore. … When the question of cession

was first broached, it was accepted by the four

representatives of the western counties at Hillsboro, as well

as by those who proposed it, as the natural and legitimate

solution of a complex problem. No one apparently dreamed of

opposition on the part of the settlers themselves. … There is

no reason to think that the Watauga people had any objection

to the cession. … The objection was against the manner of the

cession and its conditions. … The main cause of complaint was

that North Carolina had left them without any form of

government for two years. … A storm of indignation swept

through the entire settlement. … The people regarded

themselves without government, and, true to the traditions of

their race, they sought the solution of the difficulty in

their own resources. … It is one of the noteworthy facts in

the history of institutions that the possessors of English

tradition always begin with the first primal germ of local

self-government at hand, be it court leet, court of quarter

sessions, township, county, school district, or military

company, and build upward. The Watauga people had nothing so

convenient as the militia companies, and they began with them

as representing a more minutely varied constituency than the

county court. Each company elected two representatives, and

the representatives so elected in each county formed

themselves into a committee, and the three committees of

Washington, Sullivan, and Greene counties met as a kind of

impromptu or temporary legislature, and decided to call a

general convention to be elected by the people of the

different counties. This convention met on the 23d of August,

1784, at Jonesboro. John Sevier was elected president, and

Landon Carter secretary. … It is supposed that the convention

which met at Jonesboro adopted the resolution to form a

'separate and distinct State, independent of the State of

North Carolina.' … Provision was made for the calling of a

future convention in which representation was to be according

to companies. … The meeting adjourned, having fairly

inaugurated the contest with North Carolina, which still

claimed jurisdiction." Soon afterward the legislature of North

Carolina repealed the act of cession, and "for a time it was

supposed that this would terminate the agitation in favor of a

new State."

J. Phelan,

History of Tennessee,

chapters 5-10.

ALSO IN:

J. R. Gilmore,

John Sevier as a Commonwealth Builder,

chapter 2.

J. G. M. Ramsey,

Annals of Tennessee,

chapter 3.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1780.

The Battle of King's Mountain.

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785.

The organization of the State of Franklin.

"Toward the close of May [1785] the western lands being again

under discussion [in Congress], a resolution was carried

urging North Carolina to reconsider her act of the previous

November, and once more cede to Congress her possessions

beyond the mountains. Had the request been granted, there can

be no doubt, the measure would have speedily brought peace and

quiet to that distracted region. But North Carolina was too

intent on bringing her rebellious subjects to terms to think

for a moment of bestowing them with their lands and goods on

Congress. Indeed, when the news of the request was carried

into the district some months later, the malcontents expressed

much surprise. They could not, they said, understand why

Congress should apply to North Carolina; North Carolina had

nothing to do with them. The parent State had, by her act of

1784, given them away. Congress did not take them under its

protection. They belonged, therefore, to nobody, and while in

this condition had called a convention, had framed a

constitution, had formed a new State, had chosen for it a

name, and elected a Legislature which was actually in session

at the time the act of the 23d of May was passed. … Much of

what they stated was strictly true. The delegates to the

second convention had assembled early in 1785. These had given

the State the name of Franklin, and had drawn up a

constitution which they submitted to the people. It was

expected that the men of the district would consider it

carefully, and select delegates to a third convention, which

should have full power to ratify or reject. The place fixed

upon for the meeting of the convention was Greenville. But as

there was then no printing-press nearer than Charleston or

Richmond, and as much time must elapse before the constitution

could become known to all, the delegates were not to convene

till the 14th of November. Meanwhile the Legislature was to

organize. Elections were held without delay; members were

chosen after the manner in which the settlers had long been

accustomed to elect representatives to the Assembly of the

parent State, and these, meeting at Jonesboro, conducted their

business with so much dispatch that on the last day of March

they adjourned. Many acts were passed by them. But one alone

excited general comment, and was the cause of unbounded

merriment across the mountains. A list of articles at that

time scarce to be met with in the State of Franklin would be a

long one. But there would be no article in the list less

plentiful than money. … When, therefore, the Legislature came

to determine what should be the legal currency of the State,

it most wisely contented itself with fixing the value of such

articles as had, from time immemorial, been used as money.

{3097}

One pound of sugar, the law said, should pass for a

shilling-piece; the skin of a raccoon or a fox for a shilling

and threepence. A gallon of rye whiskey, it was thought, was

worth twice that sum, while a gallon of peach-brandy or a yard

of good nine hundred flax linen was each to pass for a

three-shilling piece. Some difficulty was met with in

selecting articles that could be easily carried from place to

place and expressive of large values. It was, however, finally

determined that a clean beaver-skin, an otter or a deer-skin,

should each of them be the representative of six shillings. In

this kind of money, the law further prescribed, the salary of

every officer of the State, from the Governor down to the

hangman, was to be paid. When this act became known in the

East the wits were greatly amused. … In the belief that the

new money could not be counterfeited they were much mistaken.

Many bundles of what seemed to be otter-skins were soon

passing about, which, on being opened, were found to be skins

of raccoons with tails of otters sewed to them. … The name of

the State has often been asserted to be Frankland, the land of

the Franks, or Freemen. … But letters are extant from high

officials of the State to Benjamin Franklin declaring that it

was named after him."

J. B. McMaster,

History of the People of the United States,

volume 1, chapter 3, with foot-note.

ALSO IN:

J. G. M. Ramsey,

Annals of Tennessee,

chapter 4.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.

The troubled history and the fall of the state of Franklin.

The rise of the state of Tennessee.

On receiving news of the organization of the independent state

of Franklin, Governor Martin, of North Carolina, issued a

proclamation which was skilfully addressed to the cooler

judgment of the mountaineers and which "was not without its

effect." But, although the adherents of North Carolina

"gradually gained ground in the new commonwealth, a majority

still clung to Sevier, and refused to recognize any government

but the one they themselves had organized. In this opposition

of parties, disorders sprang up which presently degenerated

into lawlessness. Both governments claimed jurisdiction, and

both sought to exercise it. The consequence was that both

became inefficient. Party quarrels ensued; old friends became

enemies; Tipton and his followers openly supported the claims

of North Carolina; Sevier sought to maintain his authority as

the executive officer of Franklin. This antagonistic spirit

led to the commission of various outrages. … But in the midst

of these inglorious quarrels, Governor Sevier did not neglect

to defend from Indian aggressions the state over which he had

been called to preside. … He was far less successful, however,

in giving peace to the distracted state of Franklin. The

continuance of intestine dissensions, and the nice balance of

parties which took place in 1787, induced the people to refuse

to pay taxes either to North Carolina or to the local

government, until the supremacy of one or the other should be

more generally acknowledged. In this state of affairs, with

his government tottering to its downfall, Sevier earnestly

appealed to North Carolina for a ratification of the

independence of the state of Franklin, and to Franklin

himself, and the governors of Georgia and Virginia, for

counsel and assistance. Disappointed on all sides, he finally

rested for support upon his immediate friends, conscious of

the rectitude of his own intentions. … But the people were

already weary of a feud which threatened, at every fresh

outbreak, to end in bloodshed. In 1787 the last legislature of

the state of Franklin held its session at Greenville. … The

conciliatory measures of North Carolina presently disarmed the

malecontents of all further arguments for opposing the

reunion; and in February, 1788, the state of Franklin ceased

to exist." Fierce conflicts between Sevier and Tipton and

their hotter partisans still continued for some time; until,

in October, Sevier was arrested for high treason and

imprisoned at Morgantown. He escaped soon after, through the

aid of his sons, was elected to the North Carolina senate, and

was permitted to qualify for the seat on renewing his oath of

allegiance. "His services were remembered and his faults

forgotten." Meantime, settlements on the Cumberland, founded

in 1779 by James Robertson, had prospered and grown strong,

and Nashville, the chief among them, assumed its name in 1784,

"in commemoration of the patriotic services of Colonel Francis

Nash," of North Carolina, who fell in the battle of

Germantown. In 1790, after ratifying the Federal Constitution,

North Carolina, re-enacted the cession of her western

territory, coinciding with the present state of Tennessee, to

the United States, stipulating "that no regulation made or to

be made by Congress shall tend to the emancipation of slaves."

The "Territory southwest of the Ohio" was then organized, with

William Blount for governor. Six years later (January, 1796),

the population of the Territory having been ascertained by a

census to be 67,000 free white inhabitants and 10,000 slaves,

a constitution was adopted, the State of Tennessee was formed,

with John Sevier for Governor, and, after some opposition in

Congress, it was formally admitted to its place and rank as

one of the United States of America. Its first Representative

in the House was Andrew Jackson.

W. H. Carpenter,

History of Tennessee,

chapters 13-17.

ALSO IN:

J. R. Gilmore,

John Sevier as a Commonwealth-Builder,

chapters 4-12.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1800.

The question of the Free Navigation of the Mississippi.

Discontent of the settlers and intrigues among them.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1813-1814.

The Creek War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-MAY).

The mode in which the state was dragged into Rebellion.

"The Legislature of Tennessee met on the 6th of January. On

the 12th, a bill for the calling of a state convention [with

the object of following the lead, in secession, which South

Carolina had taken on the 20th of December was passed.]

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1860 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

{3098}

It was passed subject to the approval of the voters. The

election took place on the 8th day of February. The people

voted against holding a convention by 67,360, to 54,156. In

disregard of this vote of the people, however, the

legislature, on May 1st, passed a joint resolution authorizing

the governor to enter into a military league with the Confederate

States. The league was formed. The Governor, Isham G. Harris,

sent a message to the legislature, announcing the fact. He

stated its terms. … It stipulated that until the state should

become a member of the Confederacy, 'the whole military force

and military operations, offensive and defensive, of said

state, in the impending conflict with the United States, shall

be under the chief control and direction of the President of

the Confederate States.' It was also agreed that the state

would, as soon as it should join the Confederacy, turn over

all public property it might acquire from the United States.

The legislature ratified the league by decided majorities of

both branches. These final proceedings took place on the 7th

day of May. On the preceding day, the legislature put forth a

declaration of independence. It was submitted to the votes of

the people for ratification. This document waives the right of

secession, as follows: 'We, the people of the State of

Tennessee, waiving an expression of opinion as to the abstract

doctrine of secession, but asserting the right, as a free and

independent people,' declare that all the laws and ordinances

by which Tennessee became a member of the Federal Union, 'are

hereby abrogated.' The vote for separation was declared by the

governor to be 104,019 for, and 47,238 against that measure.

It thus appears that the Legislature of Tennessee, in

declaring the separation of the state from the Federal Union,

placed its action upon the ground of a revolutionary right,

which all admit to be inalienable, if the cause be just."

S. S. Cox,

Three Decades of Federal Legislation,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

F. Moore, editor,

Rebellion Record,

volume 1, documents 201-205.

O. J. Victor,

History of the Southern Rebellion,

division 4, chapter 11 (volume 2).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (April).

Governor Harris' reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (June).

The loyalty of East Tennessee and its resistance to Secession.

"For separation and representation at Richmond, East Tennessee

gave [at the election, June 8, when the question of secession

was nominally submitted to the people, the state having been

already delivered by its governor and legislature to the

Confederacy] 14,700 votes; and half of that number were Rebel

troops, having no authority under the Constitution to vote at

any election. For 'no separation' and 'no representation,'—the

straight-out Union vote,—East Tennessee gave 33,000, or 18,300

of a majority, with at least 5,000 quiet citizens deterred

from coming out by threats of violence, and by the presence of

drunken troops at the polls to insult them. … By … fraud and

villainy, … the great State of Tennessee was carried out of

the Union. The loyal people of East Tennessee, to their great

honor, had no lot or part in the work."

W. G. Brownlow,

Sketches of the Rise, Progress and Decline of Secession,

pages 222-223.

"Finding themselves powerless before the tyranny inaugurated,

the Unionists of East Tennessee resolved, as a last resort, to

hold a Convention at Greenville, to consult as to the best

course to pursue. This Convention met June 17th. The

attendance was very large—thirty-one counties having delegates

present on the first day. Judge Nelson presided. After a four

days' session it adopted a Declaration of Grievances and

Resolutions," declaring that "we prefer to remain attached to

the Government of our fathers. The Constitution of the United

States has done us no wrong. The Congress of the United States

has passed no law to oppress us. … The secession cause has

thus far been sustained by deception and falsehood." The

Convention protested on behalf of East Tennessee against being

dragged into rebellion, and appointed commissioners to pursue

measures looking to the formation of a separate state. "Vain

protest! It was not long before those Unionists and

protestants against wrong were flying for their lives, and

were hunted down like wild beasts."

O. J. Victor,

History of the Southern Rebellion,

division 5, chapter 5 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

T. W. Humes,

The Loyal Mountaineers of Tennessee,

chapters 6-11.

W. Rule,

Loyalists of Tennessee in the late War

(Sketches of War History, Ohio Commandery, L. L. volume 2).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (February).

The breaking of the Rebel line of defense at Fort Henry and

Fort Donelson.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (March).

Andrew Johnson appointed military governor.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH-JUNE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (April).

The continued advance of the Union armies.

Battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (April-May).

The Union advance upon Corinth, Mississippi.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (June).

Evacuation of Fort Pillow and surrender

of Memphis by the Confederates.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (June-October).

The Buell-Bragg campaign.

Chattanooga secured by the Confederates.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862-1863 (December-January).

Bragg and Rosecrans.

The Battle of Stone River, or Murfreesborough.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (February-April).

Engagements at Dover and Franklin.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (June-July).

The Tullahoma campaign of Rosecrans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (August-September).

Burnside in east Tennessee.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)

BURNSIDE'S DELIVERANCE.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (August-September).

The Chickamauga campaign and battle.

The Union army at Chattanooga.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)

ROSECRANS' ADVANCE.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (October-November).

The Siege and the Battles of Chattanooga.

Lookout Mountain.

Missionary Ridge.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (October-December).

Siege of Knoxville.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

{3099}

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863-1864 (December-April).

Winter operations.

Withdrawal of Longstreet from east Tennessee.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863-1864(DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (April).

The Fort Pillow Massacre.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (APRIL: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (September-October).

Forrest's raid.

The capture of Athens.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (November).

Hood's invasion and destruction.

The Battles of Franklin and Nashville.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),

and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865.

President Johnson's recognition of the

reconstructed State Government.

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.

Reconstruction.

Abolition of Slavery.

Restoration of the State to its

"former, proper, practical relation to the Union."

In the early part of 1865, Andrew Johnson, though

Vice-President-elect, was "still discharging the functions of

military governor of Tennessee. A popular convention

originating from his recommendation and assembling under his

auspices, was organized at Nashville on the 9th day of

January, 1865. Membership of the body was limited to those who

'give an active support to the Union cause, who have never

voluntarily borne arms against the Government, who have never

voluntarily given aid and comfort to the enemy.' … Tennessee,

as Johnson bluntly maintained, could only be organized and

controlled as a State in the Union by that portion of her

citizens who acknowledged their allegiance to the Government

of the Union. Under this theory of procedure the popular

convention proposed an amendment to the State constitution,

'forever abolishing and prohibiting slavery in the State,' and

further declaring that 'the Legislature shall make no law

recognizing the right of property in man.' The convention took

several other important steps, annulling in whole and in

detail all the legislation which under Confederate rule had

made the State a guilty participant in the rebellion. Thus was

swept away the ordinance of Secession, and the State debt

created in aid of the war against the Union. All these

proceedings were submitted to popular vote on the 22d of

February, and were ratified by an affirmative vote of 25,293

against a negative vote of 48. The total vote of the State at

the Presidential election of 1860 was 145,333. Mr. Lincoln's

requirement of one-tenth of that number was abundantly

complied with by the vote on the questions submitted to the

popular decision. … Under this new order of things, William G.

Brownlow, better known to the world by his soubriquet of

'Parson' Brownlow, was chosen governor without opposition on

the 4th day of March, 1865, the day of Mr. Lincoln's second

inauguration. The new Legislature met at Nashville a month

later, on the 3d of April, and on the 5th ratified the

Thirteenth Amendment; thus adding the abolition of slavery by

National authority to that already decreed by the State. The

Legislature completed its work by electing two consistent

Union men, David T. Patterson and Joseph S. Fowler, to the

United States Senate. The framework of the new Government was

thus completed and in operation before the death of Mr.

Lincoln."

J. G. Blaine,

Twenty Years of Congress,

volume 2, chapter 3.

After the organization of a loyal government in Tennessee,

more than a year passed before the restoration of the State to

its constitutional relations with the United States, by the

admission of its Senators and Representatives to Congress.

Tennessee was the first, however, among the seceded States to

obtain that recognition, by being the first to ratify the

Fourteenth Constitutional Amendment. "Immediately on the

reception of the circular of the Secretary of State containing

the proposed amendment, Governor Brownlow issued a

proclamation summoning the Legislature of Tennessee to

assemble at Nashville on the 4th of July [1866]. … Every

effort was made to prevent the assembling of the required

number [to constitute a quorum]. The powerful influence of the

President himself was thrown in opposition to ratification."

By arresting recalcitrant members, and by "the expedient of

considering the members who were under arrest and confined in

a committee room as present in their places," the quorum was

assumed to have been made up and the amendment was ratified.

"Immediately after the news was received in Washington, Mr.

Bingham, in the House of Representatives, moved to reconsider

a motion by which a joint resolution relating to the

restoration of Tennessee had been referred to the Committee on

Reconstruction," and, this motion being adopted, he introduced

a substitute which declared, "That the State of Tennessee is

hereby restored to her former, proper, practical relation to

the Union, and again entitled to be represented by Senators

and Representatives in Congress, duly elected and qualified,

upon their taking the oaths of office required by existing

laws." On the following day this joint resolution passed the

House, and a day later (July 21st), it was adopted by the

Senate.

W. H. Barnes,

History of the 39th Congress,

chapter 20.

ALSO IN:

Ira P. Jones,

Reconstruction in Tennessee

(Why the Solid South? chapter 7).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1866-1871.

The Ku Klux Klan.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

----------TENNESSEE: End--------

TENNIS-COURT OATH, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE).

TENOCHTITLAN.

The native name of the city of Mexico.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

TENPET, The.

See MAGIANS.

TENURE-OF-OFFICE BILL, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1866-1867 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

TEOTIHUACAN, Pyramids at.

See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE, &c.

TEQUESTA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

TERENTILIAN LAW, The.

See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

TERMILI, The.

See LYCIANS.

TEROUENNE: Siege and capture by the English (1513).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

TERRA FIRMA.

See TIERRA FIRME.

{3100}

TERROR, The Reign of.

As commonly used, this phrase describes the fearful state of

things that prevailed in France during a period of the French

Revolution which ended with the fall of Robespierre, July 27

(Ninth Thermidor), 1794. The beginning of the period so called

is usually placed at the date of the coup d'état, May 31-June

2, 1793, which overthrew the Girondists and gave unrestrained

power into the hands of the Terrorists of the Mountain. The

Reign of Terror was not however fully organized as a

deliberately merciless system, and made, according to the

demand of the Paris Commune, "the order of the day," until the

following September. In another view, the Reign of Terror may

be said to have begun with the creation of the terrible

Revolutionary Tribunal, March, 1793.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL), to 1794 (JULY).

TERTIARII, The.

See BEGUINES, ETC.

TESCHEN, Treaty of (1779).

See BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.

TESHER.

The name which the Egyptians gave to the Arabian desert,

signifying red earth.

See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

TESSERA HOSPITALIS.

See HOSPES.

TEST ACT, and its Repeal.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673,

and 1827-1828 REMOVAL OF DISABILITIES.

TESTRI, Battle of (A. D. 687).

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

TESTS, Religious, in the English Universities: Abolished.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.

TETONS, The.

See AMERICAN' ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

TETRARCH.

As originally used, this official title, from the Greek,

signified the governor of one fourth part of a country or

province. Later, the Romans applied it to many tributary

princes, in Syria and elsewhere, to whom they wished to give a

rank inferior to that of the tributary kings.

TETZEL, and the sale of Indulgences.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1517 TETZEL.

TEUKRIANS, The.

"The elegiac poet Kallinus, in the middle of the seventh

century B. C., was the first who mentioned the Teukrians; he

treated them as immigrants from Krête, though other authors

represented them as indigenous, or as having come from Attica.

However the fact may stand as to their origin, we may gather

that, in the time of Kallinus, they were still the great

occupants of the Troad [northwestern Asia Minor]. Gradually

the south and west coasts, as well as the interior of this

region, became penetrated by successive colonies of Æolic

Greeks. … The name Teukrians gradually vanished out of present

use and came to belong only to the legends of the past."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 14.

TEUTECAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

TEUTONES.

TEUTONIC.

"In the way of evidence of there being Teutones amongst the

Germans, over and above the associate mention of their names

with that of the Cimbri [see CIMBRI], there is but little.

They are not so mentioned either by Tacitus or Strabo. …

Arguments have been taken from … the supposed connection of

the present word 'Deut-sch' =='German,' with the classical

word 'Teut-ones.' … The reasoning … runs thus: The syllable in

question is common to the word 'Teut-ones,' 'Teut-onicus,'

'Theod-iscas,' 'teud-uiscus,' 'teut-iscus,' 'tût-iske,'

'dût-iske,' 'tiut-sche,' 'deut-sch'; whilst the word Deut-sch

means German, As the 'Teut-ones' were Germans, so were the

Cimbri also. Now this line of argument is set aside by the

circumstance that the syllable 'Teut-' in Teut-ones and

Teut-onicus as the names of the confederates of the Cimbri, is

wholly unconnected with the 'Teut-' in 'theod-iscus' and

Deut-sch. This is fully shown by Grimm in his dissertation on

the words German and Dutch. In its oldest form the latter word

meant 'popular,' 'national,' 'vernacular'; it was an adjective

applied to the 'vulgar tongue,' or the vernacular German, in

opposition to the Latin. In the tenth century the secondary

form 'Teut-onicus' came in vogue even with German writers.

Whether this arose out of imitation of the Latin form

'Romanice,' or out of the idea of an historical connection

with the Teutones of the classics, is immaterial. It is clear

that the present word 'Deut-sch' proves nothing respecting the

Teutones. Perhaps, however, as early as the time of Martial

the word 'Teutonicus' was used in a general sense, denoting

the Germans in general. Certain it is that, before his time,

it meant the particular people conquered by Marius,

irrespective of origin or locality."

R. G. Latham,

The Germany of Tacitus,

appendix 3.

TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL:

The founding of the order.

"It is not possible to find the exact date of the foundation

of the Teutonic Order, but it was probably about A. D. 1190

that it received its full organization as one of the

recognized Religious Military Orders. Its actual commencement,

like that of the other Orders, was obscure and humble. About

1128 or 1129, a wealthy German, who had taken part in the

siege and capture of Jerusalem, settled there with his wife,

intending to spend the remainder of his life in the practice

of religion and in visiting the holy places. His attention and

interest were soon excited by the misfortunes of his poorer

countrymen, who came in great numbers as pilgrims to

Jerusalem. Many fell sick, and endured great miseries and

hardships. Moved with compassion, he received some of the more

distressing cases into his own house. But he soon found that

the work grew beyond this, and he built a hospital, with a

chapel dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. In this institution he

passed the whole of his time, nursing the sick pilgrims; and

to their maintenance he devoted the whole of his means." One

by one, others of his countrymen joined the pious German in

his benevolent work, and "banded themselves together after the

pattern of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, and united the

care of the sick and poor with the profession of arms in their

defence, under the title of Hospitallers of the Blessed

Virgin. This little band put themselves under the direction of

the Grand Prior of the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem,

although they did not actually join this Order, whose

operations they so closely imitated. … It was, however, during

the siege of Acre [A. D. 1189-1191] that the Teutonic Order

received its final and complete organization as one of the

great Military Religious Orders of Europe." At Acre, the

Hospitallers of the Blessed Virgin, then driven from Jerusalem

by Saladin's conquest, joined certain citizens of Bremen and

Lu·beck in providing a field-hospital for the wounded and

sick, and in their new sphere of labor they acquired the

designation of the Teutonic Knights of the Hospital of the

Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem. "It is said that the Order owed

its constitution to Frederick, Duke of Suabia; but there is

much obscurity, and little authentic record to determine this

or to furnish particulars of the transaction. The Order seems,

however, to have been confirmed by Pope Celestine III."

F. C. Woodhouse,

Military Religious Orders,

part 3, chapter 1.

{3101}

TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL:

Conquest of Prussia.

See PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY; and LIVONIA.

TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL:

Subjection to Poland, secularization of the Order

and surrender of its territories.

See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL: A. D. 1809.

Suppression by Napoleon.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).

TEWFIK, Khedive of Egypt, The reign of.

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

TEWKESBURY, Battle of (1471).

The final battle of the "War of the Roses," in which Edward

IV. of England overthrew the last Lancastrian army, collected

by Queen Margaret of Anjou and her adherents; fought May 4,

1471. Three weeks previously, at Barnet, he had defeated and

slain the Earl of Warwick. At Tewkesbury Queen Margaret was

taken prisoner, her young son disappeared, how or when is

uncertain, and her husband, the deposed King Henry VI., died

mysteriously a few days afterwards in his prison in the tower.

It was the end of the Lancastrian struggle.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

----------TEXAS: Start--------

TEXAS:

The aboriginal inhabitants and the name.

Amongst the small tribes found early in the 19th century

existing west of the Mississippi on Red River and south of it,

and believed to be natives of that region, were the Caddoes,

"the Nandakoes, the Inies or Tachies, who have given their

name to the province of Texas, and the Nabedaches, … [who]

speak dialects of the Caddo language." Also, the Natchitoches,

the Yatassees, the Adaize, the Appelousas, etc.

A. Gallatin,

Synopsis of the Indian Tribes

(Archœologia Americana, volume 2),

introduction, section 3.

ALSO IN:

President's Message, February 19, 1806,

with accompanying documents.

See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.

TEXAS: A. D. 1685-1687.

La Salle's shipwrecked colony.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.

Relinquishment of American claims to Spain.

Condition as a Mexican province.

Encouragement of immigration from the United States and Europe.

"By the treaty of 1819 with Spain for the cession of the

Floridas, the United States relinquished all claim to the

western portion of Louisiana lying south of Red River and west

of the Sabine.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1819-1821;

and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

After the final ratification of that treaty by both

governments, and the cession and delivery of the Floridas to

the United States, the Spaniards took formal possession of the

country west of the Sabine, and erected it into the 'Province

of Texas,' under the authority and jurisdiction of the Viceroy

of Mexico. From that time the Sabine River was the western

boundary of the United States, near the Gulf of Mexico. The

province of Texas at this time was occupied by the native

tribes of savages, interrupted only by a few Spanish

settlements. … The whole population, including some

settlements in the vicinity of the seacoast, scarcely exceeded

5,000 souls, of whom the greater portion were the remains of

old colonies formed during the Spanish dominion over the

province of Louisiana. Each principal settlement, from San

Antonio de Bexar to Nacogdoches, was placed under the

government of a military commandant, who exercised civil and

military authority within the limits of his presidio. … Such

was the province of Texas under the Spanish monarchy until the

year 1821, when Mexico became an independent nation. … On the

24th of October, 1824, the Mexican States adopted a Republican

form of government, embracing 'a confederation of independent

states,' known and designated as the 'United States of

Mexico.' In this confederation the departments of Texas and

Coahuila were admitted as one state, and were jointly

represented in the Congress of Mexico. Soon after the

establishment of independence in the United States of Mexico,

the colonization and settlement of Texas became a favorite

subject of national policy with the new government. To attract

population for the settlement of the country, colonization

laws were enacted, to encourage enterprising individuals from

foreign countries to establish large colonies of emigrants

within the limits of Texas. Under the provisions of these laws

enterprise was awakened in the United States and in some

portions of Europe. Founders of colonies, or 'Empresarios,'

were induced to enter into engagements for the occupancy and

settlement of large tracts of country, designated in their

respective 'grants'; the extent of the grant being

proportionate to the number of colonists to be introduced. The

first grant was made to Moses Austin, a native of Durham,

Connecticut, in 1821, and under its provisions he was required

by the Mexican authorities to introduce 300 families from the

United States. This enterprising man, having departed from

Bexar for the introduction of his colony, died on his journey

through the wilderness, leaving his plans of colonization to

be prosecuted by his son, Colonel Stephen F. Austin, who

possessed the talents, energy, and judgment requisite for the

arduous undertaking. Having succeeded to his father's

enterprise, he subsequently acquired more influence with the

Mexican government than any other 'empresario' in the

province. … But a few years had elapsed when nearly the whole

area of the department of Texas had been parceled out into

extensive grants for settlement by the different 'empresarios'

with their colonies. … Emigration from the United States, as

well as from Great Britain and Ireland, continued to augment

the population in all the departments until the year 1834,

when political troubles began to convulse the "Mexican

Republic." In 1835 "the whole Anglo-American population of

Texas was about 20,000; of this number General Austin's colony

comprised no less than 13,000, or more than half the entire

population. These were chiefly emigrants from the United

States. … The Mexicans within the limits of Texas at this

period scarcely exceeded 3,000, most of whom resided in the

vicinity of Bexar."

J. W. Monette,

Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley,

volume 2, pages 569-572.

ALSO IN:

H. Yoakum,

History of Texas,

volume 1, chapters 15-21.

{3102}

TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

The introduction of Slavery.

Schemes of the Slave Power in the United States.

Revolutionary movement under Houston.

Independence of Mexico declared,

and practically won at San Jacinto.

The American settlers in Texas "brought their slaves with

them, and continued to do so notwithstanding a decree of the

Mexican Congress, issued in July, 1824, which forbade the

importation into Mexican territory of slaves from foreign

countries, and notwithstanding the Constitution adopted the

same year, which declared free all children thereafter born of

slaves. About that time the slave-holders in the United States

began to see in Texas an object of peculiar interest to them.

The Missouri Compromise, admitting Missouri as a Slave State

and opening to slavery all that part of the Louisiana purchase

south of 36° 30', seemed at first to give a great advantage to

the slave power. But gradually it became apparent that the

territory thus opened to slavery was, after all, too limited

for the formation of many new Slave States, while the area for

the building up of Free States was much larger. More territory

for slavery was therefore needed to maintain the balance of

power between the two sections. At the same time the Mexican

government, growing alarmed at the unruly spirit of the

American colony in Texas, attached Texas to Coahuila, the two

to form one state. The constitution of Coahuila forbade the

importation of slaves; and in 1829 the Republic of Mexico, by

the decree of September 15, emancipated all the slaves within

its boundaries. Then the American Slave States found

themselves flanked in the southwest by a power not only not in

sympathy with slavery, but threatening to become dangerous to

its safety. The maintenance of slavery in Texas, and

eventually the acquisition of that country, were thenceforth

looked upon by the slaveholding interest in this Republic as

matters of very great importance, and the annexation project

was pushed forward systematically. First the American settlers

in Texas refused to obey the Mexican decree of emancipation,

and, in order to avoid an insurrection, the Mexican

authorities permitted it to be understood that the decree did

not embrace Texas. Thus one point was gained. Then the

Southern press vigorously agitated the necessity of enlarging

the area of slavery, while an interest in the North was

created by organizing three land companies in New York, which

used pretended Mexican land grants in Texas as the basis of

issues of stock, promising to make people rich over-night, and

thus drawing Texas within the circle of American business

speculation. In 1830 President Jackson made another attempt to

purchase Texas [Henry Clay, in 1827, when Secretary of State

under John Quincy Adams, had already made a proposal to the

Mexican government for the purchase], offering five millions,

but without success. The Mexican government, scenting the

coming danger, prohibited the immigration of Americans into

Texas. This, however, had no effect. The American colony now

received a capable and daring leader in Sam Houston of

Tennessee, who had served with General Jackson in the Indian

wars. He went to Texas for the distinct object of wresting

that country from Mexico. There is reason for believing that

President Jackson was not ignorant of his intentions.

Revolutionary convulsions in Mexico gave the American

colonists welcome opportunities for complaints, which led to

collisions with the Mexican authorities. General Santa Anna,

who by a successful revolutionary stroke had put himself at

the head of the Mexican government, attempted to reduce the

unruly Americans to obedience. In 1835 armed conflicts took

place, in which the Americans frequently had the advantage.

The Texans declared their independence from Mexico on March 2,

1836. The declaration was signed by about 60 men, among whom

there were only two of Mexican nationality. The constitution

of the new republic confirmed the existence of slavery under

its jurisdiction, and surrounded it with all possible

guaranties. Meanwhile Santa Anna advanced at the head of a

Mexican army to subdue the revolutionists. Atrocious

butcheries marked the progress of his soldiery. On March 6 the

American garrison [250 men] of the Alamo [a mission church at

San Antonio de Bexar] was massacred, and on the 27th a large

number [500] of American prisoners at Goliad met a like fate.

These atrocities created a great excitement in the United

States. But on April 21 the Texans under Houston, about 800

strong, inflicted a crushing defeat upon Santa Anna's army of

1,500 men, at San Jacinto, taking Santa Anna himself prisoner.

When captive Mexican President concluded an armistice with the

victorious Texans, promising the evacuation of the country,

and to procure the recognition of its independence; but this

the Mexican Congress refused to ratify. The government of the

United States maintained, in appearance, a neutral position.

President Jackson had indeed instructed General Gaines to

march his troops into Texas, if he should see reason to

apprehend Indian incursions. Gaines actually crossed the

boundary line, and was recalled only after the Mexican

Minister at Washington had taken his passports. The

organization of reinforcements for Houston, however, had been

suffered to proceed on American soil without interference."

C. Schurz,

Life of Henry Clay,

chapter 17 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

H. von Holst,

Constitutional and Political History of the United States,

volume 2, chapter 7.

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 7.

A. M. Williams,

Sam Houston and the War of Independence in Texas.

TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.

Eight years of independence.

Annexation to the United States.

The question in Congress and the country.

"Santa Anna, … constrained in his extremity to acknowledge the

independence of Texas, … was liberated, and the new republic

established in October, 1836, with a Constitution modeled on

that of the United States, and with General Houston

inaugurated as its first President. The United States

forthwith acknowledged its independence. In less than a year

application was made to the United States government to

receive the new republic into the Union, and, though this was

at the time declined, it was obvious that the question was

destined to play a most important part in American civil

policy. The North saw in the whole movement a predetermined

attempt at the extension of slavery, and in the invasive

emigration, the revolt, the proclamation of independence, the

temporary organization of a republic, and the application to

be admitted into the Union as a state, successive steps of a

conspiracy which would, through the creation of half a dozen

or more new states, give a preponderance to the slave power in

the republic.

{3103}

Mr. Van Buren, who had declined the overtures for the

annexation of Texas, was succeeded in the Presidency by

General Harrison, who, dying almost immediately after his

inauguration, was followed by the Vice President, Mr. Tyler, a

Virginian, and a supporter of extreme Southern principles. The

annexation project was now steadily pressed forward, but,

owing to the difficult circumstances under which Mr. Tyler was

placed, and dissensions arising in the party that had elected

him, nothing decisive could be done until 1844, when Mr.

Upshur, the Secretary of State, being accidentally killed by

the bursting of a cannon, Mr. Calhoun succeeded him. A treaty

of annexation was at once arranged, but, on being submitted to

the Senate, was rejected. Undiscouraged by this result, the

South at once determined to make annexation the touchstone in

the coming Presidential election. … Mr. Van Buren and Mr.

Clay, the prominent candidates of the two opposing parties for

the Presidency, were compelled to make known their views

previously to the meeting of the nominating Conventions," and

both discountenanced annexation. Van Buren was accordingly

defeated in the Democratic Convention and James K. Polk

received the nomination. Clay was nominated by the Whigs, and

made an attempt, in the succeeding canvass, to change his

ground on the Texas question; but "his attempt only served to

make the matter worse, and cost him the support of the

anti-slavery party, whose votes would have elected him." Polk

was chosen President: but the annexation of Texas did not wait

for his inauguration. "On December 19th a joint resolution was

introduced into the House of Representatives providing for

annexation. Attempts were made to secure half the country for

free labor, the other half being resigned to slavery. … This

proposition was, however, defeated. … As the measure

eventually stood, it made suitable provision for the mode in

which the 'State of Texas' should be admitted into the Union,

the disposal of its munitions of war, public property,

unappropriated lands, debts. On the main point it was arranged

that new states, not exceeding four in number, in addition to

Texas proper, should subsequently be made out of its

territory, those lying south of latitude 36° 30' to be

admitted with or without slavery, as their people might

desire; in those north of that line, slavery to be prohibited.

Mr. Tyler, on the last day of his term of office, unwilling to

leave to his successor, Mr. Polk, the honor of completing this

great Southern measure, dispatched a swift messenger to Texas;

her assent was duly secured, and the Mexican province became a

state of the Union. But the circumstances and conditions under

which this had been done left a profound dissatisfaction in

the North. The portion of territory ceded to freedom did not

belong to Texas; her boundary did not approach within 200

miles of the Missouri Compromise line. The South had therefore

secured the whole of the new acquisition; she had seized the

substance, and had deluded the North with a shadow."

J. W. Draper,

History of the American Civil War,

volume 1, chapter 22.

ALSO IN:

T. H. Benton,

Thirty Years View,

volume 2, chapters 135, 138-142, 148.

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 8, chapter 13.

H. Greeley,

History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension,

chapter 10.

TEXAS: A. D. 1846-1848.

The Mexican War.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1846; 1846-1847: and 1847.

TEXAS: A. D. 1848.

Territory extorted from Mexico in the

Treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

TEXAS: A. D. 1850.

Sale of territory to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

TEXAS: A. D. 1861 (February).

Secession from the Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

TEXAS: A. D. 1861 (February).

Twiggs' surrender of the Federal army, posts and stores.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1860-1861 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).

TEXAS: A. D. 1862.

Farragut's occupation of coast towns.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

TEXAS: A. D. 1865 (June).

Provisional government set up under President Johnson's

Plan of Reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

TEXAS: A. D. 1865-1870.

Reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), and after, to 1868-1870.

----------TEXAS: End--------

TEZCUCO.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

THABORITES, The.

See MYSTICISM.

THAI RACE, The.

See SIAM.

THAMANÆANS, The.

An ancient people who occupied the region in western

Afghanistan which lies south and southeast of Herat, from the

Haroot-rud to the Helmend.

G. Rawlinson,

Five Great Monarchies, Persia,

chapter 1.

THAMES, Battle of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

THANAGE.

An old Celtic tenure by which certain thanes' estates were

held in Scotland, and which feudalism displaced.

W. F. Skene,

Celtic Scotland,

volume 3, page 246.

THANE,

THEGN.

See COMITATUS;

and ETHEL;

and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

THANET, The Jute Landing on.

See ENGLAND: A. D.449-473.

THANKSGIVING DAY, The American:

Its origin.

"The Pilgrims [at Plymouth], fond as they were of social

enjoyment, had since landing known no day of rest except the

sacred day of worship. Now [in 1621, the year after their

landing from the Mayflower] that the summer was past and the

harvest ended, they determined to have a period of recreation,

combined with thanksgiving for their many mercies. The

Governor thereupon sent out four huntsmen, who in one day

secured enough game to supply the Colony for nearly a week.

Hospitality was extended to Massasoit, who accepted and

brought ninety people with him. The guests remained three

days, during which they captured five deer to add to the

larder of their hosts. The motley company indulged in a round

of amusements, and the Colonists entertained their visitors

with military tactics and evolutions. Without doubt, religious

services opened each day; for the Pilgrims were cheerful

Christians, who carried religion into all their affairs. Thus

heartily and royally was inaugurated the great New England

festival of Thanksgiving. For two centuries it continued to be

a peculiarity of the Eastern States; but it has now become

national, its annual return finding a welcome along the Lake

shore and the Gulf, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. …

{3104}

In 1623 a public day of Thanksgiving is noticed; and one is

mentioned in a letter of 1632. … I do not doubt that such a

religious festival was held after every harvest, and that it

was so much a matter of course that the records did not

mention it any more than they did the great training-day, with

its sermon and holiday features."

J. A. Goodwin,

The Pilgrim Republic,

pages 179-180, and foot-note.

THANN,

THAUN,

Battle of (1638).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

Battle of (1809).

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

THAPSACUS.

Thapsacus "was situated just above the modern town of Rakka,

at the only point in the central course of the Euphrates where

that river is fordable (though even here only at certain

seasons of the year), for which reason it continued to be used

alike by the Persian, Greek and Roman armies during a long

period. It was also a commercial route of importance in

ancient times."

E. H. Bunbury,

History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 10, section 2 (volume 1).

See, also, APAMEA.

THAPSUS, The Battle of (B. C. 46).

See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

THAPSUS: The Tyrian colony.

See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

THASOS.

THASIAN MINES.

Thasos, an island off the coast of Thrace, in the northern

part of the Ægean Sea, was celebrated in antiquity for its

gold mines, first discovered and worked by the Phœnicians.

Still more valuable mines on the neighboring Thracian coast

were developed and worked by the Thasians. They were subdued

by the Persians and subsequently became subject to Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

THAUR, The Cave of Mount.

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

THAUSS, Battle of (1431).

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

THEATINES, The.

The founders of the Order of the Theatines (1524) were

"Gaetano of Thiene, a native of Vicenza, and Gian Pietro

Caraffa [afterwards Pope Paul IV.]. The former had quitted a

lucrative post at the Roman court in order to transplant the

ideas of the Oratory of the Divine Love to his native city,

Venice, and Verona, and had gradually come to concentrate his

pious thoughts upon the reformation of the secular clergy of

the Church. On his return to Rome, Bonifacio da Colle, a

Lombard lawyer, became interested in his design, and then it

was enthusiastically taken up by Caraffa, whose bishopric of

Chieti, or, according to the older form, Theate, gave its name

to the new order of the Theatines."

A. W. Ward,

The Counter-Reformation,

page 28.

"To the vow of poverty they made the special addition that not

only would they possess nothing, but would even abstain from

begging, and await the alms that might be brought to their

dwellings. … They did not call themselves monks, but regular

clergy—they were priests with the vows of monks. Their

intention was to establish a kind of seminary for the

priesthood. … They devoted themselves rigidly to their

clerical duties—o preaching, the administration of the

sacraments, and the care of the sick. … The order of the

Theatines did not indeed become a seminary for priests

precisely, its numbers were never sufficient for that; but it

grew to be a seminary for bishops, coming at length to be

considered the order of priests peculiar to the nobility."

L. Ranke,

History of the Popes,

book 2, section 3 (volume 1).

THEBAIS, The.

The southern district of Upper Egypt, taking its name from

Thebes.

THEBES, Egypt.

"No city of the old world can still show so much of her former

splendour as Egyptian Thebes. … Not one of the many temples of

Thebes has wholly disappeared; some are almost complete; many

of the royal and private tombs were, until the tourist came,

fresh with colours as of yesterday. … The origin of the great

city is obscure. Unlike Memphis, Thebes, her southern rival,

rose to the headship by slow degrees. It was towards the close

of the dark age marked by the rule of Hanes, that a new line

of kings arose in the upper country, with Thebes for their

capital. At first they were merely nobles; then one became a

local king, and his successors won the whole dominion of

Egypt. These were the sovereigns of the Eleventh Dynasty.

Their date must be before Abraham, probably some centuries

earlier. … Thebes, like the other cities of Egypt, had a civil

and a religious name. The civil name was Apiu, 'the city of

thrones,' which, with the article 't' or 'ta,' became Ta-Apiu,

and was identified by the Greeks with the name of their own

famous city, by us corruptly called Thebes. The sacred name

was Nu-Amen, 'the city of Amen,' the god of Thebes; or simply

Nu, 'the city,' and Nu-ā, 'the great city.' In these names we

recognize the No-Amon and No of Scripture."

R. S. Poole,

Cities of Egypt,

chapter 4.

See, also, EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.

----------THEBES, Greece: Start--------

THEBES, Greece:

The founding of the city.

"In the fruitful plain, only traversed by low hills, which

stretches from the northern declivity of Mount Cithæron to the

Bœotian lakes opposite the narrowest part of the sound which

separates Eubœa from the mainland, in the 'well-watered,

pasture-bearing region of the Aones,' as Euripides says, lay

the citadel and town of Thebes. According to Greek tradition,

it was built by Cadmus the Phœnician. The Aones, who inhabited

the country, are said to have amalgamated with the Phœnicians

whom Cadmus brought with him, into one people. The citadel lay

on a hill of moderate height between the streams Ismenus and

Dirce; it bore even in historical times the name Cadmea; the

ridge to the north of the town was called Phœnicium, i. e.

mountain of the Phœnicians. In the story of Cadmus and Europa,

Greek legend relates the Phœnician mythus of Melkarth and

Astarte. In order to seek the lost goddess of the moon,

Astarte, Cadmus-Melkarth, the wandering sun-god, sets forth.

He finds her in the far west, in Bœotia, and here in Thebes,

on the Cadmea, celebrates the holy marriage. … There are a few

relics of the wall of the citadel of Cadmea, principally on

the north side; they are great blocks, not quite regularly

hewn. Of the city wall and the famous seven gates in it

nothing remains; even this number seven points to the

Phœnicians as well as the designations which were retained by

these gates even in historical times. The Electric gate

belonged to the sun-god Baal, called by the Greeks Elector;

the Neitic gate, it would seem, to the god of war. …

{3105}

The gate Hypsistia was that of Zeus Hypsistos, whose shrine

stood on the Cadmea; … the Prœtidic gate belonged to Astarte,

whose domain was the moon; the Oncæic gate in the north-west

belonged to Athena Onca, who is expressly called a Phœnician

goddess. … It is probable that the two remaining gates, the

Homoloic and the Crenaic, were also dedicated to gods of this

circle—to the spirits of planets. According to Greek legend,

Cadmus invented the building of walls, mining, armour, and

letters. Herodotus contents himself with saying that the

Phœnicians who came with Cadmus taught much to the Greeks,

even writing: from the Phœnicians the Ionians, in whose midst

they lived, had learned letters. If even this early borrowing

of writing on the part of the Greeks is incorrect, all the

other particulars,—the legend of Cadmus, which extends to the

Homeric poems, where the inhabitants of Thebes are called

Cadmeans; the rites of the Thebans; the walls and gates,—

taken together, give evidence that the Phœnicians went over

from Eubœa to the continent, and here fixed one of their most

important and lasting colonies upon and around the hill of

Cadmea."

M. Duncker,

History of Greece,

book 1, chapter 4.

See, also, BŒOTIA.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 509-506.

Unsuccessful war with Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 480.

Traitorous alliance with the Persians.

See GREECE: B. C. 480 (SALAMIS).

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 479.

Siege and reduction by the confederate Greeks.

Punishment for the Persian alliance.

See GREECE: B. C. 479 (PLATÆA).

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 457-456.

War with Athens.

Defeat at Œnophyta.

Overthrow of the oligarchies.

See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 447-445.

Bœotian revolution.

Overthrow of Athenian influence.

Defeat of Athens at Coronea.

See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 431.

Disastrous attack on Platæa.

Opening hostilities of the Peloponnesian War.

See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 404-403.

Shelter and aid to Athenian patriots.

See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 395-387.

Confederacy against Sparta and alliance with Persia.

The Corinthian War.

Battle of Coronea.

Peace of Antalcidas.

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 383.

The betrayal of the city to the Spartans.

See GREECE: B. C. 383.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 379-371.

The liberation of the city.

Rise of Epaminondas.

Overthrow of Spartan supremacy at Leuctra.

See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 378.

The Sacred Band.

"This was an institution connecting itself with earlier usages

of the land. For already in the battle of Delium a band of the

Three Hundred is mentioned, who fought, like the heroes of the

Homeric age, associated in pairs, from their chariots in front

of the main body of the soldiery. This doubtless very ancient

institution was now [B. C. 378] revived and carried out in a

new spirit under the guidance of Epaminondas and Gorgidas.

They had quietly assembled around them a circle of youths,

with whom they had presented themselves before the community

on the day of the Liberation, so that they were regarded as

the founders of the Sacred Band of Thebes. It was now no

longer a privilege of the nobility to belong to the Three

Hundred; but those among the youth of the land who were in

feeling the noblest and most high-minded, and who already

under the oppression of the Tyrants had been preparing

themselves for the struggle for freedom, were henceforth the

elect and the champions. It was their duty to stimulate the

rest eagerly to follow their example of bravery and

discipline; they were associated with one another by the bonds

of friendship and by identity of feelings. … A soldier-like

spirit was happily blended with ethical and political points

of view, and ancient national usage with the ideas of the

present and with Pythagorean principles; and it constitutes an

honorable monument of the wisdom of Epaminondas."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 6, chapter 1.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 370-362.

Intervention in Peloponnesus.

Successive expeditions of Epaminondas.

Invasions of Sparta.

Formation of the Arcadian Union.

Battle of Mantinea and death of Epaminondas.

See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 357-338.

The Ten Years Sacred War with the Phocians.

Intervention of Philip of Macedon.

Loss of independence and liberty.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 335.

Revolt.

Destruction by Alexander the Great.

See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 316.

Restoration by Cassander of Macedonia.

See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 291-290.

Siege of by Demetrius.

Thebes, with other Bœotian towns, united in a revolt against

Demetrius Poliorcetes, while the latter held the throne of

Macedonia, and was reduced to submission, B. C. 290, after a

siege which lasted nearly a year.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 60.

THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1146.

Sack by the Normans of Sicily.

Abduction of silk-weavers.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1205.

Included in the Latin duchy of Athens.

See ATHENS: A. D. 1205.

THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1311.

Conquest by the Catalans.

See CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.

----------THEBES, Greece: End--------

THEGN,

THANE.

See COMITATUS; ETHEL; and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

THEIPHALI.

THEIPHALIA.

See TAIFALÆ.

THEMES.

Administrative divisions of the Byzantine Empire. "The term

thema was first applied to the Roman legion. The military

districts, garrisoned by legions, were then called themata,

and ultimately the word was used merely to indicate

geographical administrative divisions."

G. Finlay,

History of the Byzantine Empire,

book 1, chapter 1, section 1, foot-note.

See, also, BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717.

THEMISTOCLES, Ascendancy and fall of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 489-480, to 477-462.

THEODORA,

Empress in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),

A. D. 1042, and 1054-1056.

THEODORE, King of Corsica.

See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

Theodore I., Pope, A. D. 642-649.

Theodore II., Pope, 898.

Theodore or Feodore, II., Czar of Russia, 1584-1598.

Theodore III., Czar of Russia, 1676-1682.

Theodore Lascaris I., Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1206-1222.

Theodore Lascaris II., Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1255-1259.

THEODORIC, Ostrogothic kingdom of.

See GOTHS: A. D. 473-488;

and ROME: A. D. 488-526.

{3106}

THEODOSIAN CODE, The.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

THEODOSIUS I., Roman Emperor

(Eastern), A. D. 378-395;

(Western), 392-395;

in Britain.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.

Theodosius II., Roman Emperor

(Eastern), 408-450;

(Western), 423-425.

Theodosius III., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 716-717.

THEOPHILUS,

Emperor in the East, (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 829-842.

THEORI.

The name of Theori, among the ancient Greeks, "in addition to

its familiar signification of spectators at the theatre and

public ambassadors to foreign sanctuaries and festivals, was

specially applied to certain public magistrates, whose

function it was to superintend and take charge of religious

affairs in general, though they often possessed along with

this some more extensive political power."

G. Schumann,

Antiquities of Greece: The State,

part 2, chapter 5.

THEORICON, The.

"By means of the Theoricon …, the most pernicious issue of

the age of Pericles, there arose in a small free state

[Athens] a lavish expenditure, which was relatively not less

than in the most voluptuous courts, and which consumed large

sums, while the wars were unsuccessful for the want of money.

By it is understood the money which was distributed among the

people for the celebration of the festivals and games, partly

to restore to the citizens the sum required for their

admission into the theatre, partly to enable them to procure a

better meal. In part it was expended for sacrifices, with

which a public feast was connected. … The superintendents of

the theoricon were not called treasurers; but they evidently

had a treasury. Their office was one of the administrative

offices of the government, and indeed of the most eminent.

They were elected by the assembly of the people through

cheirotonia. Their office seems to have been annual. Their

number is nowhere given. Probably there were ten of them, one

from each tribe. … The Athenian people was a tyrant, and the

treasury of the theorica its private treasury."

A. Boeckh,

Public Economy of Athens

(translated by Lamb),

book 2, chapter 7; also chapter 13.

THEOW.

"In the earliest English laws … slaves are found; the 'theow'

[from the same root as 'dienen,' to serve] or slave simple,

whether 'wealh'—that is, of British extraction, captured or

purchased—or of the common German stock descended from the

slaves of the first colonists; the 'esne' or slave who works

for hire; the 'wite-theow' who is reduced to slavery because

he cannot pay his debts."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 5, section 37.

THERA.

The ancient name of the Greek island of Santorin, one of the

Sporades, whose inhabitants were enterprising navigators, and

weavers and dyers of purple stuffs. They are said to have

founded Cyrene, on the north African coast.

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 2, chapter 3.

See CYRENAICA.

"The island was the site of one of the largest volcanic

eruptions in recorded history … about [1600 B. C.] at

the height of the Minoan civilization."

Wikipedia: Santorini.

Transcriber's Note.

THERMÆ.

"The Roman thermæ were a combination on a huge scale of the

common balneæ with the Greek gymnasia. Their usual form was

that of a large quadrangular space, the sides of which were

formed by various porticos, exedræ, and even theatres for

gymnastic and literary exercises, and in the centre of which

stood a block of buildings containing the bath rooms and

spacious halls for undergoing the complicated process of the

Roman warm bath. The area covered by the whole group of

buildings was, in many cases, very large. The court of the

Baths of Caracalla enclosed a space of 1,150 feet on each

side, with curvilinear projections on two sides. The central

mass of building was a rectangle, 730 feet by 380. … The other

great Imperial thermæ of Rome, those of Nero, Titus, Domitian,

Diocletian, and Constantine, were probably upon the same plan

as the Thermæ Caracallæ. All were built of brick, and the

interior was decorated with stucco, mosaics, or slabs of

marble, and other ornamental stones. … The public balneæ, as

distinct from thermæ, … were used simply as baths, and had

none of the luxurious accessories attached to them which were

found in the courts of the great thermæ."

R. Burn,

Rome and the Campagna,

introduction.

THERMIDOR, The month.

See FRANCE; A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)

THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

THERMIDORIANS.

The Ninth of Thermidor.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (JULY), and

1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of.

See THESSALY.

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 480.

The defense by Leonidas against the Persians.

See GREECE: B. C. 480 (THERMOPYLÆ).

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 352.

Repulse of Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-330.

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 279.

Defense against the Gauls.

See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 191.

Defeat of Antiochus by the Romans.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: A. D. 1822.

Greek victory over the Turks.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

THERVINGI, The.

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

THESES OF LUTHER, The Ninety-five.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1517.

THESMOPHORIA, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 383.

THESMOTHETES.

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

THESPROTIANS.

See EPIRUS; and HELLAS.

----------THESSALONICA: Start--------

THESSALONICA.

Therma, an unimportant ancient city of Macedonia, received the

name of Thessalonica, about 315 B. C., in honor of the sister

of Alexander the Great, who married Cassander. Cassander gave

an impetus to the city which proved lasting. It rose to a high

commercial rank, acquired wealth, and became, under the

Romans, the capital of the Illyrian provinces.

THESSALONICA: A. D. 390.

Massacre ordered by Theodosius.

A riotous outbreak at Thessalonica, A. D. 390, caused by the

imprisonment of one of the popular favorites of the circus,

was punished by the Emperor Theodosius in a manner so fiendish

that it seems wellnigh incredible. He caused the greatest

possible number of the inhabitants to be invited, in his name,

to witness certain games in the circus. "As soon as the

assembly was complete, the soldiers, who had secretly been

posted round the circus, received the signal, not of the

races, but of a general massacre.

{3107}

The promiscuous carnage continued three hours, without

discrimination of strangers or natives, of age or sex, of

innocence or guilt; the most moderate accounts state the

number of the slain at 7,000; and it is affirmed by some

writers that more than 15,000 victims were sacrificed. … The

guilt of the emperor is aggravated by his long and frequent

residence at Thessalonica."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 27.

THESSALONICA: A. D. 904.

Capture and pillage by the Saracens.

The capture of Thessalonica by a piratical expedition from

Tarsus, A. D. 904, was one of the most terrible experiences of

its kind in that age of blood and rapine, and one of which the

fullest account, by an eye-witness and sufferer, has come down

to posterity. The wretched inhabitants who escaped the sword

were mostly sold into slavery, and the splendid city—then the

second in the Byzantine Empire—was stripped of all its wealth.

The defense of the place had been neglected, with implicit

dependence on the goodwill and the power of St. Demetrius.

G. Finlay,

History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,

book 2, chapter 1, section 2.

THESSALONICA: A. D. 1204-1222.

Capital of the kingdom of Saloniki.

See SALONIKI.

THESSALONICA: A. D. 1222-1234.

The Greek empire.

See EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350.

THESSALONICA: A. D. 1430.

Capture by the Turks.

Thessalonica, feebly defended by Venetians and Greeks, was

taken by the Turks, under Amurath II., in February, 1430.

"'The pillage and the carnage,' relates the Greek Anagnosta,

an eye-witness of this disastrous night, 'transcended the

hopes of the Turks and the terror of the Greeks. No family

escaped the swords, the chains, the flames, the outrages of

the Asiatics fierce for their prey. At the close of the day,

each soldier drove like a herd before him, through the streets

of Salonica, troops of women, of young girls, of children, of

caloyers and anchorites, of monks of all the monasteries.

Priests were chained with virgins, children with old men,

mothers with their sons, in derision of age, of profession, of

sex, which added a barbarous irony to nudity and death

itself.'"

A. Lamartine,

History of Turkey,

book 10, section 27.

----------THESSALONICA: End--------

THESSALY.

"The northern part of Greece is traversed in its whole length

by a range of mountains, the Greek Apennines, which issue from

the same mighty root, the Thracian Scomius, in which Hæmus,

and Rhodopé and the Illyrian Alps likewise meet. This ridge

first takes the name of Pindus, where it intersects the

northern boundary of Greece, at a point where an ancient route

still affords the least difficult passage from Epirus into

Thessaly. From Pindus two huge arms stretch towards the

eastern sea and enclose the vale of Thessaly, the largest and

richest plain in Greece: on the north the Cambunian Hills,

after making a bend towards the south, terminate in the

loftier heights of Olympus, which are scarcely ever entirely

free from snow; the opposite and lower chain of Othrys

parting, with its eastern extremity, the Malian from the

Pagasæan Gulf, sinks gently towards the coast. A fourth

rampart, which runs parallel to Pindus, is formed by the range

which includes the celebrated heights of Pelion and Ossa; the

first a broad and nearly even ridge, the other towering into a

steep and conical peak, the neighbour and rival of Olympus,

with which, in the songs of the country, it is said to dispute

the pre-eminence in the depth and duration of its snows. The

mountain barrier with which Thessaly is thus encompassed is

broken only at the northeast corner by a deep and narrow

cleft, which parts Ossa from Olympus; the defile so renowned

in poetry as the vale, in history as the pass, of Tempe. The

imagination of the ancient poets and declaimers delighted to

dwell on the natural beauties of this romantic glen and on the

sanctity of the site, from which Apollo had transplanted his

laurel to Delphi. … South of this gulf [the Gulf of Pagasæ],

the coast is again deeply indented by that of Malia, into

which the Spercheius, rising from Mount Tymphrestus, a

continuation of Pindus, winds through a long, narrow vale,

which, though considered as a part of Thessaly, forms a

separate region, widely distinguished from the rest by its

physical features. It is intercepted between Othrys and Œta, a

huge, rugged pile, which stretching from Pindus to the sea at

Thermopylæ, forms the inner barrier of Greece, as the

Cambunian range is the outer, to which it corresponds in

direction and is nearly equal in height. From Mount

Callidromus, a southern limb of Œta, the same range is

continued without interruption, though under various names and

different degrees of elevation, along the coast of the Eubœan

Sea. … Another branch, issuing from the same part of Pindus,

connects it with the loftier summits of Parnassus, and

afterward skirting the Corinthian Gulf under the names of

Cirphis and Helicon, proceeds to form the northern boundary of

Attica under those of Cithæron and Parnes."

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 1 (volume 1).

In the mythical legends of Greece, Thessaly was the kingdom of

Hellen, transmitted to his son Æolus and occupied originally

by the Æolic branch of the Hellenic family. The Æolians,

however, appear to have receded from the rich Thessalian

plain, into Bœotia and elsewhere, before various invading

tribes. The people who fixed their name, at last, upon the

country, the Thessalians, came into it from Epirus, crossing

the Pindus mountain-range.

See, also, GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS;

and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

THETES, The.

See DEBT, ANCIENT LEGISLATION CONCERNING: GREEK;

also, ATHENS: B. C. 594.

THEUDEBERT, King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 596-612.

THIASI.

"The name denotes associations [in ancient Athens] which had

chosen as their special protector and patron some deity in

whose honour at certain times they held sacrifices and festal

banquets, whilst they pursued in addition objects of a very

varied nature, sometimes joint-stock businesses, sometimes

only social enjoyments."

G. F. Schömann,

Antiquities of Greece,

part 3, chapter 3, section 2.

THIBAULT I., King of Navarre, A. D. 1236-1253.

Thibault II., King of Navarre, 1253-1270.

THIBET.

See TIBET.

THIERRY I., King of the Franks, at Metz, A. D. 511-534.

Thierry II., King of the Franks (Austrasia), 612-613;

King of Burgundy, 596-613.

Thierry III., King of the Franks

(Neustria and Burgundy), 670-691.

Thierry IV., King of the Franks

(Neustria, Austrasia, and Burgundy), 720-737.

{3108}

THIERS, Adolphe, and the founding of the third French Republic.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.

THIN.

THINÆ.

See CHINA: The NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

THING.

THINGVALLA.

ALTHING.

"The judicial and legislative assembly of the Northmen

represented by the word 'thing' (from 'tinga'=to speak, and

allied to our English word 'think') can be traced in many

local names throughout England, and more especially in the

extreme North, where the Scandinavian race prevailed, and

where the 'thing' was primitively held upon the site of, or as

an appanage to, a 'hof' or temple. It is plainly seen in the

Tynwald Court or general legislative assembly for the Isle of

Man, where the distinctive feature of the primitive open-air

assembly still survives in the custom of the whole assembly

going once a year in solemn procession, attended by the

governor of the island and a military escort, to a hill known

as the Tynwald Hill, whence all the laws that have been passed

in the course of the past year are proclaimed in English and

Manx. … In Norway there is an 'Al-thing' or general assembly,

and four district 'things' for the several provinces, as well

as a Norwegian Parliament familiar to us as 'Stor-thing' or

great council."

R. R. Sharpe,

Introduction to Calendar of Wills, Court of Husting, London,

volume 1.

"By the end of the period of the first occupation of Iceland,

a number of little kingdoms had been formed all round the

coast, ruled by the priests, who, at stated times, convened

their adherents and retainers to meetings for the settlement

of matters which concerned any or all of them. These were

called 'Things'—meetings, i. e. Mot-things. Each was

independent of the other, and quarrels between the members of

two separate Things could only be settled as the quarrels of

nations are settled, by treaty or war. But the time soon

arrived when the progress of political thought began to work

upon this disjointed constitution; and then amalgamation of

local Things into an Althing, of local jurisdiction into a

commonwealth jurisdiction, was the historical result. … The

Thingvalla, or Thing-field itself, was a vast sunken plain of

lava, about four miles broad and rather more than four miles

deep, lying with a dip or slope from north-east to south-west,

between two great lips or furrows. A stream called Öxará,

(Axewater) cuts off a rocky portion of the plain, so as almost

to form an island. This is the famous Hill of Laws, or

Lögberg, which was the heart of the Icelandic body politic. …

This example of the Icelandic Thing is the most perfect that

is known to history."

G. L. Gomme,

Primitive Folk-Moots,

chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

G. W. Dasent,

introduction to "The Story of Burnt Njal."

See, also, NORMANS.

NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100;

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

THINGMEN.

See HOUSECARLS.

THINIS.

See MEMPHIS, EGYPT;

also EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.

THIONVILLE: A. D. 1643.

Siege and capture by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1643.

THIONVILLE: A. D. 1659.

Ceded to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

THIRD ESTATE, The.

See ESTATES, THE THREE.

THIRTEEN COLONIES, The.

See

MASSACHUSETTS;

RHODE ISLAND;

CONNECTICUT;

NEW HAMPSHIRE;

NEW YORK;

NEW JERSEY;

PENNSYLVANIA;

DELAWARE:

MARYLAND;

VIRGINIA;

NORTH CAROLINA;

SOUTH CAROLINA;

GEORGIA;

also, NEW ENGLAND.

THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT.

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

THIRTY TYRANTS OF ATHENS, The.

See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

THIRTY TYRANTS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, The.

See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

THIRTY YEARS TRUCE, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

THIRTY YEARS WAR, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618, to 1648:

and BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618, and 1621-1648.

THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES, The.

"In 1563 the Articles of the English Church, forty-two in

number, originally drawn up in 1551 under Edward VI., were

revised in Convocation, and reduced to their present number,

thirty-nine; but it was not until 1571 that they were made

binding upon the clergy by Act of Parliament."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead,

English Constitutional History,

chapter 12.

THIS,

THINIS.

See EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE;

also, MEMPHIS, EGYPT.

THISTLE: Its adoption as the national emblem of Scotland.

See SAINT ANDREW: THE SCOTTISH ORDER.

THISTLE, Order of the.

A Scottish order of knighthood instituted by James V. in 1530.

THOMAS, General George H.:

Campaign against Zollicoffer.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

Refusal of the command of the Army of the Ohio.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

At Chickamauga, and in the Chattanooga Campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER) ROSECRANS' ADVANCE;

and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

The Atlanta campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA),

to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

Campaign against Hood.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),

and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

THOMAS À BECKET, Saint, and King Henry II.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

THOMPSON'S STATION, Battle at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

THORN, Peace of (1466).

See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

"THOROUGH," Wentworth and Laud's government system.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.

THRACE: B. C. 323-281.

The kingdom of Lysimachus and its overthrow.

See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 323-316 to 297-280.

{3109}

THRACIANS, The.

"That vast space comprised between the rivers Strymon and

Danube, and bounded to the west by the easternmost Illyrian

tribes, northward of the Strymon, was occupied by the

innumerable subdivisions of the race called Thracians, or

Threïcians. They were the most numerous and most terrible race

known to Herodotus: could they by possibility act in unison or

under one dominion (he says) they would be irresistible. …

Numerous as the tribes of Thracians were, their customs and

character (according to Herodotus) were marked by great

uniformity: of the Getæ, the Trausi, and others, he tells us a

few particularities. … The general character of the race

presents an aggregate of repulsive features unredeemed by the

presence of even the commonest domestic affections. … It

appears that the Thynians and Bithynians, on the Asiatic side

of the Bosphorus, perhaps also the Mysians, were members of

this great Thracian race, which was more remotely connected,

also, with the Phrygians. And the whole race may be said to

present a character more Asiatic than European; especially in

those ecstatic and maddening religious rites, which prevailed

not less among the Edonian Thracians than in the mountains of

Ida and Dindymon of Asia, though with some important

differences. The Thracians served to furnish the Greeks with

mercenary troops and slaves."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 26.

"Under Seuthes [B. C. 424] Thrace stood at the height of its

prosperity. It formed a connected empire from Abdera to the

Danube, from Byzantium to the Strymon. … The land abounded in

resources, in corn and flocks and herds, in gold and silver. …

No such state had as yet existed in the whole circuit of the

Ægean. … But their kingdom failed to endure. After Seuthes it

broke up into several principalities."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 7, chapter 1.

"Herodotus is not wrong in calling the Thracians the greatest

of the peoples known to him after the Indians. Like the

Illyrian, the Thracian stock attained to no full development,

and appears more as hard-pressed and dispossessed than as

having any historically memorable course of its own. … The

Thracian [language] disappeared amidst the fluctuations of

peoples in the region of the Danube and the overpowerful

influence of Constantinople, and we cannot even determine the

place which belongs to it in the pedigree of nations. … Their

wild but grand mode of worshipping the gods may perhaps be

conceived as a trait peculiar to this stock—the mighty

outburst of the joy of spring and youth, the nocturnal

mountain-festivals of torch-swinging maidens, the intoxicating

sense-confusing music, the flowing of wine and the flowing of

blood, the giddy festal whirl, frantic with the simultaneous

excitement of all sensuous passions. Dionysos, the glorious

and the terrible, was a Thracian god." Under the supremacy of

the Romans, the Thracians were governed by a native line of

vassal kings, reigning at Bizye (Wiza), between Adrianople and

the coast of the Black Sea, until the Emperor Claudius, A. D.

46, suppressed the nominal kingdom and made Thrace a Roman

province.

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 8, chapter 6.

In the 8th and 9th centuries, "the great Thracian race, which

had once been inferior in number only to the Indian, and

which, in the first century of our era, had excited the

attention of Vespasian by the extent of the territory it

occupied, had … almost disappeared. The country it had

formerly inhabited was peopled by Vallachian and Sclavonian

tribes."

G. Finlay,

History of the Byzantine Empire,

book 1, chapter 1, section 1.

THREE CHAPTERS, The dispute of the.

A famous church dispute raised in the sixth century by the

Emperor Justinian, who discovered an heretical taint in

certain passages, called the Three Chapters, culled out of the

works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and two other doctors of the

church who had been teachers and friends of Nestorius. A

solemn Church Council called (A. D. 553) at Constantinople—the

fifth general Council—condemned the Three Chapters and

anathematized their adherents. But this touched by implication

the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, which were especially

cherished in the Latin Church, and Rome became rebellious. In

the end, the Roman opposition prevailed, and, "in the period

of a century, the schism of the three chapters expired in an

obscure angle of the Venetian province."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 47.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Milman,

History of Latin Christianity,

book 1, chapter 4.

THREE F'S. The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.

THREE HENRYS. War of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

THREE HUNDRED AT THERMOPYLÆ, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 480 (THERMOPYLÆ).

THREE HUNDRED OF THEBES, The.

See THEBES: B. C. 378.

THREE KINGS, Battle of the.

See MAROCCO: THE ARAB CONQUEST, AND SINCE.

THREE LEGS OF MAN. The.

See TRISKELION.

THREE PRESIDENCIES OF INDIA, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

THUCYDIDES: The origin of his history.

See AMPHIPOLIS.

THUGS.

THUGGEE.

See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

THULE.

Pytheas, a Greek traveller and writer of the time (as

supposed) of Alexander the Great, was the first to introduce

the name of Thule into ancient geography. He described it

vaguely as an island, lying six days' voyage to the north of

Britain, in a region where the sea became like neither land

nor water, but was of a thick and sluggish substance,

resembling that of the jelly fish. "It appears to me

impossible to identify the Thule of Pytheas with any approach

to certainty; but he had probably heard vaguely of the

existence of some considerable island, or group of islands, to

the north of Britain, whether the Orkneys or the Shetlands it

is impossible to say."

E. H. Bunbury,

History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 15, section 2, foot-note.

Some modern writers identify Thule with Iceland; some with the

coast of Norway, mistakenly regarded as an island. But,

whichever land it may have been, Thule to the Greeks and

Romans, was Ultima Thule,—the end of the known world,—the

most northerly point of Europe to which their knowledge

reached.

R. F. Burton,

Ultima Thule,

introduction, section 1 (volume 1).

{3110}

THUNDERING LEGION, The.

During the summer of the year 174, in a campaign which the

Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus conducted against the Quadi,

on the Danube, the Roman army was once placed in a perilous

position. It was hemmed in by the enemy, cut off from all

access to water, and was reduced to despair. At the last

extremity, it is said, the army was saved by a miraculous

storm, which poured rain on the thirsty Romans, while

lightning and hail fell destructively in the ranks of the

barbarians. According to the Pagan historians, Aurelius owed

this "miraculous victory," as it was called, to the arts of

one Arnuphis, an Egyptian magician. But later Christian

writers told a different story. They relate that the

distressed army contained one legion composed entirely of

Christians, from Melitene, and that these soldiers, being

called upon by the emperor to invoke their God, united in a

prayer which received the answer described. Hence, the legion

was known thereafter, by imperial command, as the Thundering

Legion.

P. B. Watson,

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

Eusebius,

Ecclesiastical History,

book 5, chapter 5.

THURII.

THURIUM.

See SIRIS.

THURINGIA.

THURINGIANS, The.

"To the eastward of the Saxons and of the Franks, the

Thuringians had just formed a new monarchy. That people had

united to the Varni and the Heruli, they had spread from the

borders of the Elbe and of the Undstrut to those of the

Necker. They had invaded Hesse or the country of the Catti,

one of the Frankish people, and Franconia, where they had

distinguished their conquests by frightful cruelties. … It is

not known at what period these atrocities were committed, but

Thierri [or Theoderic, one of the four Frank kings, sons of

Clovis] towards the year 528, reminds his soldiers of them to

excite their revenge; it is probable that they were the

motives which induced the Franks of Germany and those of Gaul

to unite, in order to provide more powerfully for their

defence." Thierry, the Frank king at Metz, and Clotaire, his

brother, who reigned at Soissons, united in 528 against the

Thuringians and completely crushed them. "This great province

was then united to the monarchy of the Franks, and its dukes,

during two centuries, marched under the standards of the

Merovingians."

J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,

The French under the Merovingians,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

W. C. Perry,

The Franks,

chapter 3.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

THURINGIA:

Absorbed in Saxony.

See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY.

THURM AND TAXIS, Prince, and the German postal system.

See POST.

THYMBRÆAN ORACLE.

See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

THYNIANS. The.

See BITHYNIANS.

TIBARENIANS, The.

A people who anciently inhabited the southern coast of the

Euxine, toward its eastern extremity.

G. Rawlinson,

Five Great Monarchies: Persia,

chapter 1.

TIBBOOS, The.

See LIBYANS.

TIBERIAS, Battle of (1187).

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

TIBERIAS, The Patriarch of.

See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

TIBERIUS,

Roman Emperor, A. D. 14-37.

German campaigns.

See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

Tiberius II, Roman Emperor (Eastern), 578-582.

Tiberius Absimarus, Roman Emperor (Eastern), 698-704.

TIBET.

"The name of Tibet is applied not only to the south-west

portion of the Chinese Empire, but also to more than half of

Kashmîr occupied by peoples of Tibetan origin. These regions

of 'Little Tibet' and of 'Apricot Tibet' —so called from the

orchards surrounding its villages—consist of deep valleys

opening like troughs between the snowy Himalayan and Karakorum

ranges. Draining towards India, these uplands have gradually

been brought under Hindu influences, whereas Tibet proper has

pursued a totally different career. It is variously known as

'Great,' the 'Third,' or 'East Tibet'; but such is the

confusion of nomenclature that the expression 'Great Tibet' is

also applied to Ladak, which forms part of Kashmîr. At the

same time, the term Tibet itself, employed by Europeans to

designate two countries widely differing in their physical and

political conditions, is unknown to the people themselves.

Hermann Schlagintweit regards it as an old Tibetan word

meaning 'strength,' or 'empire' in a pre-eminent sense and

this is the interpretation supplied by the missionaries of the

seventeenth century, who give the country the Italian name of

Potente, or 'Powerful.' But however this be, the present

inhabitants use the term Bod-yul alone; that is, 'land of the

Bod,' itself probably identical with Bhutan, a Hindu name

restricted by Europeans to a single state on the southern

slope of the Himalayas. The Chinese call Tibet either Si-Tsang

—that is, West Tsang, from its principal province—or

Wei-Tsang, a word applied to the two provinces of Wei and

Tsang, which jointly constitute Tibet proper. To the

inhabitants they give the name of Tu-Fan, or 'Aboriginal

Fans,' in opposition to the Si-Fan, or "Western Fans,' of

Sechuen and Kansu. … Suspended like a vast terrace some 14,000

or 16,000 feet above the surrounding plains, the Tibetan

plateau is more than half filled with closed basins dotted

with a few lakes or marshes, the probable remains of inland

seas whose overflow discharged through the breaks in the

frontier ranges. … During the present century the Tibetan

Government has succeeded better than any other Asiatic state

in preserving the political isolation of the people, thanks

chiefly to the relief and physical conditions of the land.

Tibet rises like a citadel in the heart of Asia; hence its

defenders have guarded its approaches more easily than those

of India, China, and Japan. The greater part of Tibet remains

still unexplored. … The great bulk of the inhabitants, apart

from the Mongolo-Tartar Horsoks of Khachi and the various

independent tribes of the province of Kham, belong to a

distinct branch of the Mongolian family. They are of low size,

with broad shoulders and chests, and present a striking

contrast to the Hindus in the size of their arms and calves,

while resembling them in their small and delicate hands and

feet. … The Tibetans are one of the most highly endowed people

in the world. Nearly all travellers are unanimous in praise of

their gentleness, frank and kindly bearing, unaffected

dignity. Strong, courageous, naturally cheerful, fond of

music, the dance and song, they would be a model race but for

their lack of enterprise. They are as easily governed as a

flock of sheep, and for them the word of a lama has force of

law. Even the mandates of the Chinese authorities are

scrupulously obeyed, and thus it happens that against their

own friendly feelings they jealously guard the frontiers

against all strangers.

{3111}

The more or less mixed races of East Tibet on the Chinese

frontier, on the route of the troops that plunder them and of

the mandarins who oppress them, seem to be less favourably

constituted, and are described as thievish and treacherous. …

The Tibetans have long been a civilised people. … In some

respects they are even more civilised than those of many

European countries, for reading and writing are general

accomplishments in many places, and books are here so cheap

that they are found in the humblest dwellings, though several

of these works are kept simply on account of their magical

properties. In the free evolution of their speech, which has

been studied chiefly by Foucaux, Csoma de Körös, Schiefner,

and Jäschke, the Tibetans have outlived the period in which

the Chinese are still found. The monosyllabic character of the

language, which differs from all other Asiatic tongues, has

nearly been effaced. … The Tibetan Government is in theory a

pure theocracy. The Dalia-lama, called also the

Gyalba-remboché, 'Jewel of Majesty,' or 'Sovereign Treasure,'

is at once god and king, master of the life and fortunes of

his subjects, with no limit to his power except his own

pleasure. [On Lamaism in Tibet, see LAMAS.] Nevertheless he

consents to be guided in ordinary matters by the old usages,

while his very greatness prevents him from directly oppressing

his people. His sphere of action being restricted to spiritual

matters, he is represented in the administration by a viceroy

chosen by the Emperor in a supreme council of three high

priests. … Everything connected with general politics and war

must be referred to Peking, while local matters are left to

the Tibetan authorities. … Pope, viceroy, ministers, all

receive a yearly subvention from Peking and all the Tibetan

mandarins wear on their hats the button, or distinctive sign

of the dignities conferred by the empire. Every third or fifth

year a solemn embassy is sent to Peking with rich presents,

receiving others in exchange from the 'Son of Heaven.' … The

whole land belongs to the Dalai-lama, the people being merely

temporary occupants, tolerated by the real owner. The very

houses and furniture and all movable property are held in

trust for the supreme master, whose subjects must be grateful

if he takes a portion only for the requirements of the

administration. Due of the most ordinary sentences, in fact,

is wholesale confiscation, when the condemned must leave house

and lands, betaking themselves to a camp life, and living by

begging in the districts assigned to them. So numerous are

these chong long, or official mendicants, that they form a

distinct class in the State. … Since the cession of Ladak to

Kashmir, and the annexation of Batang, Litang, Aten-tze, and

other districts to Sechuen and Yunnan, Si-tsang, or Tibet

proper, comprises only the four provinces of Nari, Tsang, Wei,

or U, and Kham. Certain principalities enclosed in these

provinces are completely independent of Lassa, and either

enjoy self-government or are directly administered from

Peking. … Even in the four provinces the Chinese authorities

interfere in many ways, and their power is especially felt in

that of Nari, where, owing to its dangerous proximity to

Kashmir and India, the old spirit of independence might be

awakened. Nor is any money allowed to be coined in Tibet,

which in the eyes of the Imperial Government is merely a

dependency of Sechuen, whence all orders are received in

Lassa."

É. Reclus,

The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,

volume 2, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

H. Bower,

Diary of a Journey across Tibet,

chapter 16.

TIBISCUS, The.

The ancient name of the river Theiss.

TIBUR.

An important Latin city, more ancient than Rome, from which it

was only 20 miles distant, on the Anio. Tibur, after many

wars, was reduced by the Romans to subjection in the 4th

century, B. C., and the delightful country in its neighborhood

became a favorite place of residence for wealthy Romans in

later times. The ruins of the villa of Hadrian have been

identified in the vicinity, and many others have been named,

but without historical authority. Hadrian's villa is said to

have been like a town in its vast extent. The modern town of

Tivoli occupies the site of Tibur.

R. Burn,

Rome and the Campagna,

chapter 14.

TIBURTINE SIBYL.

See SIBYLS.

TICINUS, Battle on the.

See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

TICKET-OF-LEAVE SYSTEM, The.

See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1825.

TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1731.-

Built by the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1756.

Reconstructed by the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1756.

TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1758.

The bloody repulse of Abercrombie.

See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1759.

Taken by General Amherst.

See CANADA: A. D. 1759 (JULY-AUGUST).

TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1775.

Surprised and taken by the Green Mountain Boys.

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

TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1777.

Recapture by Burgoyne.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

TIEN-TSIN, Treaty of (1858).

See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

TIERRA FIRME.

"The world was at a loss at first [after Columbus' discovery]

what to call the newly found region to the westward. It was

easy enough to name the islands, one after another, as they

were discovered, but when the Spaniards reached the continent

they were backward about giving it a general name. … As the

coast line of the continent extended itself and became known

as such, it was very naturally called by navigators 'tierra

firme,' firm land, in contradistinction to the islands which

were supposed to be less firm. … The name Tierra Firme, thus

general at first, in time became particular. As a designation

for an unknown shore it at first implied only the Continent.

As discovery unfolded, and the magnitude of this Firm Land

became better known, new parts of it were designated by new

names, and Tierra Firme became a local appellation in place of

a general term. Paria being first discovered, it fastened

itself there; also along the shore to Darien, Veragua, and on

to Costa Rica, where at no well defined point it stopped, so

far as the northern seaboard was concerned, and in due time

struck across to the South Sea, where the name marked off an

equivalent coast line. … As a political division Tierra Firme

had existence for a long time.

{3112}

It comprised the provinces of Darien, Veragua, and Panama,

which last bore also the name of Tierra Firme as a province.

The extent of the kingdom was 65 leagues in length by 18 at

its greatest breadth, and 9 leagues at its smallest width. It

was bounded on the east by Cartagena, and the gulf of Urabá

and its river; on the west by Costa Rica, including a portion

of what is now Costa Rica; and on the north and south by the

two seas. … Neither Guatemala, Mexico, nor any of the lands to

the north were ever included in Tierra Firme. English authors

often apply the Latin form, Terra Firma, to this division,

which is misleading."

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 1, page 290, foot-note.

See, also, SPANISH MAIN.

TIERS ETAT.

See ESTATES, THE THREE.

TIGORINI,

TIGURINI, in Gaul, The.

After the Cimbri had defeated two Roman armies, in 113 and 109

B. C., "the Helvetii, who had suffered much in the constant

conflicts with their north-eastern neighbours, felt themselves

stimulated by the example of the Cimbri to seek in their turn

for more quiet and fertile settlements in western Gaul, and

had, perhaps, even when the Cimbrian hosts marched through

their land, formed an alliance with them for that purpose.

Now, under the leadership of Divico, the forces of the Tougeni

(position unknown) and of the Tigorini (on the lake of Murten)

crossed the Jura and reached the territory of the Nitiobroges

(about Agen on the Garonne). The Roman army under the consul

Lucius Cassius Longinus, which they here encountered, allowed

itself to be decoyed by the Helvetii into an ambush, in which

the general himself and his legate, the consular Gaius Piso,

along with the greater portion of the soldiers, met their

death."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 4, chapter 5.

Subsequently the Tigorini and the Tougeni joined the Cimbri,

but were not present at the decisive battle on the Raudine

Plain and escaped the destroying swords of the legions of

Marius, by flying back to their native Helvetia.

TIGRANOCERTA, Battle of (B. C. 69).

See ROME: B. C. 78-68.

TIGRANOCERTA, The building of.

See GORDYENE.

TILDEN, Samuel J.

In the Free Soil Movement.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

The overthrow of the Tweed Ring.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

Defeat in Presidential Election.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876-1877.

TILLEMONT: A. D. 1635.

Stormed and sacked by the Dutch and French.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

TILLY, Count von: Campaigns.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1620, to 1631-1632.

TILSIT, Treaty of.

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

TIMAR.

TIMARLI.

SAIM.

SPAHI.

"It was Alaeddin who first instituted a division of all

conquered lands among the 'Sipahis,' or Spahis (horsemen), on

conditions which, like the feudal tenures of Christian Europe,

obliged the holders to service in the field. Here, however,

ends the likeness between the Turkish 'Timar' and the European

fief. The 'Timarli' were not, like the Christian knighthood, a

proud and hereditary aristocracy almost independent of the

sovereign and having a voice in his councils, but the mere

creatures of the Sultan's breath. The Ottoman constitution

recognised no order of nobility, and was essentially a

democratic despotism. The institution of military tenures was

modified by Amurath I., who divided them into the larger and

smaller ('Siamet' and 'Timar'), the holders of which were

called 'Saim' and 'Timarli.' Every cavalier, or Spahi, who had

assisted to conquer by his bravery, was rewarded with a fief,

which, whether large or small, was called 'Kilidseh' (the

sword). The symbols of his investment were a sword and colours

('Kilidsch' and 'Sandjak')."

T. H. Dyer,

The History of Modern Europe,

volume 1, introduction.

See, also, SPAHIS.

TIMOCRACY.

See GEOMORI.

TIMOLEON, and the deliverance of Sicily.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 344.

TIMOUR, The Conquests of.

"Timour the Tartar, as he is usually termed in history, was

called by his countrymen Timourlenk, that is, Timour the Lame,

from the effects of an early wound; a name which some European

writers have converted into Tamerlane, or Tamberlaine. He was

of Mongol origin [see below], and a direct descendant, by the

mother's side, of Zenghis. Khan. He was born at Sebzar, a town

near Samarcand, in Transoxiana, in 1336. … Timour's early

youth was passed in struggles for ascendeney with the petty

chiefs of rival tribes, but at the age of thirty-five he had

fought his way to undisputed pre-eminence, and was proclaimed

Khan of Zagatai by the 'couroultai,' or general assembly of

the warriors of his race. He chose Samarcand as the capital of

his dominion, and openly announced that he would make that

dominion comprise the whole habitable earth. … In the

thirty-six years of his reign he raged over the world from the

great wall of China to the centre of Russia on the north; and

the Mediterranean and the Nile were the western limits of his

career, which was pressed eastward as far as the sources of

the Ganges. He united in his own person the sovereignties of

twenty-seven countries, and he stood in the place of nine

several dynasties of kings. … The career of Timour as a

conqueror is unparalleled in history; for neither Cyrus, nor

Alexander, nor Cæsar, nor Attila, nor Zenghis Khan, nor

Charlemagne, nor Napoleon, ever won by the sword so large a

portion of the globe, or ruled over so many myriads of

subjugated fellow-creatures."

E. S. Creasy,

History of the Ottoman Turks,

chapter 3.

"Born of the same family as Jenghiz, though not one of his

direct descendants, he bore throughout life the humble title

of Emir, and led about with him a nominal Grand Khan [a

descendant of Chagatai, one of the sons of Jenghiz Khan], of

whom he professed himself a dutiful subject. His pedigree may

in strictness entitle him to be called a Mogul; but, for all

practical purposes, himself and his hordes must be regarded as

Turks. Like all the eastern Turks, such civilization as they

had was of Persian origin; and it was of the Persian form of

Islam that Timour was so zealous an assertor."

E. A. Freeman,

History and Conquests of the Saracens,

lecture 6.

{3113}

In 1378 Timour overran Khuarezm. Between 1380 and 1386 he

subjugated Khorassan, Afghanistan, Baluchistan and Sistan. He

then passed into southern Persia and forced the submission of

the Mozafferides who reigned over Fars, punishing the city of

Isfahan for a rebellious rising by the massacre of 70,000 of

its inhabitants. This done, he returned to Samarkand for a

period of rest and prolonged carousal. Taking the field again

in 1389, he turned his arms northward and shattered the famous

"Golden Horde," of the Khanate of Kiptchak, which dominated a

large part of Russia. In 1392-93 the Tartar conqueror

completed the subjugation of Persia and Mesopotamia,

extinguishing the decayed Mongol Empire of the Ilkhans, and

piling up a pyramid of 90,000 human heads on the ruins of

Bagdad, the old capital of Islam. Thence he pursued his career

of slaughter through Armenia and Georgia, and finished his

campaign of five years by a last destroying blow struck at the

Kiptchak Khan whom he is said to have pursued as far as

Moscow. Once more, at Samarkand, the red-handed, invincible

savage then gave himself up to orgies of pleasure-making; but

it was not for many months. His eyes were now on India, and

the years 1398-1399 were spent by him in carrying death and

desolation through the Punjab, and to the city of Delhi, which

was made a scene of awful massacre and pillage. No permanent

conquest was achieved; the plunder and the pleasure of

slaughter were the ends of the expedition. A more serious

purpose directed the next movement of Timour's arms, which

were turned against the rival Turk of Asia Minor, or Roum—the

Ottoman, Bajazet, or Bayezid, who boasted of the conquest of

the Roman Empire of the East. In 1402, Bajazet was summoned

from the siege of Constantinople to defend his realm. On the

20th of July in that year, on the plain of Angora, he met the

enormous hosts of Timourlenk and was overwhelmed by them—his

kingdom lost, himself a captive. The merciless Tartar hordes

swept hapless Anatolia with a besom of destruction and death.

Nicæa, Prusa and other cities were sacked. Smyrna provoked the

Tartar savage by an obstinate defense and was doomed to the

sword, without mercy for age or sex. Even then, the customary

pyramid of heads which he built on the site was not large

enough to satisfy his eye and he increased its height by

alternate layers of mud. Aleppo, Damascus, and other cities of

Syria had been dealt with in like manner the year before. When

satiated with blood, he returned to Samarkand in 1404, rested

there until January 1405, and then set out upon an expedition

to China; but he died on the way. His empire was soon broken

in pieces.

A. Vambery,

History of Bokhara,

chapters 10, 11, 12.

ALSO IN:

J. Hutton,

Central Asia,

chapters 5-6.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 65.

A. Lamartine,

History of Turkey,

book 7.

H. G. Smith,

Romance of History,

chapter 4.

TIMUCHI.

This was the name given to the members of the senate or

council of six hundred of Massilia—ancient Marseilles.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 1, chapter 21.

TIMUCUA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

TINNEH.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

TIOCAJAS, Battles of.

See ECUADOR: ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.

TIPPECANOE, The Battle of.

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

TIPPERMUIR, Battle of (1644).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

TIPPOO (OR TIPU) SAIB, English wars with.

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793, and 1798-1805.

TIROL.

See TYROL.

TIRSHATHA.

An ancient Persian title, borne by an officer whose functions

corresponded with those of High Sheriff.

H. Ewald,

History of Israel,

book 5, section 1.

TIRYNS.

See ARGOS; and HERACLEIDÆ.

TITHE.

"To consecrate to the Sanctuary in pure thankfulness towards

God the tenth of all annual profits, was a primitive tradition

among the Canaanites, Phoenicians and Carthaginians. The

custom, accordingly, very early passed over to Israel."

H. Ewald.

Antiquities of Israel,

introduction, 3d section, II., 3.

Modern "recognition of the legal obligation of tithe dates

from the eighth century, both on the continent and in England.

In A. D. 779 Charles the Great ordained that everyone should

pay tithe, and that the proceeds should be disposed of by the

bishop; and in A. D. 787 it was made imperative by the

legatine councils held in England."

W. Stubbs.

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 8, section 86 (volume 1).

TITHE OF SALADIN.

See SALADIN, THE TITHE OF.

TITHES, Irish.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.

TITIES, The.

See ROME: THE BEGINNINGS.

TITUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 79-81.

TIVITIVAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

TIVOLI.

See TIBUR.

TLACOPAN.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

TLASCALA.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

T'LINKETS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

TOBACCO:

Its introduction into the Old World from the New.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586.

The systematic culture of the plant introduced in Virginia.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1609-1616.

TOBACCO NATION, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS;

and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR NAME.

TOBAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

TOGA, The Roman.

"The toga, the specifically national dress of the Romans, was

originally put on the naked body, fitting much more tightly

than the rich folds of the togas of later times. About the

shape of this toga, which is described as a semicircular cloak

…, many different opinions prevail. Some scholars consider it

to have been an oblong piece of woven cloth …; others

construct it of one or even two pieces cut into segments of a

circle. Here again we shall adopt in the main the results

arrived at through practical trials by Weiss ('Costümkunde,'

page 956 et seq.). The Roman toga therefore was not … a

quadrangular oblong, but 'had the shape of an oblong edged off

into the form of an oval, the middle length being equal to

about three times the height of a grown-up man (exclusive of

the head), and its middle breadth equal to twice the same

length. In putting it on, the toga was at first folded

lengthwise, and the double dress thus originated was laid in

folds on the straight edge and thrown over the left shoulder

in the simple manner of the Greek or Tuscan cloak; the toga,

however, covered the whole left side and even dragged on the

ground to a considerable extent. The cloak was then pulled

across the back and through the right arm, the ends being

again thrown over the left shoulder backwards. The part of the

drapery covering the back was once more pulled towards the

right shoulder, so as to add to the richness of the folds.' …

The simpler, that is narrower, toga of earlier times naturally

clung more tightly to the body."

E. Guhl and W. Koner,

Life of the Greeks and Romans,

section 95.

{3114}

"No tacks or fastenings of any sort indeed are visible in the

toga, but their existence may be inferred from the great

formality and little variation displayed in its divisions and

folds. In general, the toga seems not only to have formed, as

it were, a short sleeve to the right arm, which was left

unconfined, but to have covered the left arm down to the

wrist. … The material of the toga was wool; the colour, in

early ages, its own natural yellowish hue. In later periods

this seems, however, only to have been retained in the togas

of the higher orders; inferior persons wearing theirs dyed,

and candidates for public offices bleached by an artificial

process. In times of mourning the toga was worn black, or was

left off altogether. Priests and magistrates wore the 'toga

pretexta,' or toga edged with a purple border, called

pretexta. This … was, as well as the bulla, or small round

gold box suspended on the breast by way of an amulet, worn by

all youths of noble birth to the age of fifteen. … The knights

wore the 'trabea,' or toga striped with purple throughout."

T. Hope,

Costume of the Ancients,

volume 1.

TOGATI, The.

See ROME: B. C. 275.

TOGGENBURG WAR, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.

TOGRUL BEG, Seljuk Turkish Sultan. A. D. 1037-1063.

TOHOMES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

TOHOPEKA, Battle of (1814).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

TOISECH.

See RI.

TOISON D'OR.

The French name of the Order of Knighthood known in the

English-speaking world as the "Order of the Golden Fleece."

See GOLDEN FLEECE.

TOLBIAC, Battle of.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;

also, FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

TOLEDO, Ohio: A. D. 1805-1835.

Site in dispute between Ohio and Michigan.

See MICHIGAN: A. D. 1837.

TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 531-712.

The capital of the Gothic kingdom in Spain.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 712.

Surrender to the Arab-Moors.

See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 1083-1085.

Recovery from the Moors.

On the crumbling of the dominions of the Spanish caliphate of

Cordova, Toledo became the seat of one of the most vigorous of

the petty kingdoms which arose in Moorish Spain. But on the

death of its founder, Aben Dylnun, and under his incapable son

Yahia, the kingdom of Toledo soon sank to such weakness as

invited the attacks of the Christian king of Leon, Alfonso VI.

After a siege of three years, on the 25th of May, A. D. 1085,

the old capital of the Goths, which the Moslems had occupied

for nearly four centuries, was restored to their descendants

and successors.

S. A. Dunham,

History of Spain and Portugal,

book 3, section 1, chapter 1.

TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 1520-1522.

Revolt against the government of Charles, the emperor.

Siege and surrender.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

TOLEDO, Councils of.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

TOLENTINO, Treaty of (1797).

See FRANCE: A. D, 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

TOLERATION, and the Puritan theocracy

In Massachusetts.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.

In Maryland.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1649.

TOLERATION ACT, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).

TOLOSA, Battle of Las Navas de (1211 or 1212).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232;

also, ALMOHADES.

TOLTECS, The.

See MEXICO, ANCIENT.

TOMI.

An ancient Greek city on the western shore of the Euxine,

which was Ovid's place of banishment. Its site is occupied by

the modern town of Kustendje.

TONE, Theobald Wolf, and the United Irishmen.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.

TONIKAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TONIKAN FAMILY.

TONKAWAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TONKAWAN FAMILY.

TONKIN.

COCHIN-CHINA.

ANNAM.

CAMBOJA.

"The whole region which recent events have practically

converted into French territory comprises four distinct

political divisions: Tonkin in the north; Cochin-China in the

centre; Lower Cochin-China and Camboja in the south. The first

two, formerly separate States, have since 1802 constituted a

single kingdom, commonly spoken of as the empire of Annam.

This term Annam (properly An-nan) appears to be a modified

form of Ngannan, that is, 'Southern Peace,' first applied to

the frontier river between China and Tonkin, and afterwards

extended not only to Tonkin, but to the whole region south of

that river after its conquest and pacification by China in the

third century of the new era. Hence its convenient application

to the same region since the union of Tonkin and Cochin-China

under one dynasty and since the transfer of the administration

to France in 1883, is but a survival of the Chinese usage, and

fully justified on historic grounds. Tonkin (Tongking,

Tungking), that is, 'Eastern Capital,' a term originally

applied to Ha-noi when that city was the royal residence, has

in quite recent times been extended to the whole of the

northern kingdom, whose true historic name is Yüeh-nan. Under

the native rulers Tonkin was divided into provinces and

sub-divisions bearing Chinese names, and corresponding to the

administrative divisions of the Chinese empire. … Since its

conquest by Cochin-China the country has been administered in

much the same way as the southern kingdom. From this State

Tonkin is separated partly by a spur of the coast range

projecting seawards, partly by a wall built in the sixteenth

century and running in the same direction. After the erection

of this artificial barrier, which lies about 18° North

Latitude, between Hatinh and Dong-koi, the northern and

southern kingdoms came to be respectively distinguished by the

titles of Dang-ngoai and Dang-trong, that is, 'Outer' and

'Inner Route.'

{3115}

The term Cochin-China, by which the Inner Route is best known,

has no more to do with China than it has with the Indian city

of Cochin. It appears to be a modified form of Kwe-Chen-Ching,

that is, the 'Kingdom of Chen-Ching,' the name by which this

region was first known in the 9th century of the new era, from

its capital Chen-Ching. Another although less probable

derivation is from the Chinese Co-Chen-Ching, meaning 'Old

Champa,' a reminiscence of the time when the Cham (Tsiam)

nation was the most powerful in the peninsula. … Before the

arrival of the French, Cochin-China comprised the whole of the

coast lands from Tonkin nearly to the foot of the Pursat hills

in South Camboja. … From the remotest times China claimed, and

intermittently exercised, suzerain authority over Annam, whose

energies have for ages been wasted partly in vain efforts to

resist this claim, partly in still more disastrous warfare

between the two rival States. Almost the first distinctly

historic event was the reduction of Lu-liang, as Tonkin was

then called, by the Chinese in 218 B. C., when the country was

divided into prefectures, and a civil and military

organisation established on the Chinese model. … Early in the

ninth century of the new era the term Kwe-Chen-Ching

(Cochin-China) began to be applied to the southern, which had

already asserted its independence of the northern, kingdom. In

1428 the two States freed themselves temporarily from the

Chinese protectorate, and 200 years later the Annamese reduced

all that remained of the Champa territory, driving the natives

to the uplands, and settling in the plains. This conquest was

followed about 1750 by that of the southern or maritime

provinces of Camboja since known as Lower (now French)

Cochin-China. In 1775 the King of Cochin-China, who had

usurped the throne in 1774, reduced Tonkin, and was

acknowledged sovereign of Annam by the Chinese emperor. But in

1798 Gia-long, son of the deposed monarch, recovers the throne

with the aid of some French auxiliaries, and in 1802

reconstitutes the Annamese empire under the Cochin-Chinese

sceptre. From this time the relations with France become more

frequent. … After his death in 1820 the anti-European national

party acquires the ascendant, the French officers are

dismissed, and the Roman Catholic religion, which had made

rapid progress during the reign of Gia-long, is subjected to

cruel and systematic persecution. Notwithstanding the protests

and occasional intervention of France, this policy is

persevered in, until the execution of Bishop Diaz in 1857 by

order of Tu-Duc, third in succession from Gia-long, calls for

more active interference. Admiral Rigault de Genouilly

captures Tourane in 1858, followed next year by the rout of

the Annamese army at the same place, and the occupation of the

forts at the entrance of the Donnai and of Gia-diñh (Saigon),

capital of Lower Cochin-China. This virtually established

French supremacy, which was sealed by the treaty of 1862,

ceding the three best, and that of 1867 the three remaining,

provinces of Lower Cochin-China. It was further strengthened

and extended by the treaty of 1863, securing the protectorate

of Camboja and the important strategical position of

'Quatre-Bras' on the Mekhong. Then came the scientific

expedition of Mekhong (1866-68), which dissipated the hopes

entertained of that river giving access to the trade of

Southern China. Attention was accordingly now attracted to the

Song-koi basin, and the establishment of French interests in

Tonkin secured by the treaties of peace and commerce concluded

with the Annamese Government in 1874. This prepared the way

for the recent diplomatic complications with Annam and China,

followed by the military operations in Cochin-China and Tonkin

[see FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889], which led up to the treaties of

1883 and 1884, extending the French protectorate to the whole

of Annam, and forbidding the Annamese Government all

diplomatic relations with foreign powers, China included,

except through the intermediary of France. Lastly, the

appointment in 1886 of a French Resident General, with full

administrative powers, effaced the last vestige of national

autonomy, and virtually reduced the ancient kingdoms of Tonkin

and Cochin-China to the position of an outlying French

possession."

A. H. Keane,

Eastern Geography,

pages 98-104.

"In the south-eastern extremity of Cochin-China, and in

Camboja, still survive the scattered fragments of the

historical Tsiam (Cham, Khiam) race, who appear to have been

at one time the most powerful nation in Farther India.

According to Gagelin, they ruled over the whole region between

the Menam and the Gulf of Tongking. … Like the Tsiams, the

Cambojans, or Khmers, are a race sprung from illustrious

ancestry, but at present reduced to about 1,500,000, partly in

the south-eastern provinces of Siam, partly forming a petty

state under French protection, which is limited east and west

by the Mekong and Gulf of Siam, north and south by the Great

Lake and French Cochin-China. During the period of its

prosperity the Cambojan empire overshadowed a great part of

Indo-China, and maintained regular intercourse with

Cisgangetic India on the one hand, and on the other with the

Island of Java. The centre of its power lay on the northern

shores of the Great Lake, where the names of its great cities,

the architecture and sculptures of its ruined temples, attest

the successive influences of Brahmanism and Buddhism on the

local culture. A native legend, based possibly on historic

data, relates how a Hindu prince migrated with ten millions of

his subjects, some twenty-three centuries ago, from

Indraspathi (Delhi) to Camboja, while the present dynasty

claims descent from a Benares family. But still more active

relations seem to have been maintained with Lanka (Ceylon),

which island has acquired almost a sacred character in the

eyes of the Cambojans. The term Camboja itself (Kampushea,

Kamp'osha) has by some writers been wrongly identified with

the Camboja of Sanskrit geography. It simply means the 'land

of the Kammen,' or 'Khmer.' Although some years under the

French protectorate, the political institutions of the

Cambojan state have undergone little change. The king, who

still enjoys absolute power over the life and property of his

subjects, chooses his own mandarins, and these magistrates

dispense justice in favour of the highest bidders. Trade is a

royal monopoly, sold mostly to energetic Chinese contractors;

and slavery has not yet been abolished, although the severity

of the system has been somewhat mitigated since 1877. Ordinary

slaves now receive a daily pittance, which may help to

purchase their freedom. …

{3116}

On the eastern slopes, and in the lower Mekong basin, the

dominant race are the Giao-shi (Giao-kii} or Annamese, who are

of doubtful origin, but resemble the Chinese more than any

other people of Farther India. Affiliated by some to the

Malays, by others to the Chinese, Otto Kunze regards them as

akin to the Japanese. According to the local traditions and

records they have gradually spread along the coast from

Tongking southwards to the extremity of the Peninsula. After

driving the Tsiams into the interior, they penetrated about

1650 to the Lower Mekong, which region formerly belonged to

Camboja, but is now properly called French Cochin-China. Here

the Annamese, having driven out or exterminated most of the

Cambojans, have long formed the great majority of the

population."

É. Reclus,

The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,

volume 3, chapter 22.

TONNAGE AND POUNDAGE.

See TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE;

also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.

TONQUIN.

See TONKIN.

TONTONTEAC.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

TONTOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.

TOPASSES, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

TOPEKA CONSTITUTION, The.

See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

TOQUIS.

See CHILE: THE ARAUCANIANS.

TORBAY, Landing of William of Orange at.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

TORDESILLAS, Treaty of.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1494.

TORGAU: A. D. 1525.

Protestant League.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

TORGAU: A. D. 1645.

Yielded to the Swedes.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

TORGAU: A. D. 1760.

Victory of Frederick the Great.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

TORGAU: A. D. 1813.

Siege and capture by the Allies.

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

TORIES, English:

Origin of the Party and the Name.

See RAPPAREES; ENGLAND: A. D. 1680;

and CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

TORIES, English:

Of the American Revolution, and their exile.

"Before the Revolution the parties in the colonies were

practically identical with the Whigs and Tories of the mother

country, the Whigs or anti-prerogative men supporting ever the

cause of the people against arbitrary or illegal acts of the

governor or the council. In the early days of the Revolution

the ultra Tories were gradually driven into the ranks of the

enemy, until for a time it might be said that all

revolutionary America had become Whig; the name Tory, however,

was still applied to those who, though opposed to the

usurpations of George III., were averse to a final separation

from England."

G. Pellew,

John Jay,

page 269.

"The terms Tories, Loyalists, Refugees, are burdened with a

piteous record of wrongs and sufferings. It has not been found

easy or satisfactory for even the most candid historian to

leave the facts and arguments of the conflict impartially

adjusted. Insult, confiscation of property, and exile were the

penalties of those who bore these titles. … Remembering that

the most bitter words of Washington that have come to us are

those which express his scorn of Tories, we must at least look

to find some plausible, if not justifying, ground for the

patriot party. Among those most frank and fearless in the

avowal of loyalty, and who suffered the severest penalties,

were men of the noblest character and of the highest position.

So, also, bearing the same odious title, were men of the most

despicable nature, self-seeking and unprincipled, ready for

any act of evil. And between these were men of every grade of

respectability and of every shade of moral meanness. … As a

general rule, the Tories were content with an unarmed

resistance, where they were not reinforced by the resources or

forces of the enemy. But in successive places in possession of

the British armies, in Boston, Long Island, New York, the

Jerseys, Philadelphia, and in the Southern provinces, there

rallied around them Tories both seeking protection, and ready

to perform all kinds of military duty as allies. By all the

estimates, probably below the mark, there were during the war

at least 25,000 organized loyalist forces. … When the day of

reckoning came at the close of the war, it needed no spirit of

prophecy to tell how these Tories, armed or unarmed, would

fare, and we have not to go outside the familiar field of

human nature for an explanation. That it was not till six

months after the ratification of the treaty by Congress that

Sir Guy Carleton removed the British army from New York—the

delay being caused by his embarrassment from the crowds of

loyalists seeking his protection—is a reminder to us of their

forlorn condition. … From all over the seaboard of the

continent refugees made their way to New York in crowds. …

They threw themselves in despair upon the protection of the

British commander. … He pleaded his encumbrances of this

character in answer to the censures upon him for delaying his

departure, and he vainly hoped that Congress would devise some

measures of leniency to relieve him. It is difficult to

estimate with any approach to exactness the number of these

hounded victims. Many hundreds of them had been seeking refuge

in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick since the autumn of 1782, and

additional parties, in increasing number, followed to the same

provinces. An historian [Murdoch, "History of Nova Scotia"]

sets the whole number at the close of 1783 at 25,000. Large

numbers of the loyalists of the Southern provinces were

shipped to the Bahamas and to the West India Islands. At one

time Carleton had upon his hands over 12,000 Tories clamorous

for transportation. … A celebration of the centennial of the

settlement of Upper Canada by these exiles took place in 1884.

At a meeting of the royal governor, Lord Dorchester, and the

council, in Quebec, in November, 1789, in connection with the

disposal of still unappropriated crown lands in the province,

order was taken for the making and preserving of a registry of

the names of all persons, with those of their sons and

daughters, 'who had adhered to the unity of the empire, and

joined the royal standard in America before the treaty of

separation in the year 1783.' The official list contains the

names of several thousands. It was by their descendants and

representatives that the centennial occasion referred to was

observed. … Some bands passed to Canada by Whitehall, Lake

Champlain, Ticonderoga, and Plattsburg, then southward to

Cornwall, ascending the St. Lawrence, and settling on the

north bank.

{3117}

Others went from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia up the St.

Lawrence to Sorel, where they wintered, going afterwards to

Kingston. Most of the exiles ascended the Hudson to Albany,

then by the Mohawk and Wood Creek to Oneida and Ontario lakes.

… As these exiles had stood for the unity of the empire, they

took the name of the 'United Empire Loyalists'" (a name which

is often abbreviated in common use to U. E. Loyalists).

G. E. Ellis,

The Loyalists and their Fortunes

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 7, pages 185-214).

"Some 10,000 refugees had, in 1784, and the few years

following, found homes in Western Canada, just as it is

estimated … that 20,000 had settled in the provinces by the

sea. Assuming full responsibility for the care and present

support of her devoted adherents, Great Britain opened her

hand cheerfully to assist them. … The sum paid by the British

Government to the suffering refugees was about $15,000,000."

G. Bryce,

Short History of the Canadian People,

chapter 7, section 2.

ALSO IN:

E. Ryerson,

The Loyalists of America and their Times.

L. Sabine,

Biographical Sketches of the Loyalists of America.

TORNOSA, Battle of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

TORO, Battle of (1476).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

TOROMONOS, The.

See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINES INHABITANTS.

TORONTO: A. D. 1749.

The hospitable origin of the city.

"The Northern Indians were flocking with their beaver-skins to

the English of Oswego; and in April, 1749, an officer named

Portneuf had been sent with soldiers and workmen to build a

stockaded trading-house at Toronto, in order to intercept

them,—not by force, which would have been ruinous to French

interests, but by a tempting supply of goods and brandy. Thus

the fort was kept well stocked, and with excellent effect."

F. Parkman,

Montcalm and Wolfe,

chapter 3 (volume 1).

TORONTO: A. D. 1813.

Taken and burned by the Americans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1813 (APRIL-JULY).

TORONTO: A. D. 1837.

The Mackenzie rising.

Defeat of the rebels.

See CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.

TORQUES.

"The Latin word torques has been applied in a very extended

sense to the various necklaces or collars for the neck, found

in Britain, and other countries inhabited by the Celtic

tribes. This word has been supposed to be derived from the

Welch or Irish 'torc,' which has the same signification, but

the converse is equally plausible, that this was derived from

the Latin."

S. Birch,

On the Torc of the Celts

(Archaeological Journal, volume 2).

TORRES VEDRAS, The Lines of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1809-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER),

and 1810-1812.

TORTONA: A. D. 1155.

Destruction by Frederick Barbarossa.

See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

TORTOSA: A. D. 1640.

Spanish capture and sack.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

TORTUGAS:

The Rendezvous of the Buccaneers.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

TORTURE.

See LAW, CRIMINAL,: A. D.1708.

TORY.

See TORIES.

TOTEMS.

"A peculiar social institution exists among the [North

American] Indians, very curious in its character; and though I

am not prepared to say that it may be traced through all the

tribes east of the Mississippi, yet its prevalence is so

general, and its influence on political relations so

important, as to claim especial attention. Indian communities,

independent of their local distribution into tribes, bands,

and villages, are composed of several distinct clans. Each

clan has its emblem, consisting of the figure of some bird,

beast, or reptile; and each is distinguished by the name of

the animal which it thus bears as its device; as, for example,

the clan of the Wolf, the Deer, the Otter, or the Hawk. In the

language of the Algonquins, these emblems are known by the

name of 'Totems.' The members of the same clan, being

connected, or supposed to be so, by ties of kindred more or

less remote, are prohibited from intermarriage. Thus Wolf

cannot marry Wolf; but he may, if he chooses, take a wife from

the clan of Hawks, or any other clan but his own. It follows

that when this prohibition is rigidly observed, no single clan

can live apart from the rest; but the whole must be mingled

together, and in every family the husband and wife must be of

different clans. To different totems attach different degrees

of rank and dignity; and those of the Bear, the Tortoise, and

the Wolf are among the first in honor. Each man is proud of

his badge, jealously asserting its claims to respect; and the

members of the same clan, though they may, perhaps, speak

different dialects, and dwell far asunder, are yet bound

together by the closest ties of fraternity. If a man is

killed, every member of the clan feels called upon to avenge

him; and the wayfarer, the hunter, or the warrior is sure of a

cordial welcome in the distant lodge of the clansman whose

face perhaps he has never seen. It may be added that certain

privileges, highly prized as hereditary rights, sometimes

reside in particular clans; such as that of furnishing a

sachem to the tribe, or of performing certain religious

ceremonies or magic rites."

F. Parkman,

Conspiracy of Pontiac,

chapter 1.

"A totem is a class of material objects which a savage regards

with superstitious respect, believing that there exists

between him and every member of the class an intimate and

altogether special relation. The name is derived from an

Ojibway (Chippeway) word 'totem,' the correct spelling of

which is somewhat uncertain. It was first introduced into

literature, so far as appears, by J. Long, an Indian

interpreter of last century, who spelt it 'totam.' … The

connexion between a man and his totem is mutually beneficent;

the totem protects the man, and the man shows his respect for

the totem in various ways, by not killing it if it be an

animal, and not cutting or gathering it if it be a plant. As

distinguished from a fetich, a totem is never an isolated

individual, but always a class of objects, generally a species

of animals or of plants, more rarely a class of inanimate

natural objects, very rarely a class of artificial objects.

Considered in relation to men, totems are of at least three

kinds:—

(1) the clan totem, common to a whole clan, and passing by

inheritance from generation to generation;

(2) the sex totem, common either to all the males or to all

the females of a tribe, to the exclusion in either case of the

other sex;

(3) the individual totem, belonging to a single individual and

not passing to his descendants."

J. G. Frazer,

Totemism,

pages 1-2.

ALSO IN:

L. H. Morgan,

League of the Iroquois,

chapter 4.

L. H. Morgan,

Ancient Society,

part 2.

L. Fison and A. W. Howitt,

Kamilaroi and Kurnai,

appendix B.

W. R. Smith,

Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia,

chapter 7.

{3118}

TOTILA, King of the Ostrogoths.

See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

TOTONACOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TOTONACOS.

TOUL: A. D. 1552-1559.

Possession acquired by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

TOUL: A. D. 1648.

Ceded to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

TOULON: A. D. 1793-1794.

Revolt against the Revolutionary Government at Paris.

English aid called in.

Siege, capture and frightful vengeance by the Terrorists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);

and 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

----------TOULOUSE: Start--------

TOULOUSE: B. C. 106.

Acquisition by the Romans.

Tolosa, modern Toulouse, was the chief town of the Volcæ

Tectosages (see VOLCÆ, THE), a Gallic tribe which occupied the

upper basin of the Garonne, between the western prolongation

of the Cevennes and the eastern Pyrenees. Some time before 106

B. C. the Romans had formed an alliance with the Tectosages

which enabled them to place a garrison in Tolosa; but the

people had tired of the arrangement, had risen against the

garrison and had put the soldiers in chains. On that

provocation, Q. Servilius Cæpio, one of the consuls of the

year 106, advanced upon the town, found traitors to admit him

within its gates, and sacked it as a Roman general knew how to

do. He found a great treasure of gold in Tolosa, the origin of

which has been the subject of much dispute. The treasure was

sent off under escort to Massilia, but disappeared on the way,

its escort being attacked and slain. Consul Cæpio was accused

of the robbery; there was a great scandal and prosecution at

Rome, and "Aurum Tolosanum"—"the gold of Toulouse"—became a

proverbial expression, applied to ill-gotten wealth.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 2, chapter 1.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 410-509.

The Gothic kingdom.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419, and after.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 721.

Repulse of the Moslems.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 781.

Made a county of Aquitaine.

See AQUITAINE: A. D. 781.

TOULOUSE: 10-11th Centuries.

The rise of the Counts.

The counts of Toulouse "represented an earlier line of dukes

of Aquitaine, successors of the dukes of Gothia or Septimania,

under whom the capital of southern Gaul had been not Poitiers

but Toulouse, Poitou itself counting as a mere underfief. In

the latter half of the tenth century these dukes of Gothia or

Aquitania Prima, as the Latin chroniclers sometimes called

them from the Old Roman name of their country, had seen their

ducal title transferred to the Poitevin lords of Aquitania

Secunda—the dukes of Aquitaine with whom we have had to deal.

But the Poitevin overlordship was never fully acknowledged by

the house of Toulouse; and this latter in the course of the

following century again rose to great importance and

distinction, which reached its height in the person of Count

Raymond IV., better known as Raymond of St. Gilles, from the

name of the little county which had been his earliest

possession. From that small centre his rule gradually spread

over the whole territory of the ancient dukes of Septimania.

In the year of the Norman conquest of England [1066] Rouergue,

which was held by a younger branch of the house of Toulouse,

lapsed to the elder line; in [1088] the year after the

Conqueror's death Raymond came into possession of Toulouse

itself; in 1094 he became, in right of his wife, owner of half

the Burgundian county of Provence. His territorial influence

was doubled by that of his personal fame; he was one of the

chief heroes of the first Crusade; and when he died in 1105 he

left to his son Bertrand, over and above his Aquitanian

heritage, the Syrian county of Tripoli. On Bertrand's death in

1112 these possessions were divided, his son Pontius

succeeding him as count of Tripoli, and surrendering his

claims upon Toulouse to his uncle Alfonso Jordan, a younger

son of Raymond of St. Gilles. Those claims, however, were

disputed. Raymond's elder brother, Count William IV., had left

an only daughter who, after a childless marriage with King

Sancho Ramirez of Aragon, became the wife of Count William

VIII. of Poitou. From that time forth it became a moot point

whether the lord of St. Gilles or the lord of Poitiers was the

rightful count of Toulouse. … With all these shiftings and

changes of ownership the kings of France had never tried to

interfere. Southern Gaul—'Aquitaine' in the wider sense—was a

land whose internal concerns they found it wise to leave as

far as possible untouched."

K. Norgate,

England under the Angevin Kings,

volume I, chapter 10.

See, also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

TOULOUSE: 12th Century.

The joyous court.

See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 1209.

The beginning of the Albigensian Crusades.

See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 1213.

Conquest by Simon de Montfort and his crusaders.

See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 1229-1271.

End of the reign of the Counts.

See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 1814.

The last battle of the Peninsular War.

Occupation of the city by the English.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

TOURCOIGN, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

TOURNAY: A. D. 1513.

Capture by the English.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1581.

Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1583.

Submission to Spain.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1667.

Taken by the French.

See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1668.

Ceded to France.

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

TOURNAY: A. D. 1709.

Siege and reduction by Marlborough and Prince Eugene.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

{3119}

TOURNAY: A. D. 1713.

Ceded to Holland.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;

and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1745-1748.

Siege.

Battle of Fontenoy and surrender to the French.

Restoration at the Peace.

See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES):

A. D. 1745; and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1794.

Battles near the city.

Surrender to the French.

FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

----------TOURNAY: End--------

TOURNEY.

TOURNAMENT.

JOUST.

"The word tourney, sometimes tournament, and in Latin

'torneamentum,' clearly indicates both the French origin of

these games and the principal end of that exercise, the art of

manœuvring, of turning ('tournoyer') his horse skilfully, to

strike his adversary and shield himself at the same time from

his blows. The combats, especially those of the nobility, were

always fought on horseback, with the lance and sharp sword;

the knight presented himself, clothed in armour which covered

his whole body, and which, while it preserved him from wounds,

bent to every movement and retarded those of his war horse. It

was important, therefore, that constant exercise should

accustom the knight's limbs to the enormous weight which he

must carry, and the horse to the agility which was expected of

him. In a 'passage' or 'pass of arms' ('passage' or 'pas

d'armes') the generic name of all those games, this exercise

was composed of two parts: the joust, which was a single

combat of knight against knight, both clothed in all their

arms, and the tourney, which was the image of a general

battle, or the encounter and evolutions of two troops of

cavalry equal in number."

J. C. L. de Sismondi,

France under the Feudal System

(Translated by W. Bellingham),

chapter 8.

TOURS: A. D. 732.

Defeat of the Moors by Charles Martel.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732;

also, FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

TOURS: A. D. 1870.

Seat of a part of the provisional

Government of National Defense.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

TOUSSAINT L'OUVERTURE, The career of.

See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

TOWER AND SWORD, The Order of the.

This was an order of knighthood founded in Portugal by Alfonso

V., who reigned from 1438 to 1481. "The institution of the

order related to a sword reputed to be carefully guarded in a

tower of the city of Fez: respecting it there was a prophecy

that it must one day come into the possession of a Christian

king; in other words, that the Mohammedan empire of

northwestern Africa would be subverted by the Christians.

Alfonso seemed to believe that he was the destined conqueror."

S. A. Dunham.

History of Spain and Portugal,

volume 3, page 225 (American edition).

TOWER OF LONDON, The.

"Built originally by the Conqueror to curb London, afterwards

the fortress-palace of his descendants, and in the end the

State prison, from which a long procession of the ill-starred

great went forth to lay their heads on the block on Tower

Hill; while State murders, like those of Henry VI. and the two

young sons of Edward IV., were done in the dark chambers of

the Tower itself."

Goldwin Smith,

A Trip to England,

page 56.

"Even as to length of days, the Tower has no rival among

palaces and prisons. … Old writers date it from the days of

Caesar; a legend taken up by Shakspeare and the poets in

favour of which the name of Caesar's Tower remains in popular

use to this very day. A Roman wall can even yet be traced near

some parts of the ditch. The Tower is mentioned in the Saxon

Chronicle, in a way not incompatible with the fact of a Saxon

stronghold having stood upon the spot. The buildings as we

have them now in block and plan were commenced by William the

Conqueror; and the series of apartments in Caesar's Tower [the

great Norman keep now called the White Tower]—hall, gallery,

council chamber, chapel—were built in the early Norman reigns

and used as a royal residence by all our Norman kings."

W. H. Dixon,

Her Majesty's Tower,

chapter 1.

"We are informed by the 'Textus Roffensis' that the present

Great or White Tower was constructed by Gundulph, Bishop of

Rochester, under the direction of King William I., who was

suspicious of the fidelity of the citizens. The date assigned

by Stow is 1078."

J. Britton and E. W. Brayley,

Memoirs of the Tower of London,

chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

Lord de Ros,

Memorials of the Tower.

TOWN.

"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."

E. A. Freeman,

City and Borough

(Macmillan's Magazine, May, 1889).

See, also, TOWNSHIP; BOROUGH; GUILDS; and COMMUNE.

TOWNSHEND MEASURES, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767.

TOWNSHIP.

"In recent historical writing dealing with Anglo-Saxon

conditions, a great place has been occupied by the 'township.'

The example was set sixty years ago by Palgrave; but it does

not seem to have been generally followed until in 1874 Dr.

Stubbs gave the word a prominent place in his 'Constitutional

History.' With Dr. Stubbs the 'township' was 'the unit of the

constitutional machinery or local administration'; and since

then most writers on constitutional and legal history have

followed in the same direction. … The language commonly used

in this connection need not, perhaps, necessarily be

understood as meaning that the phenomenon which the writers

have in mind was actually known to the Saxons themselves as a

'township' ('tunscipe'). It may be said that 'township' is

merely a modern name which it is convenient to apply to it.

Yet, certainly, that language usually suggests that it was

under that name that the Saxons knew it. … It is therefore of

some interest, at least for historical terminology,—and

possibly for other and more important reasons,—to point out

that there is no good foundation in Anglo-Saxon sources for

such a use of the term; that 'tunscipe' in the few places

where it does appear does not mean an area of land, an extent

of territory, or even the material houses and crofts of a

village; that it is probably nothing more than a loose general

term for 'the villagers.' …

{3120}

Only three passages in Anglo-Saxon literature have as yet been

found in which the word 'tunscipe' appears,—the Saxon

translation of Bede's 'Ecclesiastical History,' volume 10, the

laws of Edgar, iv. 8, and the 'Saxon Chronicle,' s. a 1137. …

The later history of the word 'township' would probably repay

investigation. It is certainly not a common word in literature

until comparatively recent times; and, where it does appear,

its old meaning seems often to cling to it. … There is a good

deal to make one believe that 'town ' [see, above, TOWN]

continued to be the common popular term for what we may

describe in general language as a rural centre of population

even into the 18th century. … The far more general use of the

word 'town' than of 'township' in early New England is most

naturally explained by supposing that it was the word

ordinarily employed in England at the time of the

migration,—at any rate, in East Anglia. … It might very

naturally be said that the effect of the foregoing argument is

no more than to replace 'township' by town, and that such a

change is immaterial,—that it is a difference between

tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. I cannot help thinking, however,

that the adoption of a more correct terminology will be of

scientific advantage; and for this reason. So long as we speak

of the Anglo-Saxon 'township' we can hardly help attaching to

the word somewhat of the meaning which it has borne since the

sixteenth century. We think of it as an area inhabited by

freemen with an administrative machinery in the hands of an

assembly of those inhabitants and of officers chosen by them.

We start, therefore, with a sort of unconscious presumption

that the 'township' was what we call 'free.' … Now, it is this

question as to the position of the body of the population in

the earliest Anglo-Saxon times that is just now at issue; and

no student would say that at present the question is settled."

W. J. Ashley,

The Anglo-Saxon "Township"

(Quarterly Journal of Economics, April, 1894).

TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING, The New England.

"When people from England first came to dwell in the

wilderness of Massachusetts Bay, they settled in groups upon

small irregular-shaped patches of land, which soon came to be

known as townships. … This migration … was a movement, not of

individuals or of separate families, but of

church-congregations, and it continued to be so as the

settlers made their way inland and westward. … A township

would consist of about as many farms as could be disposed

within convenient distance from the meeting-house, where all

the inhabitants, young and old, gathered every Sunday, coming

on horseback or afoot. The meeting-house was thus centrally

situated, and near it was the town pasture or 'common,' with

the school-house and the block-house, or rude fortress for

defence against the Indians. … Around the meeting-house and

common the dwellings gradually clustered into a village, and

after a while the tavern, store, and town-house made their

appearance. … Under these circumstances they developed a kind

of government which we may describe in the present tense, for

its methods are pretty much the same to-day that they were two

centuries ago. In a New England township the people directly

govern themselves; the government is the people, or, to speak

with entire precision, it is all the male inhabitants of

one-and-twenty years of age and upwards. The people tax

themselves. Once each year, usually in March but sometimes as

early as February or as late as April, a 'town-meeting' is

held, at which all the grown men of the township are expected

to be present and to vote, while anyone may introduce motions

or take part in the discussion. … The town-meeting is held in

the town-house, but at first it used to be held in the church,

which was thus a 'meeting-house' for civil as well as

ecclesiastical purposes. At the town-meeting measures relating

to the administration of town affairs are discussed and

adopted or rejected; appropriations are made for the public

expenses of the town, or in other words the amount of the town

taxes for the year is determined; and town officers are

elected for the year. … The principal executive magistrates of

the town are the selectmen. They are three, five, seven, or

nine in number. … It [the town] was simply the English parish

government brought into a new country and adapted to the new

situation. Part of this new situation consisted in the fact

that the lords of the manor were left behind. There was no

longer any occasion to distinguish between the township as a

manor and the township as a parish; and so, as the three names

had all lived on together, side by side, in England, it was

now the oldest and most generally descriptive name,

'township,' that survived, and has come into use throughout a

great part of the United States. … New York had from the very

beginning the rudiments of an excellent system of local

self-government. The Dutch villages had their assemblies,

which under the English rule were developed into

town-meetings, though with less ample powers than those of New

England. … The New York system is of especial interest,

because it has powerfully influenced the development of local

institutions throughout the Northwest."

J. Fiske,

Civil Government in the United States,

chapters 2 and 4.

"The name town first occurs in the record of the second

colonial meeting of the Court of Assistants [Massachusetts

Bay, September 7, 1630], in connection with the naming of

Boston, Charlestown and Watertown. … A rude pattern of a frame

of town government was shaped by Dorchester, when, in place of

the earlier practice of transacting business at meetings of

the whole body of its freemen (the grants of land being

certified by a committee consisting of the clergymen and

deacons), it designated certain inhabitants, twelve in number,

to meet weekly, and consult and determine upon public

affairs,—without any authority, however, beyond other

inhabitants who should choose to come and take part in their

consultations and votes. About the same time, at Watertown, it

was 'agreed by the consent of the freemen, that there should

be three persons chosen for the ordering of the civil

affairs.' In the fourth year from the settlement of Boston, at

which time the earliest extant records were made, three

persons were chosen 'to make up the ten to manage the affairs

of the town.' The system of delegated town action was there

perhaps the same which was defined in an 'Order made by the

inhabitants of Charlestown, at a full meeting [February 10,

1635], for the government of the town by Selectmen,'—the name

presently extended throughout New England to the municipal

governors. …

{3121}

The towns have been, on the one hand, separate governments,

and, on the other, the separate constituents of a common

government. In Massachusetts, for two centuries and a quarter,

the Deputies in the General Court—or Representatives, as they

have been named under the State Constitution—continued to

represent the municipal corporations. In New Hampshire,

Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island, that basis of

representation still subsists."

J. G. Palfrey,

History of New England,

volume 1, chapter 9.

"Boston … is the largest community that ever maintained the

town organization, probably the most generally able and

intelligent. No other town ever played so conspicuous a part

in connection with important events. It led Massachusetts, New

England, the thirteen colonies, in the struggle for

independence. Probably in the whole history of the Anglo-Saxon

race, there has been no other so interesting manifestation of

the activity of the Folk-mote. Of this town of towns, Samuel

Adams was the son of sons. … One may almost call him the

creature of the town-meeting."

J. K. Hosmer,

Samuel Adams, the Man of the Town-Meeting

(Johns Hopkins University Studies, series 2, number 4).

ALSO IN:

E. Channing,

Town and County Government in the English Colonies

(Johns Hopkins University Studies, series 2, number 10).

See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644;

and SELECTMEN.

TOWTON, Battle of (A. D. 1461).

On Palm Sunday, March 29, 1461, two armies of Englishmen met

on a "goodly plain," ten miles from the city of York, between

the villages of Towton and Saxton, to fight out the contention

of the parties of the "two roses,"—of Lancaster and York. The

battle they fought is called the bloodiest that ever dyed

English soil. It raged through an afternoon and 'a night until

the following day, and the slain of the two sides has been

variously reckoned by different historians at 20,000 to

38,000. No quarter was given by the victorious partisans of

Edward IV. and the Lancastrians were utterly crushed. Henry

VI. fled to Scotland and Queen Margaret repaired to France.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

C. Ransome,

Battle of Towton

(English Historical Review, July, 1889).

TOXANDRIA.

After Julian's successful campaigns against the Franks, A. D.

358, the latter were permitted to remain, as subjects of the

Roman Empire, in "an extensive district of Brabant, which was

then known by the appellation of Toxandria, and may deserve to

be considered as the original seat of their Gallic monarchy. …

This name seems to be derived from the 'Toxandri' of Pliny,

and very frequently occurs in the histories of the middle age.

Toxandria was a country of woods and morasses, which extended

from the neighbourhood of Tongres to the conflux of the Vahal

and the Rhine."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 19, with foot-note.

See, also, GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

TOXARCHI, The.

The commanders of the Athenian archers and of the city-watch

(known as Scythians) were so called.

A. Boeckh,

Public Economy of Athens,

book 2, chapter 11.

TRACHIS.

TRACHINIA.

See GREECE: B. C. 480 (THERMOPYLÆ).

TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.

TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.

TRACT NINETY.

See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.

TRADES UNIONS.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

TRAFALGAR, Naval Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

TRAJAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 98-117.

TRAJAN'S WALL.

The Emperor Trajan "began a fortified line, afterwards

completed, from the Rhine to the Danube. This great work was

carried from Ratisbon to Mayence. It was known as Trajan's

Wall. It may still be traced to some extent by the marks of a

mound and a ditch."

Church and Brodribb,

Notes to the Germany of Tacitus,

chapter 29.

TRAMELI, The.

See LYCIANS.

TRANSALPINE.

Beyond the Alps, looking from the Roman standpoint.

TRANSLEITHANIA.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

TRANSOXANIA.

See BOKHARA.

TRANSPADANE GAUL.

Cisalpine Gaul north of the Padus, or Po.

See PADUS.

TRANSRHENANE.

Beyond the Rhine,—looking from the Roman standpoint; that is,

on the eastern and northern side of the Rhine.

TRANSVAAL REPUBLIC, The.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

TRANSYLVANIA: Early history.

See DACIA.

TRANSYLVANIA: The Huns in possession.

See HUNS: A. D. 433-453.

TRANSYLVANIA: 12th Century.

Conquest by Hungary.

Settlement of Germans.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1526-1567.

John Zapolya, the waivod, elected King of Hungary.

His contest with Ferdinand of Austria.

His appeal to the Turks.

The Sultan assumes suzerainty of the country.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1567-1660.

Struggles between the Austrian and the Turk.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604; and 1606-1660.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1575.

Stephen Batory, the Duke, elected King of Poland.

See POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D: 1599-1601.

Wallachian conquest.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,

14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1606.

Yoke of the Ottomans partly broken.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1660-1664.

Recovery of independence from the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1699.

Ceded to the House of Austria by the Turks,

in the Treaty of Carlowitz.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

TRANSYLVANIA, The Kentucky colony of.

See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778.

TRAPPISTS.

The monks of La Trappe are often referred to as Trappists.

"This celebrated abbey was one of the most ancient belonging

to the Order of Cisteaux [the Cistercians]. It was established

[A. D. 1140] by Rotrou, the second count of Perche, and

undertaken to accomplish a vow made whilst in peril of

shipwreck." In the 17th century the monks had become

scandalous]y degenerate and dissolute. Their institution was

reformed by M. de Rancé, who assumed the direction as abbot in

1662, and who introduced the severe discipline for which the

monastery was afterwards famous. Among its rules was one of

absolute silence.

C. Lancelot,

A Tour to Alet and La Grande Chartreuse,

volume 1, pages 113-186.

{3122}

TRASIMENE, Lake, Battle of (B. C. 217).

See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

TRASTEVERE.

Trastevere was a suburb of Rome "as early as the time of

Augustus; it now contains the oldest houses in Rome, which

belong to the 11th and 12th centuries."

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on ancient Ethnography and Geography,

volume 2, page 103.

TRAUSI, The.

See THRACIANS.

TRAVENDAHL, Treaty of (1700).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1697-1700.

TRAVENSTADT, Battle of (1706).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

TREASON.

See MAJESTAS.

TREATIES.

The Treaties 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.

TREATY PORTS, The.

See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1812.

TREBIA,

TREBBIA,

Battle of the.

See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

Battle.

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

TREBIZOND:

Origin of the city.

"Trebizond, celebrated in the retreat of the Ten Thousand as

an ancient colony of Greeks, derived its wealth and splendour

from the munificence of the Emperor Hadrian, who had

constructed an artificial port on a coast left destitute by

nature of secure harbours. The city was large and populous."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 10.

TREBIZOND: A. D. 258.

Capture by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

TREBIZOND: A. D. 1204-1461.

The Greek empire.

"The empire of Trebizond was the creation of accident. … The

destruction of a distant central government, when

Constantinople was conquered by the Frank Crusaders, left

[the] provincial administration without the pivot on which it

had revolved. The conjuncture was seized by a young man, of

whom nothing was known but that he bore a great name, and was

descended from the worst tyrant in the Byzantine annals, This

youth grasped the vacant sovereignty, and, merely by assuming

the imperial title, and placing himself at the head of the

local administration, founded a new empire. Power changed its

name and its dwelling, but the history of the people was

hardly modified. The grandeur of the empire of Trebizond

exists only in romance. Its government owed its permanence to

its being nothing more than a continuation of a

long-established order of civil polity, and to its making no

attempt to effect any social revolution." The young man who

grasped the sovereignty of this Asiatic fragment of the

shattered Byzantine empire was Alexius, a grandson of

Andronicus I., the last emperor at Constantinople of the

family of Comnenos. This Alexius and his brother David, who

had been raised in obscurity at Constantinople, escaped from

the city before it was taken by the Crusaders, and fled to the

coast of Colchis, "where their paternal aunt, Thamar,

possessed wealth and influence. Assisted by her power, and by

the memory of their tyrannical grandfather, who had been

popular in the east of Asia Minor, they were enabled to

collect an army of Iberian mercenaries. At the head of this

force Alexios entered Trebizond in the month of April 1204,

about the time Constantinople fell into the hands of the

Crusaders. He had been proclaimed emperor by his army on

crossing the frontier. To mark that he was the legitimate

representative of the imperial family of Komnenos, and to

prevent his being confounded with the numerous descendants of

females, or with the family of the emperor Alexius III.

(Angelos), who had arrogated to themselves his name, he

assumed the designation of Grand-Komnenos. Wherever he

appeared, he was acknowledged as the lawful sovereign of the

Roman empire." For a time Alexius of Trebizond, with the help

of his brother David, extended his dominions in Asia Minor

with rapidity and ease, and he was brought very soon into

collision with the other Greek emperor, Theodore Lascaris, who

had established himself at Nicæa. It seemed likely, at first,

that Trebizond would become the dominant power; but the

movement of events which favored that one of the rival empires

was presently stayed, and then reversed, even though Alexius

took aid from the Latin emperor at Constantinople. Not many

years later, in fact, the empire of Trebizond evaded

extinction at the hands of the Turkish Sultan of Iconium, or

Roum, only by paying tribute and acknowledging vassalage to

that sovereign. For sixty years the so-called empire continued

in a tributary relationship to the Seljuk sultans and to the

grand khan of the Mongols who overthrew them in 1244. But, if

not a very substantial empire during that period, it seems to

have formed an exceedingly prosperous and wealthy commercial

power, controlling not only a considerable coast territory on

its own side of the Euxine, but also Cherson, Gothia, and all

the Byzantine possessions in the Tauric Chersonesos; and "so

close was the alliance of interest that these districts

remained dependent on the government of Trebizond until the

period of its fall." On the decline of the Mongol power, the

empire of Trebizond regained its independence in 1280, and

maintained it for nearly a century, when it was once more

compelled to pay tribute to the later Mongol conqueror, Timur.

At the end of the 14th century the little "empire" was reduced

to a strip of coast, barely forty miles wide, extending from

Batoun to Kerasunt, and the separated city of Oinaion, with

some territory adjoining it. But, within this small compass,

"few countries in Europe enjoyed as much internal tranquility,

or so great security for private property." The commerce of

Trebizond had continued to flourish, notwithstanding frequent

quarrels and hostilities with the Genoese, who were the chief

managers of its trade with the west. But the decay of the

empire, politically, commercially, and morally, was rapid in

its later years. First becoming tributary to the Ottoman

conqueror of Constantinople, it finally shared the fate of the

Byzantine capital. The city of Trebizond was surrendered to

Mohammed II. in 1461. Its last emperor, David, was permitted

to live for a time, with his family, in the European dominions

of the Turk; but after a few years, on some suspicion of a

plot, he was put to death with his seven sons, and their

bodies were cast unburied to the dogs. The wife and mother of

the dead—the fallen empress Helena—guarded them and dug a

grave for them with her own hands. The Christian population of

Trebizond was expelled from the city and mostly enslaved. Its

place was taken by a Moslem colony.

G. Finlay,

History of the Empire of Trebizond

(History of Greece and of the Empire of Trebizond).

{3123}

TREBONIAN LAW, The.

See ROME: B. C. 57-52.

TREK, The Great.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

TREMECEN, The Kingdom of.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.

TREMONT, The Name.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1630.

TRENT, The Council of.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

TRENT AFFAIR, The.

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

TRENTON: A. D. 1776.

The surprise of the Hessians.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1776-1777 WASHINGTON'S RETREAT.

----------TRÈVES: Start--------

TRÈVES:

Origin.

Trèves was originally the chief town of the Treviri, from whom

it derived its name. When the Romans established a colony

there they called it Augusta Trevirorum. In time, the Augusta

was dropped and Trevirorum became Trèves, or Trier.

See TREVIRI.

TRÈVES:

Under the Romans.

"The town of the Treveri, named Augusta probably from the

first emperor, soon gained the first place in the Belgic

province; if, still, in the time of Tiberius, Durocortorum of

the Remi (Rheims) is named the most populous place of the

province and the seat of the governors, an author from the

time of Claudius already assigns the primacy there to the

chief place of the Treveri. But Treves became the capital of

Gaul—we may even say of the West—only through the remodelling

of the imperial administration under Diocletian. After Gaul,

Britain and Spain were placed under one supreme

administration, the latter had its seat in Treves; and

thenceforth Treves was also, when the emperors stayed in Gaul,

their regular residence, and, as a Greek of the fifth century

says, the greatest city beyond the Alps."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 8, chapter 3.

TRÈVES: A. D. 306.

The Ludi Francici at.

See FRANKS: A. D. 306.

TRÈVES: A. D. 364-376.

Capital of Valentinian and the Western Empire.

See ROM[E: A. D. 363-379.

TRÈVES: A. D. 402.

Abandoned by the Roman præfecture.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1125-1152.

Origin of the Electorate.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1675.

Taken from the French by the Imperialists.

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

TRÈVES: A. D. 1689.

Threatened destruction by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1697.

Restored to the Empire.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1704.

Taken by Marlborough.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1801-1803.

Extinction of the Electorate.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

----------TRÈVES: End--------

TREVILLIAN'S STATION, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA)

CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.

TREVIRI, The.

The Treviri were one of the peoples of Gaul, in Cæsar's time,

"whose territory lay on the left bank of the Rhine and on both

sides of the Mosella (Mosel). Trier [ancient Treves] on the

Mosel was the head-quarters of the Treviri."

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 4, chapter 8.

TREVISAN MARCHES, Tyranny of Eccelino di Romano in the.

See VERONA: A. D. 1230-1259.

TRIAD SOCIETY, OR

WATER-LILY SECT, The.

The most extensive of the many secret societies among the

Chinese is "the Tienti hwui, or San-hoh hwui, i. e. the Triad

Society. It was formerly known by the title of the Pih-lien

kiau, or Water-lily Sect, but having been proscribed by the

government, it sought by this alteration of name, and some

other slight changes, to evade the operation of the laws. In

fact, it still subsists in some of the remoter provinces under

its old name and organization. The known and indeed almost

openly avowed object of this society has been, for many years,

the overturn of the Mant-chou dynasty."

The Chinese Rebellion

(North American Review, July, 1854).

ALSO IN:

Abbé Huc,

Christianity in China, &c.

volume 2, pages 274-277.

H. A. Giles,

Historic China,

pages 395-399.

TRIAL BY COMBAT.

See WAGER OF BATTLE.

TRIANON TARIFF, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

TRIARII.

See LEGION, ROMAN.

TRIBE.

TRIBUS.

See ROME, THE BEGINNING.

TRIBES, Greek.

See PHYLÆ.

TRIBOCES, The.

A people who, in Cæsar's time, were established on both banks

of the Rhine, occupying the central part of the modern Grand

Duchy of Baden and the opposite region of Gaul.

Napoleon III.,

History of Cæsar,

book 3, chapter 2, foot-note.

See, also, VANGIONES.

TRIBON, The.

A garment of thick cloth and small size worn by Spartan

youths, and sometimes by old men.

C. C. Felton,

Greece, Ancient and Modern,

course 2, lecture 7.

TRIBUNAL, The Revolutionary.

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

TRIBUNES, Consular, or Military.

See CONSULAR TRIBUNES.

TRIBUNES OF THE PLEBS.

See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

TRIBUNITIA, Potestas.

See POTESTAS TRIBUNITIA.

TRIBUTUM, The.

The tributum, a war-tax, collected from the Roman people in

the earlier periods of the Republic, was "looked upon as a

loan, and was returned on the termination of a successful war

out of the captured booty. … The principle that Rome was

justified in living at the expense of her subjects was

formally acknowledged when, in the year 167 B. C., the

tributum—the only direct tax which the Roman citizens paid—was

abolished, because the government could dispense with it after

the conquest of Macedonia. The entire burden and expense of

the administration were now put off upon the subjects."

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 6, chapter 7 (volume 4).

TRICAMARON, Battle of (A. D. 533).

See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.

TRICASSES.

The earlier name of the city of Troyes, France.

{3124}

TRICHINOPOLY:

Siege and relief (1751).

See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

TRICOTEUSES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

TRIDENTINE COUNCIL.

The Council of Trent; so called from Tridentum, the ancient

Latin name of the town.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

TRIERARCHY.

See LITURGIES.

TRINACRIA.

The ancient Greek name of the island of Sicily.

TRINCOMALEE, Battle of (1767).

See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.

TRINIDAD: A. D. 1498.

Discovery by Columbus.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

TRINIDAD: A. D. 1801.

Acquisition by England.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

TRINITY HOUSE.

"Perhaps there is throughout Britain no more interesting

example of the innate power and varied developments of the old

gild principle, certainly no more illustrious survival of it

to modern times, than the Trinity House. It stands out now as

an institution of high national importance, whose history is

entwined with the early progress of the British navy and the

welfare and increase of our sea craft and seamanship: in an

age when the tendency is to assume state control over all

matters of national interest the Trinity House, a voluntary

corporation, still fulfils the public functions to which its

faithful labours, through a long course of years, have

established its right and title. Although its earliest records

appear to be lost or burned, there seems to be no doubt that

Henry VIII's charter of 1514 was granted to a brotherhood

already existing. … In the charter itself we read that the

shipmen or mariners of England 'may anew erect' a gild, and

lands and tenements in Deptford Strand, already in possession,

are referred to. Similar bodies were formed in other places;

in the fourteenth century there was a shipmen's gild at Lynn

and another at Hull; in the fifteenth century the shipmen were

one of the crafts of York. Mr. Barrett mentions that they also

had houses at Newcastle and Dover. The Hull gild (which also

happens to have been dedicated to the Trinity) flourished for

seventy-four years before receiving its first royal grant. The

objects to which it was devoted were akin to those of the

Deptford House, and Henry VIII incorporated it in 1547, just

about the time when most gilds, not of crafts, were destroyed.

… The charitable side of the Trinity House functions has

always been considerable; in 1815 they possessed no less than

144 almshouses, besides giving 7,012 pensions; but of late

years their funds applicable to such purposes have been

curtailed. … It is significant that in Edward VI's reign the

name and style of Gild was abandoned by the brethren for the

title of 'the Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford

Strond.' Gilds now had come into disrepute. The functions of

the Trinity House have long been recognised of such value to

the public service that their honourable origin, so consonant

with other English institutions is apt to be forgotten. … To

cherish the 'science and art of mariners,' and to provide a

supply of pilots, especially for the Thames up to London, were

their prime duties. The Admiralty and Navy boards were as

administrative bodies in 1520, and the ship-building yard at

Deptford, with the store-houses there, 'was placed under the

direct control of the gild.' The Sea Marks Act of 1566,

established which throws considerable light on the position of

the company at that time, endued them with the power of

preserving old and setting up new sea marks or beacons round

the coasts, among which trees came under their purview. How

far their jurisdiction extended is not stated; it would be

interesting to know whether their progress round the whole

shores of Britain were gradual or not. It is, perhaps, for its

work in connexion with light-houses, light-ships, buoys, and

beacons, that the Trinity House is best known to the general

public. … It was only in 1836 that parliament 'empowered the

corporation to purchase of the crown, or from private

proprietors, all lights then in existence,' which are

therefore at present under their efficient central control. …

The principal matters in their sphere of action—the important

provision of pilots, the encouragement and supply of seamen,

ballastage and ballast, lights and buoys, the suppression of

piracy and privateers, tonnage measurement, the victualling of

the navy, their intimate connexion with the gradual growth and

armament of the navy, the curious right to appoint certain

consuls abroad—all these receive illustration at first hand

from the author's careful researches among state papers and

the muniments of the corporation."

Lucy T. Smith,

Review of "The Trinity House of Deptford Strond";

by C. R. B. Barrett

(English Historical Review, April, 1894).

TRINOBANTES, The.

The Trinobantes were the first of the tribes of Britain to

submit to Cæsar. They inhabited the part of the country now

embraced in the county of Essex and part of Middlesex. Their

chief town, or stronghold ("oppidum") was Camulodunum, where

the Romans afterwards founded a colony which became the modern

city of Colchester. Cunobelin, the Cymbeline of Shakespeare,

was a king of the Trinobantes who acquired extensive power.

One of the sons of Cunobelin, Caractacus, became the most

obstinate enemy of the Romans when they seriously began the

conquest of Britain, in the reign of Claudius.

E. L. Cutts,

Colchester,

chapters 2-3.

ALSO IN:

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 51.

See also,

BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

TRIOBOLON.

Three oboli,—the daily compensation paid in Athens to citizens

who served as judges in the great popular courts: afterwards

paid, likewise, to those who attended the assemblies of the

people.

A. Boeckh,

Public Economy of Athens,

book 2, chapter 15.

TRIPLE ALLIANCE, The.

There have been a number of Triple Alliances formed in

European history; see, for example.

NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668,

and SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

But the one in recent times to which allusion is often made is

that in which Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, are the

three parties. It was formed by treaty in February, 1882, and

renewed in 1887. Its purpose is mutual defense, especially, no

doubt, against the apprehended combination of Russia with

France.

----------TRIPOLI: Start--------

TRIPOLI, North Africa:

Origin of the name of.

See LEPTIS MAGNA.

{3125}

TRIPOLI, North Africa:

History.

See BARBARY STATES.

TRIPOLI, Syria:

Capture by the Crusaders.

Destruction of the Library.

Formation of the Latin county.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111;

and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1009-1144.

TRIPONTIUM.

A town in Roman Britain, where one of the great roads crossed

the Avon, near modern Lilburne.

T. Wright,

Celt, Roman and Saxon,

chapter 5.

TRISAGION, The.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 511-512.

TRI-SKELION.

GAMMADION.

FYLFOT-CROSS.

SVASTIKA.

"One of the most remarkable instances of the migration of a

symbol is that afforded by the 'tri-skelion,' or, as we more

familiarly know it, 'the three legs of Man.' It first appears

on the coins of Lycia, circa B. C. 480; and then on those of

Sicily, where it was adopted by Agathocles, B. C. 317-307, but

not as a symbol of the morning, midday, and afternoon sun, but

of the land of Trinacria, i. e., 'Three Capes,' the ancient

name of Sicily; and finally on the coins of the Isle of Man,

on which it seems to refer rather to the position of that

island between England, Scotland, and Ireland, than to its

triangular shape. The tri-skelion of Lycia is made up of three

cocks' heads. … But on the coins of Sicily and of the Isle of

Man the tri-skelion consists of three human legs of an

identical pattern, excepting that those of the latter island

are spurred. This form of tri-skelion is borne on the arms of

several old English families, and it was in all probability

first introduced into this country [England] by some Crusader

returning from the East by way of Sicily. … The tri-skelion is

but a modification of the 'gammadion' or 'fyl-fot-cross,' the

'svastika' of the Hindus. The latter was long ago suspected by

Edward Thomas to be a sun-symbol; but this was not positively

proved until Mr. Percy Gardner found a coin of the ancient

city of Mesembria in Thrace stamped with a gammadion bearing

within its open centre an image of the sun—Mesembria meaning

the city of 'Mid-day,' and this name being figured on some of

its coins by the decisive legend MEΣ卍. … The gammadion

has travelled further afield than any other symbol of

antiquity. … Count Goblet d'Alviella traces it back at last to

the Troad as the cradle of its birth, some time anterior to

the 13th century B. C."

The Athenœum, August 13, 1802

(Reviewing Comte Goblet d'Alviella's

"La Migration des Symboles").

TRITTYES.

See PHYLÆ.

TRIUMPH AND OVATION, The Roman.

"The highest reward of the commander was the triumphal

entrance. At first it was awarded by senate and people to real

merit in the field, and its arrangement was simple and

dignified; but soon it became an opportunity of displaying the

results of insatiable Roman rapacity and love of conquest.

Only the dictators, consuls, prætors, and, in late republican

times, occasionally legates, were permitted by the senate to

enter Rome in triumph, the permission to the legate being

granted only in case he had commanded independently ('suis

auspiciis'), and conducted the army to Rome from a victorious

campaign 'in sua provincia.' As in later times it was

impossible to conduct the whole army from distant provinces to

Rome, the last-mentioned condition was dispensed with, the

claim of the commander to a triumph being acknowledged in case

in one of the battles gained by him 5,000 enemies had been

killed. The senate granted the expenses necessary for the

procession after the quæstor urbanus had examined and

confirmed the commander's claim. Streets and squares through

which the procession had to pass were festively adorned. The

temples were opened, and incense burnt on the altars.

Improvised stands were erected in the street, filled with

festive crowds shouting 'Io triumphe!' The commander, in the

meantime, collected his troops near the temples of Bellona and

Apollo, outside the gates of Rome. … The victor was met at the

'porta triumphalis' by the senate, the city magistrates, and

numerous citizens, who took the lead of the procession, while

lictors opened a way through the crowd. After the city

dignitaries followed tibicines, after them the booty. …

Fettered kings, princes, and nobles followed, doomed to

detention in the Mamertine prison. Next came sacrificial oxen

with gilt horns, accompanied by priests; and, finally,

preceded by singers, musicians, and jesters, the triumphal

chariot drawn by four horses. Clad in a toga picta and the

tunica palmata, temporarily taken from the statue of the

Capitoline Jupiter, the triumphator stood in his chariot

holding the eagle-crowned ivory sceptre in his hand, while a

servus publicus standing behind him held the corona

triumphalis over his head. The army brought up the rear of the

procession, which moved from the Campus Martius through the

circus of Flaminius to the Porta Carmentalis, and thence, by

way of the Velabrum and the Circus Maximus, the Via Sacra and

the Forum, to the Capitol. Here the triumphator deposited his

golden crown in the lap of the Capitoline Jupiter, and

sacrificed the usual suovetaurilia. … The ovatio was granted

for less important conquests, or to a general for victories

not won 'suis auspiciis.' The victor, adorned with the toga

prætexta and the myrtle crown, originally used to walk; in

later times he rode on horseback."

E. Guhl and W. Koner,

Life of the Greeks and Romans,

section 100.

See, also, VIA SACRA.

TRIUMVIRATE,

The First.

See ROME: B. C. 63-58.

The Second.

See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

TROIS ÉVÊCHÉS, Les, and their acquisition by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559, and 1670-1681;

and GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

TROISVILLE, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

TROJA.

TROY.

TROAD.

ILIUM.

"In the whole long extent of this Western coast [of Asia

Minor] no region occupies a fairer situation than the northern

projection, the peninsula jutting out between Archipelago,

Hellespont, and Propontis, of which the mountain-range of Ida,

abounding in springs, forms the centre. Its woody heights were

the seat of the Phrygian Mother of the Gods; in its depths it

concealed treasures of ore, which the dæmons of mining, the

Dactyli of Ida, were here first said to have been taught by

Cybele to win and employ. A hardy race of men dwelt on the

mountains so rich in iron, divided into several tribes, the

Cebrenes, the Gergithians, and above all the beauteous

Dardani, among whom the story went, how their ancestor,

Dardanus, had, under the protection of the Pelasgian Zeus,

founded the city of Dardania.

{3126}

Some of these Dardani descended from the highlands into the

tracts by the coast, which has no harbours, but an island

lying in front of it called Tenedos. Here Phœnicians had

settled and established purple-fisheries in the sea of Sigeum;

at a later period Hellenic tribes arrived from Crete and

introduced the worship of Apollo. In the secure waters between

Tenedos and the mainland took place that contact which drew

the Idæan peninsula into the intercourse subsisting between

the coasts of the Archipelago. … In the midst of this

intercourse on the coast arose, out of the tribe of the

Dardani, which had deserted the hills, the branch of the

Trojans. … Thus, in the midst of the full life of the nations

of Asia Minor, on the soil of a peninsula (itself related to

either side) on which Phrygians and Pelasgians, Assyrians,

Phœnicians, and Hellenic mariners met, grows up the empire of

the Dardanides. The springs of the Ida range collect into

rivers, of which two flow to the Propontis, and one, the

Scamander, into the Ægean. The latter first flows through his

bed high in the mountains, through which he then breaks in a

narrow rocky gorge, and quitting the latter enters the flat

plain of his water-shed, surrounded on three sides by gentle

declivities, and open on the West to the sea. … In the

innermost corner of this plain projects a rocky height with

precipitous sides, as if it would bar the passage of the river

breaking forth from the ravine. Skirted in a wide curve by

Scamander on the East, it sinks to the West in gentle

declivities, where numerous veins of water spring from the

earth; these unite into two rivulets, distinguished by the

abundance and temperature of their water, which remain the

same at all seasons of the year. This pair of rivulets is the

immutable mark of nature, by which the height towering above

is recognized as the citadel of Ilium. They are the same

rivulets to which of old the Trojan women descended from the

Scæan gate to fetch water or to wash linen, and to this day

the same ancient walls close around the flowing water and

render it more easily available. The source of these rivulets

was the seat of power. On the gentler declivity lay Troja;

over which towered the steep citadel of Pergamus, the view

from whose turrets commanded the entire plain, … and beyond

the plain the broad sea itself. … No royal seat of the ancient

world could boast a grander site than this Trojan citadel."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 1, chapter 3.

The site contemplated by Dr. Curtius in the description quoted

above is some five miles higher up the valley of the Scamander

than Hissarlik, where Dr. Schliemann's excavations are

believed by many scholars to have now established the location

of ancient Troy.

H. Schliemann,

Ilios: the City and Country of the Trojans.

"Dr. Schliemann described in his 'Troja' and 'Ilios' seven

successive layers of city ruins found in his excavations at

Hissarlik. This number was increased in 1890 to nine by the

discovery of two layers intervening between the highest (or

Roman) layer, formerly called the seventh, and the sixth, or

so-called Lydian layer. These two lavers were, from the

character of the finds, attributed to the early and the later

Greek period. Dr. Schliemann was baffled by the fact that he

could discover no acropolis for the sixth, seventh, or eighth

layers. Dr. Dörpfeld, who in May [1893] resumed the

excavations at the expense of Dr. Schliemann's widow, makes in

the Mittheilungen of the German Archæological Society (xviii,

2), which appeared November 7, a significant report clearly

establishing the fact that the Romans, in building the great

temple of Ilian Athene, cut down the highest part of the

acropolis, and thus destroyed all traces of the acropolis

belonging to those layers. The excavations of 1890 had brought

to light two magnificent buildings in the sixth layer, besides

'Lydian' jars, much pottery, and one entire vase of the

Mykenæan or Homeric period. The evidence favored the

identification of this layer with the Homeric Troy or the

period of Mykenæ and Tiryns. On the other hand, the fact that

only two buildings find no city wall had been discovered for

this layer seemed to indicate that the Troy of Priam must be

referred to a lower level, namely, the second, where a

magnificent wall of prehistoric style had been discovered,

although its architecture and the character of the finds

suggested a more primitive culture than that painted in

Homeric song. The sixth layer has now in large part been

exposed by Dr. Dörpfeld and reveals the most imposing wall of

pre-Roman times. The remains of seven vast buildings have been

brought to light which have in part the ground plan of the

ancient Greek temples and of the halls of Tiryns and Mykenæ,

though surpassing those in proportions and in the carefulness

of their architecture. The remains of one admirable building

contained a hall 37 feet by 30. … Further, Dr. Dörpfeld

uncovered the fortifications of this city in many places, and

found them some sixteen feet in thickness with a still greater

height. On the outside the wall has a uniform slope. A

strong-tower fifty-eight feet in diameter contains an inner

staircase. In strength, proportions, and careful architecture

this tower will compare favorably with any tower of Greek

antiquity. The neat work of the corners and the nice dressing

of the stones might refer it to a period later than Homer, to

the historical Greek period, did we not know that in

historical times Troy was too insignificant to need the

erection of such walls. Moreover, the tower, built over in

Greek times, and partly damaged by the addition of an outer

stair, was finally in Roman times buried under massive

foundations. The correspondences in stone-work of the wall and

the houses place the tower and the buildings evidently in the

same layer. In the houses were found both local pottery and

also pottery of the Mykenæan style."

The Nation,

November 30, 1893.

"The latest news from the explorations at Hissarlik (Levant

Herald July 7) comes to us from the owner of the site, Mr.

Frank Calvert, United States consul, Dardanelles. It was

readily seen that the second, or burned city which Dr.

Schliemann enthusiastically assumed to be the city of Priam,

instead of solving the question of the 'Iliad,' offered new

problems to the archæologist. The precious objects and the

works of art there found were evidently ruder and more ancient

by some centuries than those of Mycenæ, and therefore

decidedly earlier than Homeric Troy. In the sixth city,

however, pottery of a Mycenæan type was discovered, and this

led Dr. Dörpfield, assisted by Mrs. Schliemann, and later by

the German Government, to extend excavations on this level,

with results that are now proving fruitful, and that may

possibly be conclusive. Curiously enough, Dr. Schliemann's

excavations obscured rather than aided this particular

investigation.

{3127}

The area of the sixth city was twice as great as the space

covered by the successive acropolises of the other five; and,

in consequence, their debris was dumped on the very spot which

Dr. Dörpfield has just been clearing. The massive walls he has

uncovered, from five to six metres broad, the lofty towers,

and the street which has been traced, may provisionally be

assumed to belong to the Homeric Troy."

The Nation,

August 9, 1894.

ALSO IN:

C. Schuchardt,

Schliemann's Excavations.

See, also,

ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;

and HOMER.

TROPAION.

The trophy erected by a victorious army, among the Greeks, on

the spot from which the enemy had been driven. The trophy was

constructed in some manner out of the booty taken.

E. Guhl and W. Koner,

Life of the Greeks and Romans,

section 54.

TROPPAU, Congress of.

See VERONA, CONGRESS OF.

TROUBADOURS.

TROUVÈRES.

JOGLARS.

JONGLEURS.

"The poets of the South of France during the Middle Age called

themselves 'Trobadors,' that is to say 'inventers' or

'finders'; and they adapted the 'langue d'oc,' also called the

Romansh of the South, or the Provençal, to the expression of

poetical sentiments. It is probable that poets of this

description existed as early as the formation of the idiom in

which they wrote. At any rate, we know that toward the year

1000 they already enjoyed considerable distinction, although

there is scarcely anything now left us from the earliest

period of their existence. … In regard to the time within

which the poetry of the Troubadours was in vogue, M. Fauriel

assumes only two periods. But it may perhaps be more

conveniently divided into three, as follows: The first

commences with its origin, as a popular poetry, and extends to

the time when it became an art and a profession, the poetry of

the nobles and the courts, that is to say, from about 1090 to

1140. The second is the period of its culmination, which

extends from the year 1140 to 1250. The third is the period of

its decadence, from 1250 to 1290."

G. J. Adler,

Introduction to Fauriel's

"History of Provençal Poetry."

"Sufficient has been said … to show the superiority of lyrical

over epic poetry in Provence. This inequality of the two

branches implied a commensurate difference of praise and

social esteem awarded to those who excelled in either of them,

and it is perhaps from this point of view that the two great

divisions of poets in the 'langue d'oc,' respectively

described as 'joglars' and 'trobadors,' or, in the French and

generally adopted form of the word, 'troubadours,' may be most

distinctly recognised. … It seems sufficiently established

that the verb 'trobar' and its derivative noun first and

foremost apply to lyrical poetry. To speak therefore of the

Troubadour as the singer of songs, of cansos and sirventeses

and albas and retroensas is a correct and tolerably

comprehensive definition."

F. Hueffer,

The Troubadours,

chapter 6.

"In the twelfth century, the Romance-Wallon [or the 'langue

d'oil' of northern France] became a literary language,

subsequent, by at least a hundred years, to the

Romance-provençal. … The reciters of tales, and the poets,

giving the name of Troubadour a French termination, called

themselves Trouvères. With the exception of the difference of

language, it may be thought that the Troubadour and the

Trouvère, whose merit was pretty nearly equal; who were

equally ignorant or well-informed: who both of them spent

their lives at courts, at which they composed their poems, and

where they mingled with knights and ladies; and who were both

accompanied by their jongleurs and minstrels, should have

preserved the same resemblance in their productions. Nothing,

however, can be more dissimilar than their poems. All that

remains of the poetry of the Troubadours is of a lyrical

character, while that of the Trouvères is decidedly epic. …

The Trouvères have left us many romances of chivalry, and

fabliaux."

J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,

Literature of the South of Europe,

chapter 7 (volume 1).

"We know nothing of the rise or origin of the two classes of

Trouveurs and Jongleurs. The former (which it is needless to

say is the same word as Troubadour, and Trobador, and

Trovatore) is the term for the composing class, the latter for

the performing one. But the separation was not sharp or

absolute."

G. Saintsbury,

Short History of French Literature,

book 1, chapter 1.

TROY.

See TROJA.

TROYES,

Treaty of (1420).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

Treaty of (1564).

See FRANCE: A. D, 1563-1564.

TRUCE, The Five Years.

See FIVE YEARS TRUCE.

TRUCE, The Sacred.

See OLYMPIC GAMES.

TRUCE, The Thirty Years.

See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

TRUCE OF GOD, The.

"This extraordinary institution is the most speaking witness,

at once to the ferocity of the times [11th century], and also

to the deep counter feeling which underlay men's minds. Clergy

and laity alike felt that the state of things which they saw

daily before their eyes was a standing sin against God and

man, repugnant alike to natural humanity and to the precepts

of the Christian religion. States were everywhere so

subdivided, governments were everywhere so weak, that, in most

parts of Europe, every man who had the needful force at his

command simply did that which was right in his own eyes. …

Every man claimed the right of private war against every other

man who was not bound to him by some special tie as his lord

or his vassal. And the distinction between private war and

mere robbery and murder was not always very sharply drawn. … A

movement on behalf of peace and good will towards men could

not fail in those days to assume an ecclesiastical form. As of

old the Amphiktyonic Council, the great religious synod of

Greece, strove to put some bounds to the horrors of war as

waged between Greek and Greek, so now, in the same spirit, a

series of Christian synods strove, By means of ecclesiastical

decrees and ecclesiastical censures, to put some bounds to the

horrors of war as waged between Christian and Christian. … The

movement began in Aquitaine [A. D. 1034], and the vague and

rhetorical language of our authority would seem to imply that

all war, at any rate all private war, was forbidden under pain

of ecclesiastical censures. It must not be forgotten that, in

that age, it must have been exceedingly difficult to draw the

distinction between public and private war. …

{3128}

But the doctrine, hard as it might be to carry out in

practice, was rapturously received at its first announcement.

As the first preaching of the Crusade was met with one

universal cry of 'God wills it,' so the Bishops, Abbots, and

other preachers of the Truce were met with a like universal

cry of Peace, Peace, Peace. Men bound themselves to God and to

one an·other to abstain from all wrong and violence, and they

engaged solemnly to renew the obligation every five years.

From Aquitaine the movement spread through Burgundy Royal and

Ducal. But it seems to have been gradually found that the

establishment of perfect peace on earth was hopeless. After

seven years from the first preaching of peace, we find the

requirements of its apostles greatly relaxed. It was found

vain to forbid all war, even all private war. All that was now

attempted was to forbid violence of every kind from the

evening of Wednesday till the morning of Monday. It was in

this shape that the Truce was first preached in northern and

eastern Gaul. The days of Christ's supper, of His passion, of

His rest in the grave and His resurrection, were all to be

kept free from strife and bloodshed."

E. A. Freeman,

Norman Conquest,

chapter 8, section 2 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

P. Schaff,

History of the Christian Church,

volume 4, chapter 6, section. 78.

TRUCELESS WAR, The.

See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.

TRUELLAS, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER)

PROGRESS OF THE WAR.

TRYON, Governor, The flight of.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER),

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

TSHEKHS, The.

See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE &c.

TSING, OR CH'ING, Dynasty, The.

See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.

TUARIKS, The.

See LIBYANS.

TUATH.

"Among the people of Gaelic race [in Ireland and Scotland] the

original social unit appears to have been the 'Tuath,' a name

originally applied to the tribe, but which came to signify

also the territory occupied by the tribe community. … Several

of these Tuaths were grouped together to form a still larger

tribe, termed a Mortuath or great tribe, over whom one of the

kings presided as Ri Mortuath. … Then several of these

Mortuath formed a province, called in Irish 'Cuicidh,' or a

fifth. … Over each province was the Ri Cuicidh, or provincial

king, and then over the whole was the Ardri, or sovereign of

all Ireland. The succession to these several grades of Ri, or

king, was the same as that of the Ri Tuath, and was regulated

by the law of Tanistry, that is, hereditary in the family but

elective in the individual, the senior of the family being

usually preferred."

W. F. Skene,

Celtic Scotland,

volume 3, page 136-150.

TUATHA-DE-DANAAN.

One of the races named in Irish legend as original settlers of

Ireland, represented to have come from Greece and to have been

extraordinarily proficient in the arts of magic. They were

conquered, after two centuries, as the legend runs, by the

Milesians, or Scots.

T. Wright,

History of Ireland,

book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

See IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS.

TUBANTES, The.

See FRANKS: ORIGIN AND EARLIEST HISTORY.

TUCUMAN, The province of.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

TUDELA, Battle of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

TUDORS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1485-1603.

TUGENDBUND, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

TUILERIES, The.

The palace of the Tuileries is said to have taken its name

from the tile-making which had been carried on formerly in the

vicinity of the ground on which it was built. "The history of

it begins in the year 1564, when Catherine de Medicis

conceived the idea of having a palace to herself near the

Louvre, yet independent, in which she might be near enough to

her son Charles IX. to have influence over him. … The palace

was never very long or very closely connected with the history

of the monarchy. It is not at all comparable to Windsor in

that respect. Henry IV. liked it, Louis XIV. preferred

Versailles, Louis XV. lived at the Tuileries in his minority.

The chosen association of the palace with the sovereigns of

France is very recent. Louis XVI. lived in it, and so did

Charles X. and Louis-Philippe. The two Napoleons were fond of

it. … The last inhabitant was the Empress Eugénie, as Regent.

… The parliamentary history of the Tuileries is important, as

it has been not only a palace but a parliament house. … The

destruction of the Tuileries by the Communards [1871] was a

lamentable event from the point of view of the historian and

the archaeologist, but artistically the loss is not great."

P. G. Hamerton,

Paris in Old and Present Times,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

History of Paris

(London: 1827), volume 2, chapter 2.

TUILERIES: A. D. 1792.

Mobbing of the King.

The attack of August 10.

Massacre of the Swiss.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (JUNE-AUGUST).

TUKUARIKAS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

TULCHAN BISHOPS.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

TULLAHOMA CAMPAIGN, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).

TULLIANUM, The.

See MAMERTINE PRISON.

TUMULT OF AMBOISE.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

TUMULUS.

A mound; usually a grave mound, or barrow.

TUN.

TUNSCIPE.

See TOWN; TOWNSHIP;

and BOROUGH.

TUNIC, The Roman.

"The tunica was put on in the same way as the Greek chiton.

Its cut was the same for men and women, and its simple

original type was never essentially modified by the additions

of later fashion. It was light and comfortable, and was worn

especially at home; out of doors the toga was arranged over

it."

E. Guhl and W. Koner,

Life of the Greeks and Romans,

section 95.

TUNIS, Ancient.

See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF;

also, AFRICA, THE ROMAN PROVINCE.

TUNIS: A. D. 1270-1271.

Crusade of Saint Louis.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1270-1271.

TUNIS: Modern history.

See BARBARY STATES.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY FOR READY REFERENCE, VOLUME 4, NICÆA TO TUNIS ***

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